Main Menu | Words Menu
9/13/2004 - These are some comments that you will see
throughout this document. They will be in bold and parenthesized. After
you read the following comments please read the articles that called for
these comments. Keep your mind open.
To the article: (All of those words!! What has to be said. One thing is the truth about marijuana. Find out through experienced users if it is safe. They know. Talk to more than one. Try it yourself. It wont bite you. Taxpayers money spent on senseless rhetoric. Come on, itís time to open your eyes, itís time to really care for what the people want. Legalize it!!)
article: (I think he meant well, but what is he
saying? That it wont hurt the dealers of marijuana? If it were legal to
grow and use marijuana, dealers would turn to something more lucrative,
because the market would plummet. Give a marijuana user the same rights
as a tobacco user. The government thinks it is making more money while
it is illegal than they could make if it were legal (some of the people
in government are, but not all of them - they think they would have a
tough time taxing it. And let's not forget the pharmaceutical industry
that pays big money to keep it illegal. There are many medical benefits
from marijuana that would cut down on the need for their medicines. They
don't make medicine to help people, they make it to make money.)
THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE JOURNAL
dark adj. 1: Being without light or without much light. 2: Not light in color. 3: Gloomy. 4: being without knowledge and culture.(the Dark Ages) 5: Secretive.
dark Noun 1: absence of light :darkness: esp: night 2 : a dark deep color - in the dark 1: in secrecy 2 : in ignorance.
Thus: The Dark Ages are the times when the majority of the people who control the world are living without knowledge; in ignorance of the things they are saying and doing.
Some would like to believe that we are out of the dark ages. If we were, the laws and the culture would be different. I hear people making statements about things that they believe to be true, based on misinformation and facts that they have read from uninformed sources or from lies purposely planted to gain control and effect of things. When told differently, Iíve heard them say, "If that were so, we would know about it." Really?
There are many examples: People who never saw "Fahrenheit 9/11," who have been influenced by others, say that the movies is all lies. They wouldnít go to see it, because it might make them look as if they were unpatriotic. How idiotic! Of course those who saw it know the truth of it. That was not an actor portraying the village idiot, those were really the real individuals caught on camera.
Another example is the myth perpetrated about marijuana. There are books about it that enlightened people have written about marijuana that show how it has been used over the ages, and without any ill effects. And then there are the thousands and thousands of people who have used it, some for many years, but who live productive lives and do good for society, and they are not addicted to it any more than being addicted to chocolate or movies. But to hear most government officials, who have jumped on the "bashing marijuana" bandwagon, it is evil, addictive and leads to a life of crime and corruption. Yes, in a way, it does because of our stupid laws.
Why? Easy! Because, if it were legal, there would be no opportunity to make money from it. You can grow enough in a small plot that would last a person for months. You canít grow tobacco that easily, so they are able to make money from it. We know what harm tobacco can cause, because we know someone who is dying from itís use. If not, go to a cancer ward and watch the people, with the tubes up their noses, gasping for air.
Most people donít smoke marijuana like people smoke cigarettes. A couple of pokes can give you a wonderful feeling. No need to be a pig, but cigarettes require more use. And all cigarette smokers are addicted. And if you hear a smoker talk, they will tell you it is not easy to quit. They have tried it many times. So, are we living in the Dark Ages? WHEN DO YOU THINK WE WILL CRAWL OUT OF THE DARK AGES?
Below are some things garnered from the news media from "enlightened?" people. Iíve added my little comments in ( )s.
WASHINGTON - Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say. (Tell that to the ones in prison!)
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws (what drug?), overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy (How nice of the Justices.) for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug (what drug?) as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking (marijuana is not a drug, Bill. So, why are there all of those users in jail?)," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers. (Way to go Ashcroft! I'll bet that made his day.)
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents (what would the DEA agents do without a law against marijuana? They could go after The other bad boys on the block.) and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants. (I wonder how many, heavy breathing, DEA agents and sheriff's deputies participated in that monumental raid? That took courage to face a sick woman and rip out her six pot plants. Wonder what that cost taxpayers?).
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities (so much for your local authorities.).
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes." Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. (Don't panic, Kiddies, Bill has you covered.),
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes (Hurrah, for the government).
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents (I don't think it is unclear to those users in prisons all over this country.). They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial. Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds. Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny. (How much more can we be scrutinized?)
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law (Does that mean, if I want to smoke it and I promise not to flaunt the law, you wont arrest me?) There should not be any change from that circumstance." (And I believe in the tooth fairy.)
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants. But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs, (Make it legal. Putting people in the same rank as criminals because they smoke it, or sell it is undermining our society. Some people donít have a place to grow it, so somebody has to grow it and why not sell it too?) Make it legal, you dummies, then it wont undermine anything. AND IT WONT GET IN THE WAY OF THE FIGHT AGAINST THOSE OTHER ILLEGAL DRUGS.) John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said. (Wow! Not safe or effective! Cigarettes are safe and effective? Smog is? Driving is not safe. When will the government ban automobiles?)
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public. "The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana." (Thatís why we donít get the opportunity. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR US.)
Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana. And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely. (What congressman would dare jeopardize his position for the good of the people?)
Below are some supreme court decisions: This is where the money left over from government spending is spent.
Make it legal, then the government can get on to bigger and better things for the people - like making tobacco illegal or driving and phoning at the same time.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL MCCLARY RAICH ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [June 6, 2005] JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. California is one of at least nine States that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.1 The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, ß8, of the Constitution .to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution its authority to .regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States. includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.......
1 See Alaska Stat. ßß11.71.090, 17.37.010.17.37.080 (Lexis 2004); Colo. Const., Art. XVIII, ß14, Colo. Rev. Stat. ß18.18.406.3 (Lexis 2004); Haw. Rev. Stat. ßß329.121 to 329.128 (2004 Cum. Supp.); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, ß2383.B(5) (West 2004); Nev. Const., Art. 4, ß38, Nev. Rev. Stat. ßß453A.010.453A.810 (2003); Ore. Rev. Stat. ßß475.300.475.346 (2003); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, ßß4472.4474d (Supp. 2004); Wash. Rev. Code ßß69.51.010.69.51.080 (2004); see also Ariz.
Rev. Stat. Ann. ß13.3412.01 (West Supp. 2004) (voter initiative permitting physicians to prescribe Schedule I substances for medical purposes that was purportedly repealed in 1997, but the repeal was rejected by voters in 1998). In November 2004, Montana voters approved Initiative 148, adding to the number of States authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
2 GONZALES v. RAICH
Opinion of the Court
California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana,2 and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.3 The proposition was designed to ensure that .seriously ill. residents of the State have access to marijuana for medical purposes, and to encourage Federal and State Governments to take steps towards ensuring the safe and affordable distribution (safe and affordable? Just let them grow it - itís safe. Of course there are no revenues to collect that way, but hey, look at all of the people you will make happy.) of the drug to patients in need.4 The Act creates an exemption from criminal prosecution for physicians,5 as well as for...... 2 1913 Cal. Stats. ch. 324, ß8a; see also Gieringer, The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California, Contemporary Drug Problems, 21. 23 (rev. 2005). 3 Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. ß11362.5 (West Supp. 2005).
The California Legislature recently enacted additional legislation supplementing the Compassionate Use Act. ßß11362.7.11362.9 (West Supp.2005). 4 .The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
.(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the persons health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
.(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
.(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.. ß11362.5(b)(1) (West Supp.2005).
5 .Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having Cite as: 545 U. S. ____ (2005) 3
Opinion of the Court
patients and primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medicinal purposes with the recommendation or approval of a physician.6 A .primary caregiver. is a person who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of the patient.7 Respondents Angel Raich and Diane Monson are California residents who suffer from a variety of serious medical conditions and have sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act. They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat respondents. conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Raich.s physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal. Respondent Monson cultivates her own marijuana, and ingests the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer. Respondent Raich, by contrast, is unable to cultivate her own, and thus relies on two caregivers, litigating as .John Does,. to provide her with locally grown marijuana at no charge. These caregivers also ......recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.. ß11362.5(c) (West Supp. 2005).
6 .Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient.s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.. ß11362.5(d)(West Supp. 2005).
7 ß11362.5(e) (West Supp. 2005).
(All of those words!! What has to be said? One thing is the truth about marijuana. Find out through experienced users if it is safe. They know. Talk to more than one. Try it yourself. It wont bite you. Taxpayers money spent on senseless rhetoric. Come on, itís time to open your eyes, itís time to really care for what the people want. Legalize it!!)
4 GONZALES v. RAICH
Opinion of the Court
process the cannabis into hashish or keif, and Raich herself processes some of the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption. On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents
from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Monson.s home. After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of California law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants. Respondents thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U. S. C. ß801 et seq., to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana. Respondents claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity. The District Court denied respondents. motion for a preliminary injunction. Raich v. Ashcroft, 248 F. Supp. 2d 918 (ND Cal. 2003). Although the court found that the federal enforcement interests .wane[d]. when compared to the harm that California residents would suffer if denied access to medically necessary marijuana, it concluded that respondents could not demonstrate a likelihood of succession the merits of their legal claims. Id., at 931.A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter a Cite.
(Did all of that really have to happen. Look at the time and taxpayers money spent defending the governmentís lies about marijuana. For the people, by the people - Does that mean, for the few and their friends that decide for all of us?)
(A few knowledgeable comments from our elected leaders. How their tune will change if and when they find themselves in severe, unending, pain.)
(This is a beaut from Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the majority). "Cultivation by patients and care-givers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market. The likelihood that all such production will promptly terminate when patient recovers ... seems remote."
(Questions: 1. What does he mean by majority? Majority of the people who agree with him, or such as: the majority of the; Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or who? 2. How will the market increase effect the people? 3. What difference does it make whether the patient terminates the use of marijuana if they recover? This is what is meant by the "Dark Ages." Think about it. If someone did totally recover and had been using marijuana for say, two or three years, wouldnít they know whether it is harmful to their health or their mental state? Would they continue using it? Dumb question. Of course they will. And why not? Because it does no harm to the body. Of course with anything, Cola, alcohol, chocolate, peanut butter, marijuana, crab cakes, etc., abusing it (being a pig) may bring about some harmful effects. 4. "The likelihood that all such production will promptly terminate when patient recovers ... seems remote." - "... seems remote." The only intelligent item in the whole comment There is a good saying, "If you donít know what you are talking about, shut up.")
Justice Clarence Thomas for the
dissenting says, "(Patients)
use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed
state lines, and that has no demonstrable effect on the national market
(Tax it? Thereís an idea! Show the government how they can tax it, and marijuana might have a chance. A dollar a month per plant could net the government (They would have to give the states a piece of the action) a nice income. If the average user had six plants at one dollar apiece, times the thousands of users would be a nice income, and letís not forget the potential users, when they know that they are safe from the law. There are probably more of them than there are users. The California 2000 census showed 33,871,648. Take 30% of that, 10,161,494, multiply that by six, you get a possible $60,968,968 give or take a dollar. That would make a lot of government spongers very happy. How to get the users to pay that tax? I have an answer. Ask me.)
(Okay, here is the answer. Itís so simple. Create an incentive. From the taxes paid by growers, create a lottery. Enter only those who have paid their monthly minimum payment of six or more plants. A percentage of the months take on taxes from the planters is the prize or prizes. You may even get money from people who just want to be in that lottery.)
By JIM RADCLIFFE
Most marijuana cases are brought by the states. And instead of overturning California's 1996 Compassionate Use Act, the Supreme Count ruling merely rejects one of the arguments that medical-marijuana users are immunized from federal prosecution.
Q. Will local police agencies now arrest those using marijuana under state Proposition 21 5~ which legalized that practice for some medicinal purposes? Doesn't federal law trump state law?
A. Local law-enforcement agencies must continue to follow California law said Greg Robischon, an assistant district attorney for the county: "There's no effect on state law itself." The District Attorney's Office, like before, will prosecute someone for using marijuana for reasons other than legitimate medicinal ones, Robischon said.
Q. But will the federal Drug
Enforcement Agency now be able to make arrests?
Q. Will the DEA target those working at the dispensaries and cannabis clubs where some patients get marijuana in various forms, including lollipops, cookies and brownies?
A. That is unclear. Waite said the agency aggressively goes after narcotics traffickers. When asked if that includes dispensaries and cannabis clubs, she was noncommittal, saying, "We don't signal our intent."
Q. What happens now to the dispensaries and clubs in O.C.?
A. There were at least three such groups operating in May. Representatives of two of them - who have spoken in the past - declined to comment on Monday as to whether they were still operating.
Q. For which illnesses are patients using marijuana to alleviate pain?
A. The leading cause has been to help cancer patients alleviate chemotherapy4nduced nausea and vomiting. It also has been used to ease the pain associated with ailments including AIDS, arthritis and knee and back problems. Patients also take it for insomnia and to stimulate appetite.
Q. What is the response of those who oppose medical marijuana?
A. Some groups say supporting medical marijuana is a step toward legalizing the drug. "We are very pleased with the ruling," said Calvina L. Fay executive director of Florida-based Drug Free America Foundation. "While people may feel good while smoking marijuana, that does not equal medical treatment" Fay said. "It clearly is not an issue that's about medicine. It's an issue about legalization of this drug." (It should be about legalization. Itís not a drug and yes it make you feel good, dummy.)
Q. Is marijuana an effective drug for use in medical treatment?
American Medical Association calls for more research on medical
marijuana before it is legalized. A common complaint is that it leads
users to more serious drugs.
NO RELIEF: Diane Monson sits next to her
marijuana plants Monday at her home in Orville.
MARYIN CHAVEZ - The Supreme Court's decision won't deter
Marvin Chavez from using marijuana, even though the Santa Aria resident
spent almost two years in jail on drug charges.
"I'm very disappointed in these judges," Chavez said. "What they decided today is putting the fear; the stress and everything else on top of the patients' conditions they're suffering already."- Blythe Bernhard
BILL BRETT -Bill Britt had polio as a child, which led to epilepsy, scoliosis, muscle spasms and arthritis. Eating marijuana in cookies and brownies helps ease the symptoms without the side effects of prescribed medicines, he said. "It's the only medicine I've found that helps my pain," Britt said. Britt, 46, recently joined a group of patients in Lake Forest who grow and distribute cannabis.
"The only thing (the Supreme Court decision) will change is it will probably close the collective," the Long Beach resident said. "It will be harder to find the medicine."
Still, Britt said he isn't afraid of the
threat of prosecution.
The 74-year-old nurse who helped write Proposition 215 said she will keep fighting to decriminalize medical marijuana.
"This won't stop us," said Anna Boyce of Mission Viejo. "Now we'll have to push hard in Congress."
Boyce became involved in the medical-marijuana battle when her husband, J.J., used the drug during cancer treatment in 1995.
"It brought back his appetite; it allowed him to gain weight," Boyce said. "They gave him three months and he lived 12 months, so how could I say it wasn't effective?"
Boyce said she was "sickened and depressed" by the Supreme Court's decision.
"These are people dying and then being prosecuted by their own government for using a medication," she said.
- Blythe Bernhard
Philip Denney will keep doing what he has for six years: dispensing physician statements to patients he believes would benefit from medical cannabis.
The 57-year-old doctor, who set up an office in Lake Forest in February 2004, predicted that federal drug agents will chase down clubs and dispensaries that sell cannabis to patients. But the former ER and family-practice doctor said there are too many marijuana users in California for federal cops to ferret them out - arid going after sick and frail patients would be a political bombshell.
"I would argue that California law enforcement is still required to enforce state law," Denney said.
Still, his patients were worried Monday.
"The phone is ringing off of the hook," Denney said from his Redding office. "They don't know what it means. They believe the federal government is going to break down the door." - Jim Radcliffe
Excerpts from ruling:
JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, DISSENTING:
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, CONCURRING
(Marijuana is fungal? Fungal is any of a large group of lower plants that lack chlorophyll and include molds, mildews, mushrooms and yeasts. I guess they will have to take mushrooms and yeast out of the marketplace. If marijuana is so green, what happened to the chlorophyll. Justice Antonin Scala has no true knowledge of marijuana or he would be talking about legalization. We waste so much time and money talking in circles. - legalize it!)
Jury Finds Sergeant Guilty of Murder
FORT RILEY, Kan. - A military jury found an Army sergeant guilty Friday of premeditated murder in the shootings of two fellow soldiers last year. Sgt. Aaron Stanley, 23, of Bismarck, N.D., faces a sentence of life in prison. An eight-member court martial panel began considering his punishment after returning the verdict.
Stanley was convicted of killing Staff Sgt. Matthew Werner, 30, of Oxnard, Calif., and Spc. Christopher D. Hymer, 23, of Nevada, Mo., at his rural farmhouse near Fort Riley in September.
Stanley argued he acted in self-defense and to protect another soldier who was there, but prosecutors said he shot the two men to keep hidden an illegal drug trafficking operation, believing the victims to be informants for Fort Riley police. Stanley and another soldier, Sgt. Eric Colvin, 23, of Papillion, Neb., had acknowledged manufacturing methamphetamine and growing marijuana at the farmhouse.
Stanley pleaded guilty at the start of his court martial to drug use, drug possession, being absent without leave and adultery. He faces up to 37 years in prison on those charges.
The jurors found Stanley not guilty on a final charge of conspiracy to commit murder.
All four soldiers were part of the 1st Battalion of the 41st Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division based at Fort Riley. Both Stanley and Colvin were with Bravo Company and had served in Iraq.
California authorities will still observe Prop. 215.
But dispensaries may be forced to close.
(If marijuana had been legal, you might read the same story, but, marijuana would have been replaced with some other drug, such as heroin. Come on America - Let the people have some pleasure in this hard world. A little grass might help make this a better place to live in. LEGALIZE IT!!! I COULDN'T HURT!! )