DEA And Laws Of California

HiGHLiFE28

Well-Known Member
Voters in a northern California county have backed a measure tightening one of America's loosest pot laws, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. State law allows Californians to grow six marijuana plants each for medicinal use, but Mendocino County allowed its residents 25 plants each for any use. The county's residents will now have to make do with the standard six.



"We thought Ma and Pa growers would be able to grow a little bit," said the county's agricultural commissioner. But the "legalization of marijuana sent a message to organized crime that they could set up shop here, and we got people with automatic weapons growing marijuana in large quantities."


Slick-suited diplomats are not the likeliest advocates for lifting worldwide marijuana bans, but a British scientific report targets the UN, saying a regulated marijuana market would remove most of the drug's harm, since it comes from prohibition itself, the Guardian reports. Legalizing it would also allow governments to tax the 160 million users, and set a minimum age and potency limits. "It is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Historically, there have only been two deaths worldwide attributed to cannabis," the report says.



Highlife28- i thought there were zero?




FED stuff-

"CAMP is a law-enforcement program designed to halt the cultivation of marijuana in California. The program involves the use of airplanes and helicopters to locate areas in which marijuana is grown. Once those areas are located, CAMP agents obtain warrants, enter the areas, and destroy the plants. National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 608 F.Supp. 945, 949 (N.D.Cal.1985), remanded for consideration of subsequent authority, 796 F.2d 276 (9th Cir.1986).



NORML contends, and has provided declarations to show, that CAMP engaged in warrantless searches and seizures, arbitrary detentions and destruction of property, invasion of privacy, and otherwise disruptive behavior. Id. at 950. The district court in preliminary injunction proceedings found that CAMP had conducted numerous illegal searches and seizures, may have illegally detained various individuals, and had created a hazard by violating FAA safety regulations. Id. at 965. The district court enjoined CAMP from making warrantless searches and using helicopters in various intrusive and unsafe ways and ordered CAMP to instruct its staff as to the terms of the injunction. Id. at 965-66.


The injunction issued on April 12, 1985. In September 1985, the district court heard NORML's motion to hold CAMP in contempt for violation of the injunction. On September 27, 1985, the district court denied the order to show cause with respect to contempt, but amended the injunction to require (1) that CAMP supervisory personnel meet with CAMP local team leaders to plan raids so as to minimize the risk of violating the injunction, (2) that CAMP local team leaders brief each team member before each raid as to the terms of the injunction and the scope of the raid, and (3) that all helicopter pilots involved in a raid be briefed about the injunction and the flight paths and altitudes that must be maintained to comply with the injunction. The September 27 order also announced the district court's intention to appoint a monitor pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(a).1 The September 27 order was not appealed.
On March 6, 1986, the district court filed its Order of Reference to Special Master. The court stated that even though NORML had not shown clear and convincing evidence that CAMP had deliberately violated the injunction, "[t]here was nevertheless credible evidence of violations." The district court continued as follows:



Such evidence of noncompliance with an injunction that first issued nearly a year earlier portends continuing violations, especially when viewed in light of the fast-paced and wide-ranging character of CAMP's surveillance and raid activities, the difficult legal issues involved, and the numerous affirmative measures that the Court has ordered defendants to undertake. These circumstances constitute an "exceptional condition," and call for the appointment of a Special Master (hereafter "Monitor") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 to monitor compliance with the injunction."



 
Top