[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

It's not entirely clear what your question is, it keeps changing. You made the assertion that Harper's new prohibition laws are different from the U.S. because they target organized crime. That isn't the case though, they target anybody who the vague criteria can apply to.

The pro-pot crowd is pretty vocal, would you agree?

They would be all over social media and other resources talking about how these new sentencing laws are affecting them.

They may not have been sentenced yet, but sure as shit they'd be bitching about the possibility.

Curtman Curtman:

It's not the police who "take advantage of this law". This all happens after the fact. It takes away the judge's ability to give a reasonable sentence for a victimless "crime".

Yes, because growing pot on mass and selling it via your OC connections is a victimless crime.

If you want to further the progress on the issue, stop talking about it. You kick it in the nuts everytime you type.

[GreenTiger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Holder just wants to get more Democrats on the streets in time to vote in the 2014 elections.

Bsrt, Don't be so hard on him he is trying desperately to do SOMETHING right.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

It's not entirely clear what your question is, it keeps changing. You made the assertion that Harper's new prohibition laws are different from the U.S. because they target organized crime. That isn't the case though, they target anybody who the vague criteria can apply to.

The pro-pot crowd is pretty vocal, would you agree?

They would be all over social media and other resources talking about how these new sentencing laws are affecting them.

They may not have been sentenced yet, but sure as shit they'd be bitching about the possibility.

Strange argument.. You want twitter references for people charged with crimes that the mandatory minimums apply to, rather than a speech by a lawyer who represents them.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

It's not the police who "take advantage of this law". This all happens after the fact. It takes away the judge's ability to give a reasonable sentence for a victimless "crime".

Yes, because growing pot on mass and selling it via your OC connections is a victimless crime.

If you want to further the progress on the issue, stop talking about it. You kick it in the nuts everytime you type.

So much for the mature discussion 'eh?

Blah, blah, condescension, blah, blah, false accusation, blah, blah, dismissal. Your broken record is skipping.

Why do you think judges are incapable of sentencing? Should someone running a dispensary who distributes only to licensed users face these penalties?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Curtman Curtman:

If you'd like to have a mature discussion, we can do that. Don't ask for one then go directly to your usual condescending dismissive vitrol. You asked where it says something about being near a school. I posted that. He wants to know what it says about rental property, I posted that.

You are the one making a claim without proof.

Jesus Christ Curt, the section you quoted me deals with the PRODUCTION of controlled substances, not the smoking of weed on real property.

Who said anything about smoking weed anywhere having a mandatory minimum?

Its highly doubtful you'd even get arrested for that.

So where's this vagueness you started off yammering about? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Curtman]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Curtman Curtman:

Who said anything about smoking weed anywhere having a mandatory minimum?

Its highly doubtful you'd even get arrested for that.

So where's this vagueness you started off yammering about? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I wasn't yammering about anything, you thought the conversation was about smoking dope but it never was.

Production includes growing plants, baking cookies, etc. There are no mandatory minimums for possession until you have more than 3 kilograms. The 3 kilograms will include the whole plant plus the soil. Or the pot + cookie dough + chocolate chips. Whatever the case may be.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Curtman Curtman:

Who said anything about smoking weed anywhere having a mandatory minimum?

Its highly doubtful you'd even get arrested for that.

So where's this vagueness you started off yammering about? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I wasn't yammering about anything, you thought the conversation was about smoking dope but it never was.

Funny, I thought the conversation was about the supposed vagueness of the laws and your problem with minimum sentencing. But hey, obviously you'd know what I'm thinking better than I would.

Curtman Curtman:

Production includes growing plants, baking cookies, etc. There are no mandatory minimums for possession until you have more than 3 kilograms. The 3 kilograms will include the whole plant plus the soil. Or the pot + cookie dough + chocolate chips. Whatever the case may be.

Well gee, that sounds pretty vague, not.
Sorry Curt, I went through the section dealing with controlled substances and I'm not really seeing anything that I would consider as not being very clear, ie: vague.

[Curtman]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Sorry Curt, I went through the section dealing with controlled substances and I'm not really seeing anything that I would consider as not being very clear, ie: vague.

You think it's fine to say that being "near" a school is an aggravating factor, but not say what near means? Two blocks? 1KM? 5KM? Just leave that decision completely in the hands of the prosecutor?

Same for the dispensary baking cookies in it's leased building?

Alright then. As long as we're clear that those things have absolutely nothing to do with organized crime.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Same for the dispensary baking cookies in it's leased building?

Marijuana dispensaries are legal businesses selling marijuana and marijuana products to legitimate customers. There's zero evidence that these new regulations will affect dispensaries in any fashion.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Same for the dispensary baking cookies in it's leased building?

Marijuana dispensaries are legal businesses selling marijuana and marijuana products to legitimate customers. There's zero evidence that these new regulations will affect dispensaries in any fashion.

OK now its your turn to back up your claim. What law makes them legal and under what law are they licensed?

It will be up to the dispensary to prove they are exempted from this law, and by the ongoing court cases involving them we can assume it isnt easy

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Sorry Curt, I went through the section dealing with controlled substances and I'm not really seeing anything that I would consider as not being very clear, ie: vague.

You think it's fine to say that being "near" a school is an aggravating factor, but not say what near means? Two blocks? 1KM? 5KM? Just leave that decision completely in the hands of the prosecutor?

Same for the dispensary baking cookies in it's leased building?

Alright then. As long as we're clear that those things have absolutely nothing to do with organized crime.

You know what's funny Curt? The previous drug laws also use terms like "near" too, and the reason is pretty obvious. Let's say they decided to put the definition of "near" as 100m in this case. So, what if I'm producing/manufacturing drugs on my property that is 102m away from a school?
According to the letter of the law, I wouldn't be subject to minimum sentencing but under the SPIRIT of the law, I should be.
By the way, the decision isn't completely in the hands of the prosecutor, it's ultimately in the hands of the judge to determine if the accused was "near" a school.

As for real property, it states that minimum sentencing applies if the production/manufacture poses a risk to the property or other tenants. Baking marijuana cookies is no more dangerous to real property than baking regular cookies. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor stupid enough to try and argue that they are.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Same for the dispensary baking cookies in it's leased building?

Marijuana dispensaries are legal businesses selling marijuana and marijuana products to legitimate customers. There's zero evidence that these new regulations will affect dispensaries in any fashion.

OK now its your turn to back up your claim. What law makes them legal and under what law are they licensed?

It will be up to the dispensary to prove they are exempted from this law, and by the ongoing court cases involving them we can assume it isnt easy

That's because some "dispensaries" are little more than weed shops. Quite a few owners have been pinched selling to people who didn't have an exemption. There were also others that were setting people up with fraudulent exemption cards.
I'm willing to bet the majority of ongoing court cases involve those particular dispensaries.

[Curtman]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Sorry Curt, I went through the section dealing with controlled substances and I'm not really seeing anything that I would consider as not being very clear, ie: vague.

You think it's fine to say that being "near" a school is an aggravating factor, but not say what near means? Two blocks? 1KM? 5KM? Just leave that decision completely in the hands of the prosecutor?

Same for the dispensary baking cookies in it's leased building?

Alright then. As long as we're clear that those things have absolutely nothing to do with organized crime.

You know what's funny Curt? The previous drug laws also use terms like "near" too, and the reason is pretty obvious. Let's say they decided to put the definition of "near" as 100m in this case. So, what if I'm producing/manufacturing drugs on my property that is 102m away from a school?
According to the letter of the law, I wouldn't be subject to minimum sentencing but under the SPIRIT of the law, I should be.
By the way, the decision isn't completely in the hands of the prosecutor, it's ultimately in the hands of the judge to determine if the accused was "near" a school.

As for real property, it states that minimum sentencing applies if the production/manufacture poses a risk to the property or other tenants. Baking marijuana cookies is no more dangerous to real property than baking regular cookies. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor stupid enough to try and argue that they are.

It does not say that. It says the penalty goes from 2 years to 3 if the cookies were baked in a property that belongs to a 3rd party. That is for a charge of production. The trafficking charge goes up if its near a school. There was no mention of being near a school or being in rented property in the old legislation because there was no mandatory minimum. Like the article I posted says which neither of you read, dispensaries have traditionally been given a complete discharge when they faced these laws. That is no longer available to them because of the mandatory minimum.

[Curtman]

Sentencing Commission Votes To Address Mandatory Minimum Penalties

$1:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Sentencing Commission on Thursday voted unanimously to address concerns with mandatory minimum prison penalties.

The commission action follows a Justice Department policy shift that was announced on Monday. Attorney General Eric Holder said the department would target long mandatory sentences that he says have flooded the nation's prisons with low-level drug offenders and diverted crime-fighting dollars that could be better spent.On Thursday, the sentencing commission set as its top priority continuing to work with Congress to change federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.

The seven-member commission wants Congress to reduce the severity and scope of mandatory minimum penalties and consider expanding a law that exempts certain low-level nonviolent offenders from mandatory minimum prison terms

"With a growing crisis in federal prison populations and budgets, it is timely and important for us to examine mandatory minimum penalties and drug sentences, which contribute significantly to the federal prison population," said Patti Saris, commission chairman and a federal judge.

The commission establishes sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts.

Long mandatory prison terms that apply to low-level drug offenders are a legacy of the government's war on drugs in the 1980s.

[Curtman]

Here's another good read:

Vancouver's First Medical Marijuana Dispensary Raid

$1:

In the first of its kind in the city since medical marijuana dispensaries began opening about 15 years ago, Vancouver police conducted a raid on the storefront location of a med-pot supplier on Tuesday, seizing cannabis and computers and arresting the 60-year-old manager.

Several undercover and uniformed VPD officers stormed the Renfrew Street location of the iMedikate dispensary on February 21 and informed the manager that she was "under arrest for trafficking."

Police displayed a search warrant and took photos of the interior and exterior of the building, and of the manager herself. She was read her rights and detained for more than an hour before being released from police custody. Police confiscated her keys and personal laptop and stayed in the store after she left. When staff returned to the location later in the day, iMedikate's large safe had been cracked open (and destroyed in the process) and the marijuana and cannabis edibles had been removed. The door to an office upstairs had been kicked open.
...
Houghton said the VPD's intention was not to "close down" the dispensary, but to "collect information for a criminal investigation." He also said police have not yet recommended charges against the manager or anyone else, though they may in the future depending on the results of the investigation.
iMedikate's Founder and President Mark Klokeid told CC that when arrested, the manager asked police why the dispensary was being raided.

"This is just the first one on the list," she was told by VPD drug squad officers at the scene.

iMedikate's Renfrew location was opened in October 2011 and is the group's second location. iMedikate's first location, on Fraser Street, was opened in January 2011. It was Vancouver's sixth medical marijuana dispensary and the grand opening received considerable media attention. Between the two locations, iMedikate serves about 1500 members.

Though there are plenty of medical marijuana dispensaries operating in Vancouver and across Canada, they are actually illegal according to the law. Health Canada's Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) allow patients to grow their own or purchase directly from the government, but that's it. Unfortunately, it is impossible for many patients to grow their own and many say the government's pre-grown pot is brown, dry, and schwagy.

[BartSimpson]

Curtman Curtman:

Unfortunately, it is impossible for many patients to grow their own

Dude, it's called "weed" for a really good reason.