What is Digg?85 Comments
- WanderOn, on 12/31/2008, -7/+79***** the DEA
- Spire3660, on 12/31/2008, -0/+54Montebello City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman said the Police Department took the position against returning an illegal substance.
"Federal law states it is still illegal to possess marijuana,"
Isnt it his job to uphold STATE law? He should be fired for dereliction of duty and disloyalty to the state. Its time we took some states rights back, as the whole point of having disparate states is to enjoy diversity in law. This is more of a rant then a cogent argument, please flame accordingly. - borgheses, on 12/31/2008, -5/+49LEGALIZE IT
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -2/+41Maybe the city is having a hard time returning because they smoked it. Now the city will have to grow some more; talk about subsidized crops.
- bongfarmer, on 12/31/2008, -1/+39No, I hold YOU in contempt!
- magic6435, on 12/31/2008, -2/+32So? We still say ***** the DEA
- richgustavson, on 12/31/2008, -2/+27Yeah, this doesn't make the DEA any less *****-you-able.
- tdclark23, on 12/31/2008, -0/+22The judge ruled:
"In March 2006, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ordered the Montebello Police Department to return all property seized from Walker, including 42 marijuana plants, 22 cultivation lamps and personal correspondence and books."
But the Police has refused to comply. A finding of contempt would appear to fit the situation. However, I can understand your request to wait to see what the second judge finds. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -3/+25Thats cause they smoked it all.
- Ghengis, on 12/31/2008, -3/+24I hope this makes it to the Supreme Court so that it can be put to rest as NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. The Constitution doesn't spell out any drug laws, leaving it to the states to decide! (Can we get abortion added to this as well? I'm tired of federal dollars being wasted on state's issues.)
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -1/+20throw them in jail (the city)
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+15Careful, Santa is listening.
- superterrorizer, on 12/31/2008, -1/+16I think the point of this is, The War on Drugs is a fraud.
- Frankyfan3, on 12/31/2008, -3/+18If you have not seen this film and you still support prohibition I implore you to consider the evidence presented here:
Three and a half years in the making the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA.
AMERICAN DRUG WAR shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just dope fiends but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it.
This is not some 'pro-drug' stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.
http://americandrugwar.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8740703353 ... - Rikkochet, on 12/31/2008, -0/+14Not only is the answer yes, but there was a motion passed less than a couple of months ago that went a far as to state that State officials have NO business enforcing federal laws in the first place.
- SteveCUBE, on 12/31/2008, -0/+13If they want to make it federally illegal they should at least go through the process of making an amendment ala the 18th amendment.
- AndrewJC, on 12/31/2008, -0/+13Well, in this case, marijuana IS the drug; it's not a derivative of marijuana. I also believe that the California medical marijuana law specifically states that growing is allowed for people with a prescription.
Vicodin's a bad example. It's not opium—it's an opiate. BIIIG difference there. Affects the same chemical receptors but it ain't the same. Oh, and by the way, you don't grow opium, you grow poppy. Opium is a derivative, too, just like vicodin. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -3/+14Dugg :)
- terryallison, on 12/31/2008, -3/+13I'm not for the legalization of marijuana, but the guy was cleared of all charges. The state made the law that allowed a person to have marijuana for medical purposes, which I don't agree with. But then, I'm not a doctor that knows its effects on people with certain medical conditions. The city should have to give it all back. If they already smoked it, they should replace what was taken in the seizure of the marijuana.
It's the principle that I'm standing for, not the illegal drug. If our law enforcement can come in and seize property, what's next? Dictatorship? Socialism? - dubjah, on 12/31/2008, -3/+13You spelled "Montebello Police Department" wrong. The DEA has nothing to do with this article.
- Barackalypse, on 12/31/2008, -0/+10Another example of the Government not bothering to obey the law. When will you guys learn giving them more money and more power is a bad idea?
- captainanndor, on 12/31/2008, -0/+9I have cervical disc degenerative disease! But I don't live in California. Nor is it causing pain yet (something to look forward to in 20 years). Nor am i really all that interested in smoking pot.
Alas. So much wasted potential. - ihavetop, on 12/31/2008, -1/+10Just legalize it already.
- dubjah, on 12/31/2008, -0/+8I'm not saying the DEA is any less *****-you-able, they give themselves plenty of opportunities to earn their *****-yous. In this case, it was a local PD pissed on California law, we shouldn't be distracted from giving them their fair share of *****-yous.
Of course, I've got an ample amount of *****-yous, so *****-yous to the lot. - AndrewJC, on 12/31/2008, -1/+8No, the point is not that the War on Drugs is a fraud. It is (a fraud), but that isn't the point and it's folly to drag every drug argument down to that.
The real point is that police departments will do whatever they want in defense of what is, in their opinion, the right thing to do. A local police department has no jurisdiction over federal laws, period. They absolutely cannot use the argument that it's a federal crime to possess marijuana as a defense for not obeying the state court's orders. - aralls, on 12/31/2008, -2/+8Yep - Buried until a judge actually rules against the city.
- billraydrums, on 12/31/2008, -0/+6What a waste of taxpayer funds
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -2/+8Nice. another one for the list of big ***** you's
- meed, on 01/01/2009, -0/+6hum if a citizen gets held in contempt of court then they get thrown in jail and/or fined, when a City police department is in contempt... A article is written.
Sounds unfair to me. These damn cops deserve to be punished in the same way the other criminals they arrest on a daily basis. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+6That city is such a stoner.
- catxors, on 12/31/2008, -1/+7No, actually you're completely right and that's exactly what the previous court rulings on this subject say (quoting much older rulings): state officials have no power whatsoever to enforce federal laws and vice versa. But cops aren't lawyers and generally don't understand the law.
- Ghengis, on 12/31/2008, -1/+7Completely separate? Thanks for reading, but they're related by the fact that they're NOT FEDERAL ISSUES. Damn you're obtuse.
- WhatPeriod, on 12/31/2008, -2/+8Insert generic, anti-establishment, pro-marijuana comment here.
- gleongelpi, on 12/31/2008, -1/+6The federal government has no jurisdiction on state matters. It is against federal law to commit murder, but federal prosecutors do not get involved unless the act takes place within federal jurisdiction.
- Shaggy3, on 12/31/2008, -0/+5Well where did it all go ???
- Richandler, on 12/31/2008, -0/+5No you see we've given the government the ability to break laws like stealing, fraud and murder so don't act surprised when screw you over.
- catxors, on 12/31/2008, -1/+6The city will lose for sure. CA statute and case law is clear on this subject. For example, google Felix Kha.
The city knows this unless they have the worst lawyers in the world. Which they very well might. But I also bet they've already destroyed the property and are unhappy that they're going to have to pay a money judgment over someone's marijuana. - krellor, on 12/31/2008, -1/+6Yeah, chronic pain is a riot. Now don't get me wrong, I think pot should be legal for anyone to smoke. But ***** who pretend to have medical issues to get pot are living examples to the law makers of medical pot laws getting abused.
- AndrewMoyer, on 12/31/2008, -0/+5The city cashed out on it, and it's probably sitting as evidence in another case now.
- cj485, on 12/31/2008, -1/+5dugg for alapoet's picture.
- 0011002, on 12/31/2008, -0/+4That is what the civil war was about States rights not Slavery (slavery was just the catalyst since it was a state right they wanted to keep among other that where being taken away) . I do agree states should be able to make their own laws on this (even if I don't agree with Marijuana)
/pointless rant - Harboggles, on 12/31/2008, -1/+5if any of you want to do something about this,
http://americandrugwar.com/
download and buy this movie. Show it to your friends and family. it's hard to look at prohibition the same way after watching this. - AndrewJC, on 12/31/2008, -0/+4There were a lot of reasons that the Civil War happened, so let's not try and boil it down to the issue of states' rights alone, because it wasn't just that one issue.
Slavery, states' rights, the economy of the southern states (you try growing thousands of acres of cotton or tobacco without people to harvest it for you and see what happens to all your money), etc. It was more than just one issue. - superterrorizer, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3Surround them. with munchies like that, they'll run out of food eventually.
- rlbond86, on 12/31/2008, -9/+12Inaccurate, the group CLAIMS the city is in contempt of court. Until some better news comes, BURIED.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -2/+5AGREED - A group claiming someone is in contempt and actually BEING IN CONTEMPT in court, are 2 different things.
I can claim anyone is in contempt for not giving me back my stash, but doesn't really do me much good. - inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3www.leap.cc
- lisaawesome, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3I just watched this movie the other day. Absolutely powerful. Even if you've watched other documentaries on the same topic this is one of the best.
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3Accept.
- Blitzenn, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3That was my immediate reaction too. Followed with a close second that the local police used it for a frame up and its in evidence under another name now (or all smoked up too).
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is