Los Angeles Breaking News - DAs to prosecute MMJ clubs despite City Council Rulings

Some people just can't understand that Cannabis has been used for thousands of years and is here to stay.

 

It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to recall Cooley as he does have a very strong base of support especially with the Defense Attorneys lobby here in LA.

What is going to have to happen is for him to go after a collective that has all of it's ducks in a row to go to court and fight him and win. Once this is done it would be important for that case to be published heavily in the press and online. He will lose in court.

Bottom line is that the fuck is playing politics and most likely has asperations of the Governors office. Politics as usual in LA

 

Wow that guy just won't let it go.He really needs to get over it.Is this really whats keeping him up at night?Does it boil his blood knowing that people are using marijuana??? ...is he mentally stable??

 

If there is a legal basis (under state law) for him to prosecute then what city council says means nothing. The legislative branch cannot usurp his power.

 

looks like people will have to drive north

 

If there is no basis then the courts will dismiss the cases and people will not face punishment.

 

I think a lot of these politicians are looking at landing Fed positions, so they are just crapping all over state laws everywhere. They rape the locals as long as they can and then they move on. I believe they used to be called "carpet baggers."

 

So wait a minute...

The people want this. The city says it’s ok. The Obama administration says it’s ok. The AMA thinks it’s a good idea.

Is this guy elected or appointed? Either way, residents of LA should call for his resignation.

 

I posted this in another thread in Legalization and Activism, but I think it bears repeating here:

"In the end, it doesn't matter what the D.A. thinks; it's the courts. The law is somewhat fluid when it comes to the sale of MMJ, and when the shit hits the fan, the judges will be the ones who'll have to sort this out.

However, I see no reason why the courts would rule against the sale of cannabis. If the state and local legislature votes for it, as long as it's not being sold across California state lines, no federal law is broken - the entire reason why the federal statute exists is thanks to the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), and if all means of production and exchange are being done within California, then there is no case.

NOTE: I do understand that, technically, Gonzales v. Raich provides for Congress the ability to ban the manufacture and sale of cannabis, even if it's done completely within state borders. However, this ruling has already been brought into question as being blatantly unconstitutional. To quote Justice Clarance Thomas: "If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits." And further, "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

Besides, even if the ruling is to be taken seriously, the assumption is that the manufacture and sale of cannabis within California, even when done internally, effects interstate commerce in such a profound way as to be considered under federal jurisdiction. To use the Court's own words: "The regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity." In other words, if you legalize it, then price would go down, causing the market itself in every state to fluctuate. However, the fatal flaw here is that, since there is no way to track this market shift, as cannabis is illegal in most states, there can be no comparison or objective measurement of price to point to and say that it effects a sizable shift in market price on a national level. That and the fact that shifts in market price occur all the time, and that under this logic, the federal government has the right to regulate any and all transactions, wherever they might occur. This is obvious nonsense.

Lastly, this entire ruling is based on circular reasoning. The reason why consumers will go to California to buy cannabis is, assuming basic economic theory is correct, prices will go down with the increase in production, afforded to by legalization. However, there need not be this influx of consumers if the drug in question was legalized and put into the public market. We all know why cannabis is expensive - because it's illegal, and this black market shifts the supply downwards, while the demand remains the same. Inexorably, price must go up. The only reason why California will effect the national market price is because the product has an artificially inflated price due to the black market! In the end, the only reason that the government can justify prohibition is by the effects of prohibition. This is not only an insult to logic, but to the people of this country."

 

I posted on your other comment as well, but I should add that Raich, and its predecessor, Wickard v. Filburn, are even worse than what you stated. Those cases stand for the proposition that Congress can regulate marijuana (or wheat in the case of Wickard) even when it is grown only for personal use. It doesn't even have to make it into commerce, be it intra or interstate. Why? Because the SCOTUS has ruled that so long as it affects commerce it can be regulated.

In Wickard the farmer grew more wheat than was allowed by law. Despite the fact that he used the wheat only for his personal use on his farm (the wheat never actually went into commerce), the fact that he grew all his own wheat meant that he didn't buy wheat from others, thereby affecting interstate commerce.

The same logic applies in Raich, except that the mere possibility of legally grown California marijuana making it into the illegal market has an affect on interstate commerce.

I loathe both cases and I totally agree with Thomas's dissent. I am almost always in agreement with Scalia, but I was incredibly disappointed with his concurrence in Raich.

If we want to change the law we need more Republican presidents to nominate conservative justices. Democrats are not going to nominate justices who would change the commerce clause interpretation.

 

I was speaking in generalities. But I think that local DAs can enforce federal laws. They just cannot be forced to enforce federal law.

 

I think the City Attorney is trying to get a Sarah Palin book deal, then he'll quit.

Everybody in Hollywood will sell out for a price. That's what made LA the lovely cesspool it is today.

I'm glad that these idiots get so much attention paid to them in America.

I'd love to be the judge who explains to this misfit of the legal system who his boss actually is, and what they think of his wasteful posturing.

This DA is about to get a legal ass kicking. He should know he has no legs under him, he did graduate law school, right?

And no, City Attorneys do not enforce federal law, that is out Of Their Jurisdiction!!!

To say nothing of good Jurisprudence.