Front Page  »  

This is not an ad for marijuana

October 13, 2011

Escalating their war against medical marijuana in California, federal officials now will try to put a lid on newspaper, radio, and other media advertising of medical marijuana.

U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy, whose district includes Imperial and San Diego counties, is leading the effort.

“I’m not just seeing print advertising,” Duffy said in a recent interview with California Watch and KQED. “I’m actually hearing radio and seeing TV advertising. It’s gone mainstream. Not only is it inappropriate – one has to wonder what kind of message we’re sending to our children – it’s against the law.”

Federal law prohibits placement of ads for illegal drugs, including marijuana, in “any newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication.” The law could conceivably extend to online ads, and may be prosecuted retroactively, authorities said.

U.S. authorities recently started an aggressive and visible crackdown on medical marijuana facilities, with emphasis on Southern California dispensaries, by threatening their landlords and property owners with prosecution and property seizures.

The move against carriers of so-called “illegal” advertising is gaining traction. In August, Google agreed to pay a $500 million settlement for accepting illegal advertisements from online Canadian pharmacies.

California and six other states allow medical marijuana to be distributed in dispensaries.

 


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

These ‘fast & furious’ gun-running Feds are not only guilty of perjury and murder but also of bankrolling ruthless criminals, international terrorists, right/left-wing paramilitaries and various death squads with their counter-productive, sado-moralist policy of Prohibition.


Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Afghanistan with their coca leaves, marijuana buds or poppy sap are not igniting temptation in the minds of our weak, innocent citizens. These countries are duly responding to the enormous demand that comes from within our own borders. Invading or destroying these countries, thus creating more hate, violence, instability, injustice and corruption, will not fix our problem. We need to collectively admit that we are sick. — Prohibition is neither a sane nor a safe approach; left unabated, its puritanical flames will surely engulf every last one of us!


When we legally regulate something, (as opposed to when we foolishly attempt to prohibit something) we do NOT automatically condone it’s use; the legal regulations concerning the sale and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco are there to protect us from the vast increase in criminality and mayhem that would otherwise surely exist if we were foolish enough to prohibit them.


When governments prohibit drugs they effectively and knowingly hand a monopoly on their sale to dangerous criminals and terrorists. Without a legal framework in which to operate, these black-market entities can always be expected to settle their disputes violently, while terrorizing many peaceful and innocent citizens in the process. Were the users of alcohol to blame for the St Valentines massacre in the US in 1929? Of course not! It is just as naive to assume that one can compel all the users of Marijuana or Cocaine to simply quit, as it is to assume that all the users of Alcohol should have stopped drinking after the introduction of alcohol prohibition in 1919.


Protect our Children; Legalize, Regulate & Tax!


0

Wow,


Malcom or Kyle, whatever your name is.


Well said.


0

“Not only is it inappropriate – one has to wonder what kind of message we’re sending to our children – it’s against the law.”


The message we’re sending to our children: “Do not do what you’re told by the government. Ask WHY? And if they cannot provide you a halfway logical, reasonable answer then you will know that it’s time to stand up for freedom again. Rinse, repeat every 100 years or so.”


0

The feds can’t/won’t do anything about the Mexican drug cartels pouring over the border on a daily basis with cocaine, heroin and yes, marijuana, so they go after the easy targets, sick people and dispensaries trying to provide the MM that people need and the landlords who rent space to a dispensary.

Does using the asset forfeiture laws to essentially blackmail these property owners into kicking dispensaries out mean propperety owners now have to enforce federal law? So renting housing and/or commercial space to illegal aliens ought to be equally against the law. And refusing to rent to illegal aliens now has an inherent defense against discrimination laws, too.

Every day, I regret more and more voting for Obama. I thought here’s a hip young man, my age (50), who admitted to smoking pot in college (probably after college too). I actually thought he’d get pot legalized but he has totally disappointed me.

Then I really had my hopes raised when AG Holder said they wouldn’t go after dispensaries operating within the law. Guess he thinks MM patients should pull the buds out of their arses, because he doen’t believe you have a legal right to grow it, nor to sell it to people who need it.

What needs to happen is for the DoJ to prosecute someone in California and have the jury be hung or better yet acquit the person. That would send a message.

The feds would try to move the trials, but a defendant doesn’t have to agree to that.

I wonder what the feds will do after the treat marijuana like wine initiative passes. That would legalize pot and tax and control it the same as wine and would prohibit state, county and local police from enforcing the federal pot laws.

Holder’s going to soil himself if that passes. And if it does pass, our LE officers will have to recite a new oath of office, omitting the part about enforcing federal laws. Wow what a mess that will cause.I can’t wait.


0

The 10th Amendment is really pretty simple:


“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


The whole “Interstate Commerce” thing has been stretched beyond its usefulness and needs changed.


I’m thinking that it is time to reduce the federal government by about 3/4.


0

“Change you can believe in”. Don’t snivel California, you voted for him. That “States Rights” thing starting to click? Hilarious——


0

Fully legalize it or keep it fully illegal.


Federal law is the law of the land, including California. Until federal law is changed, users, retailers, distributors and growers are only fooling themselves into thinking they have the right of state law on their side.


My opinion is we should legalize it, regulate it and tax it. Just like liquor.


0

“Federal law is the law of the law”, really. Could you send over to my neigborhood and remove these illegal aliens, please. That statement is only true depending on who is making it. AG Holder is so inconsistent with what he feels is the law that not even he can tell the truth. This is the high and mighty person protecting our rights. Yeah, right, we must respect the law because they do, sometimes…..


0

Fully legalize it or keep it fully legal? Cute jingoism.


However, since other prescription medication is available for legal use, to preclude mj would be discriminating against the people who use it as a medication. It is far less dangerous than many prescription medications.


Unless you believe “Reefer Madness” was a PBS documentary, there is absolutely no logic for holding medical mj to a different standard than other medication.


0

“Fully legalize it or keep it fully illegal.” No, just the first part. As many have already stated, big pharma and the drug lords in Mexico seem to behind the agenda of our federal government. AG Holder is a joke and should step down if asked for his resignation by the president. We need an Attorney General with some sense of common sense, as well as some sense of equal justice; going after the insider trading on Wall Street, going after contractors working for the military that are ripping off the tax payers, going after political operatives who do their best to squelch voting rights are all areas that an AG with a sense of justice would go after. Stepping into a state’s right to determine if a naturally grown substance that has been proven to help people with certain medical conditions can legally be sold, grown, distributed or consumed is way out of place for the lead law enforcement officer of the United States. If the AG has a legal problem with what any state is trying to do with regards to Medical Marijuana, let him use the courts to challenge those states’ ability to regulate the wholly inappropriately classified schedule one drug marijuana. Stop these idiotic prosecutions, now.


0

People people,,,lets be fair here. The Feds are looking out for our best interest. The Feds understand that big pharma hates competition. How can we expect the big pharma store to compete for ad time. My God what would happen to our friends at the big pharma if we didn’t spend hundreds of $$$ a month for pills that we don’t need and allowed people to OMG,,,get stoned. Thank you Feds for looking out for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvFh84SGksQ&feature=fvwrel


0

I concur


0

The people of California voted for medical marijuana. Now the obstructionist who have no respect for the majority vote or our constitution are using the Feds to silence the majority. The Feds have no business in this to begin with. If you want to take control of your government back get rid of them. END the FED . Vote for RON PAUL in 2102.


0

Woops, Hey moderator, I didn’t mean to be thinking that far ahead. Could you correct that date for me?

Thanks


0

Cindy! I’m shocked. LOL, what a pleasant surprise.


The two main political parties have an incredible amount of power over who runs as their candidate. Their connections to the televised media–when the vast majority of Americans indicate they vote for a candidate based on what they see on TV–cannot be overstated.


I agree, vote Ron Paul in 2012. Or another third-party (if one runs). They won’t win, but the message we will send to the DNC and RNC will be in big, bold letters and will be one they cannot ignore: “get with the program or get out of town.”


The 2012 election is about sending a message to our rulers, with the hopes of getting candidate choices in 2016 who actually won’t just be rubberstamps for Wall Street, Big pHarma, and the rest of the corporations destroying America. Refusing to vote for one of the DNC/RNC-backed candidates will send them the message, “Ignore us at your own peril because we will no longer allow you to choose our candidate for us.”


That communicates that they’ve lost control of the electorate–and that is a message they cannot ignore.


0

Cindy, Ron P. has some good ideas, I agree with a lot of things he says, I like that he’s not afraid to buck the system and even go against his own party, he’s a self thinking person and I like that. But he just doesn’t seem to have the diplomacy skills needed to run a country. I can’t picture him with other world leaders discussing world affairs. Also, due to his son being such a whack job it’s hard imagine that RP is that together. But I can definitely see why so many people are drawn to him. I like the guy but not for prez.


0

LOL, Sorry Typo but I’ll bet $$ to donuts that the only person you would vote for “prez” would have a big D in front of his ballot box.


0

The odds are very high that you are correct but I might break party lines for the right person. As I said, if Paul had more a of a diplomatic type of personality then I MIGHT vote for him but he just doesn’t have that and I’m not sure that he has a good grasp of economics. I might support for Paul for a congressional seat, but his remark regarding letting the sick person die before getting him med. care changed that though. There was a period of time that I supported McCain, but that was a long time ago. I actually sorta liked Arnie. I absolutely would vote for Jesse Ventura for a congressional or gubernatorial seat (not prez). If Sam Blakeslee were in my district I would support him. So sometimes I cross over to the dark side ;)


0

So you won’t vote for Paul because he lacks diplomacy? You mean the diplomacy Obama has with his NATO war in Libya, his made up Iranian terrorist threats, and his drones? Please please Typo before you think of the one thing you don’t like about Ron Paul, think about the MANY things, including blatant dishonesty, that characterize the other candidates. Don’t let the mainstream drown out what you are beginning to see clearly!


0

You must be kidding, where do you get the ‘made up Iranian terrorist threats’ info? I knew that would happen but it took less time than I thought it would, you people will resort to anything if it means hating Obama, doesn’t that get old.


The drones have been very effective. My gosh if he had been around after 911 we would have gotten Osama and spared the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people with those drones. Obama has taken out more terrorists in his short time than Bush or any prez for that matter has ever done and he did it with little bloodshed. The world is a safer place because of Obama. As far as working with NATO isn’t that what we should do,,,oh no wait, we are supposed to be the conquerors, we aren’t supposed to work with others were supposed to kill thousands of people and rebuild nations not work with them. That is the American way.


There is more than one thing that I don’t like about Paul. If it were a matter of life and death and I had to vote for one of the current repubs then I would vote for Huntsman over Paul. Huntsman is more intelligent then any of the rest of them including Paul. Paul doesn’t believe in science, he would rather someone die than give him medical care are you telling me that those things alone don’t bother you? Really do you agree with those sentiments?


Anyway, yes I do consider Obama diplomatic. Thank goodness that after 8 years of a bumbling stupid republican we have a leader that can talk and work with other countries without sounding like a redneck fool and I have no doubt that if Paul were our prez that he would be worse than Bush when it comes diplomacy and that’s pretty bad. A president that doesn’t believe in science,,sheez what next, talk about dumbing down the country.


0

a big D in front of his ballot box with a big B F in front of it :->


0

“Federal law prohibits placement of ads for illegal drugs, including marijuana.” Illegal marijuana is not what is being advertised. Medical marijuana, which IS LEGAL is what is being advertised. What’s happening Feds, big pharma getting nervous?? Grow a pair and leave patients who opt to use alternative medicine, that is legal alone. I’m sure there must be some criminal element out there that could use your attention.


0

1. I agree with your point about medical marijuana being a legal use of a pharmaceutical.


2. In addition, I’m beginning to think that our government serves the Mexican drug cartels just as eagerly as it serves big pHarma.


Instead of taking steps to facilitate decreasing the demand for illegal drug trade bringing drugs into the U.S., they actually work to ensure that our only source for mj is from illegal sources south of the border. Our government gives guns to known Mexican drug cartel murderers, and refuses to protect our borders from the tsunami of drugs and incredible violence sweeping across our border from Latin America.


Our government sends our troops/soldiers to the Middle East, when they should be here, securing our international border with Mexico.


3. Obama continues to expand the powers of the presidency, moving us increasingly closer to being a flat-out dictatorship. Not only has he flipped on his prior position about medical mj, he now seeks to take control of what can be published in California.


0
1 2