These rip-off clubs were better than nothing but the real push should have been to force the rest of the prop 215 law that says that the State government has to help with supply and try to work a plan.

The State has failed to meet its responsibility locally while the Clubs and there non medical attitudes (party) were in the Fed face making a challenge that was clearly against them.

I hate the clubs and there high prices..I'm sorry that Marijuana has ever been classified as medical as now they will make it hard on folks that just like it in there life. I'm happy with this ruling and I hope we can keep it in our state and forget the fed and work on lines of CHEAP SUPPLY FOR EVERYONE through the STATE.

If we shut-up and try not to aggravate the MAN we might be able under current laws to continue to build our ideal STATE and elect folks with common sense to figure out a way to end all prohibition

We would be better off starting the MARIJUANA FREEDOM PARTY and attacking them that way than wait for them to change there minds.

Anyhow the CLUBS are gone....Great as there supply and prices SUCK!!!

Watch out JEFF JONES....are you ready to take your stupid idea back to your home state....where were you from....are you leaving?

TAKE YOUR BAD MEXICAN SUPPLY AND CONNECTIONS WITH YA!!!

I've been here from the begining and I have to say the supply at these clubs was a real bad deal. With rip me off prices and assholes selling it and they have real lousy connections. Besides the disease your exposed too!!

Obviously, "Federal Law" applies on the other side of that big old barbed wire fence that the sign hangs upon. What law applies on this side of the fence when the fence in question is in California?

"With or without medical authorization, the distribution of marijuana is illegal under federal law," Breyer wrote. "Defendants' other objections are equally without merit."

So judge, back to this line/fence near my home that is as plain as the nose on your face sir. A line where the federal law apparently is enforced on one side and not on the other? Or is it? Am I to assume that I am imprisoned by the Federal Law on either side of the fence that I stand? If so, who wasted our tax money on the stupid sign and the damn fence?

Seems to me sir, that California State Law allows medical possession of cannabis and its use with a medical recommendation. Can I assume then that this means on "non-federal property" one should by default, be exempt from your "Federal" ruling? After all, Federal Law applies on Federal Property right? On my side of the fence I am in California an not in "Federal Land" am I not? Otherwise your saying that we citizens are all trapped in your little country called federal law. Does this federal fence surround all of us whether we are in Afghanistan, Fiji, or Lincoln Nebraska?

I am not a lawyer but somebody please explain to me just how the fuck the DEA gets away with showing up on the property of a cannabis club in the first place when at the same time there is a fence between me and federal enforcement of federal law? Please, some lawyer or congressperson, some cop or stoner, someone, anybody please explain this chain-link & razor wire fence. And while your at it, explain just what law applies on which side of it to me in terms and any simpleton like myself can understand.

The cannabis clubs are clearly outside the "Property line" that separates them from signs pointing out where federal jurisdiction is enforced. So how does the DEA get away with this? Is it because of their guns, badges, and bulletproof vests? Isn't there any armed, badge wearing, bulletproof vest issued law enforcement officers sworn to uphold a California State Law that was passed 8 years ago by its citizens? Anyone?

But the nation's high court reversed, saying the so-called "medical necessity defense" was at odds with a 1970 federal law that said marijuana, like heroin and LSD, has no medical benefits and cannot be dispensed or prescribed by doctors.

Just what the fuck is FDA approved Marinol supposed to be your honorable judgeships? Are questions such as this censored or something? You judges can rule on the unconstitutional 1970 law anytime you like if only you had the cajhones to be American. Instead of freedom, you insure that we the people are imprisoned on both sides of the fence.

A setback, yes. But to paraphrase the words of a character from a Southern fable: "Please B'rer Breyer! Don't throw me in that 9th Circuit Court of Appealsbriar patch!"

The rulings of that Circuit Court have been, on the whole, favorable towards us of late. Perhaps Judge Breyer wanted to punt this smelly and noiseome problem out of his docket and back to the C.C.of A to dodge a very heavy political bullet that had his name on it. And by reaching that level, it may be possibble to have the whole sordid history of cannabis prohibition dragged out in to the light as the Ontario Court of Appeals did with the 'Janie Canuck'/Emily Murphy affair.

As the tide of public opinion turns in our favor, we can expect increasing government pressure to do by force what they cannot persuade the public to accept by reasonable argument.

(To use Thoams Jefferson's critique: "To argue with those who have divorced the use of reason has all the effectiveness of administering medicine to the dead." Having spoken with LEO's before, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps the classic horror movie Night of the Living Dead may actually be grounded in reality, sans the cannabislism.)

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n853/a04.html?397

In other news...

Two years ago, Missouri voters rejected a law to permit citizens to carry concealed weapons. Right now, the state legislators are pushing a bill through that would, with the governors signature only, authorize citizens to carry concealed weapons.

The governor has said he would veto the bill if it gets to his desk, but his veto could be overridden.

"says marijuana has no medical benefits and is an illegal drug."