06 November 2007

Reports from the Front: The Pot Rebellion

1) Somebody's upset that the police arrested a guy for manufacturing who had a State license.

2) California may say it's legal, but those pesky Feds could always show up and close your $50 million MedMar clinic and take everything you own.

3) Even the RCMP are busting grow houses.

4) If you are an officer involved in a drug ring you should not rob your partners.

5) Things aren't going to turn out well when your grow houses are in the middle of California wildfires.

6) A Californian who ain't buying the MedMar excuse.

7) Urging Oregon to grow marijuana directly for MedMar sales.

8) Marijuana skirmish (actual shots fired) at the Mexican border.

9) Kid finds bag of marijuana at home and takes it to his teacher.

10) Ummmm . . . Sorry to break this to you, but MedMar is legal in Virginia.
§ 18.2-250.1. Possession of marijuana unlawful.

A. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess marijuana unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.).
Of course, I wouldn't hold your breath while you looked for a doctor who'd prescribe marijuana here.

11) Denver trying to pass marijuana no arrest law.

12) Can a boss fire someone for something the State says is legal, but the Feds say is illegal?

13) The Rutherford Institute fighting for pot as a religious right.

14) The only reason to do this is that you want to go to jail.

15) Robbery of a grow house.


Anonymous said...

To be fair on (1), it sounds like a lot of somebodies are upset about it.

And on (4), I loved this line:

"Officer Glen Smokler sparked the probe [...]"

Anonymous said...

re #12, IIRC, in most states it's legal to fire someone for smoking even tobacco at home, given a clear company policy and evidence that the employer is getting an insurance discount for this requirement. (Whether it's worth the good employees you'll lose is another question.) But this case is in California, where it's apparently fine with the courts to sue a company for doing something and to sue it for not doing the same thing...

There might also be an ADA claim in this case (California version), but I've no idea how that would stand up.