GW Bush
DEA raids pot dispensary in SFDEA raids pot dispensary in SF
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Print E-mail
deliciousdel.icio.us
diggDigg
technoratiTechnorati
redditReddit
facebookFacebook slashdotSlashdot
farkFark
newsvineNewsvine
googleGoogle Bookmarks
Yahoo! Buzz
Share Comments (132)
Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial
Font | Size:
(03-25) 22:05 PDT San Francisco -- Federal agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco Wednesday, a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled that the Obama administration would not prosecute distributors of pot used for medicinal purposes that operate under sanction of state law.
Images
Federal agents raided Emmalyn's Collective Cooperative po... View More Images
Video
View Larger Size
More Bay Area News
* Search continues for missing Tracy girl 03.30.09
* Small quake rattles the Bay Area 03.30.09
* Perata carjacker convicted 03.30.09
* Charges dropped against man accused of poisoning coworker 03.30.09
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic at 1597 Howard St. in San Francisco's South of Market district mid-afternoon.
They hauled out large plastic bins overflowing with marijuana plants and loaded several pickup trucks parked out front with grow lights and related equipment used to farm the plants indoors.
The dispensary had been operating with a temporary permit issued by the Department of Public Health.
"Based on our investigation, we believe there are not only violations of federal law, but state law as well," DEA Special Agent in Charge Anthony Williams said in a prepared statement.
Williams, who runs the San Francisco field office that covers a territory stretching from Bakersfield to Redding, would not specify the alleged violations. The information was under court seal.
"As of now, we are prohibited from releasing further details of the case. Items of evidentiary value were seized and no arrests have been made," Williams said.
A source in San Francisco city government who was informed about the raid said the DEA's action appeared to be prompted by alleged financial improprieties related to the payment of sales taxes. DEA Special Agent Casey McEnry, spokeswoman for the local office, would not comment on that information.
Representatives from Emmalyn's could not be reached for comment. It was not clear whether they were on the premises when authorities arrived.
Word of the raid spread quickly in the medical marijuana advocacy community via text-message. About a dozen people, many with cameras in hand, gathered in front of Emmalyn's as federal agents guarded the front entrance. The scent of marijuana wafted through the crowd and several bystanders shouted epithets at the agents as they walked by.
Emmalyn's provides marijuana for free to poor people on Wednesdays.
"It's awful that raids like this are still happening. Public opinion favors medicinal marijuana," said Troy Dayton, senior development officer for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national organization that advocates for the decriminalization of marijuana, particularly for medicinal purposes.
Thirteen years ago, California became the first of more than a dozen states to legalize medical marijuana, although federal law still prohibits its use.
In a marked shift from Bush administration policy, Holder said last month that dispensaries only would be prosecuted if both state and federal drug laws were thought to be violated.
E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon@sfchronicle.com.
Did someone not get the memo? DEA raids San Francisco medical pot store | World news | guardian.co.ukDid someone not get the memo? DEA raids San Francisco medical pot store
A week after US attorney general Eric Holder says federal authories won't bust medical marijuana dispensaries, agents raid a San Francisco shop, citing unspecified violations of state law.
Comments (1)
Drug Enforcement agents yesterday raided a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco, a week after US Attorney General Eric Holder said federal authorities would no longer prosecute providers that are not otherwise in violation of state laws.
Yesterday, agents raided Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic, hauling out plants and growing equipment. The dispensary, which gives out free marijuana to the poor once a week, had a temporary city permit allowing it to operate.
The DEA special agent in charge told the San Francisco Chronicle that Emmalyn's was skirting state laws as well. According to Holder's remarks last week, that would make it a candidate for federal legal action. Also:
A source in San Francisco city government who was informed about the raid said the DEA's action appeared to be prompted by alleged financial improprieties related to the payment of sales taxes. DEA Special Agent Casey McEnry, spokeswoman for the local office, would not comment on that information.
As the kevlar-vested agents removed the buds from the place, bystanders taunted them with cries of "Who is Eric Holder? He's your boss!"
Advocates of marijuana decriminalisation and of legal medical marijuana are sceptical. Marijuana Policy Project California policy director Aaron Smith said in a statement:
It is disturbing that, despite the DEA's vague claims about violations of state and federal laws, they apparently made no effort to contact the local authorities who monitor and license medical marijuana providers. For an agency that for eight years said it couldn't care less about state law to suddenly justify raids as an effort to uphold state law simply doesn't pass the smell test.
Aaron Houston, the group's director of government relations, said:
Because so little information has been released thus far, we have more questions than answers. But with an actual shooting war along our Mexican border, not to mention federal law enforcement there being so overwhelmed that traffickers coming through the border with up to 500 pounds of marijuana are let go, it's very hard to believe that this is the best use of DEA resources, especially in a city with an active program to license and regulate medical marijuana providers.
MichaelMoore.com : Report: Wall Street Spent $5 Billion For Political InfluenceMarch 6th, 2009 8:09 pm
Report: Wall Street Spent $5 Billion For Political Influence
By Brian Montopoli / CBS
A group called Wall Street Watch is out with a report that finds that "Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates made $1.7 billion in political contributions and spent another $3.4 billion on lobbyists" between 1998 and 2008.
The report, "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America," concludes that the contributions were "aimed at undercutting federal regulation" and ultimately "led directly to the current financial collapse."
The two men behind the report are California lawyer Harvey Rosenfield of the nonprofit Consumer Education Foundation and Robert Weissman of Essential Information, a Washington nonprofit "that seeks to curb excessive corporate power."
The report argues that the lobbying and contributions kept financial derivatives from being regulated, led to the repeal of regulatory barriers between commercial banks and investment banks and kept the government from stepping into halt predatory subprime lending. (The authors list "12 Key Policy Decisions Led to Cataclysm" here.)
"Depression-era programs that would have prevented the financial meltdown that began last year were dismantled, and the warnings of those who foresaw disaster were drowned in an ocean of political money," Rosenfield said in a release.
The authors don't blame either political party, noting that roughly 55 percent of the donations went to Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats. In the 2008 election cycle, they note, Democrats received slightly more than half of the financial sector's contributions.
They also say that 142 of the lobbyists employed by 20 "leading financial firms" during this period "were previously high-ranking officials or employees in the Executive Branch or Congress."
The report can be found here.
Rethink Afghanistan * Home
* Videos
* Groups
* Blog
* Become a Peacemaker
* Press
* Articles
* Donate
What should Robert Greenwald ask people in Afghanistan?
Share this video | Post on Facebook
Director Robert Greenwald will soon travel to Afghanistan to interview people and groups who have opinions about this war. Robert wants to hear your questions, comments, and suggestions for his trip to Afghanistan. Post your thoughts and he will use them in his interviews and discussions.
What should Robert ask people in Afghanistan? →
He needs your help to hire a local camera crew and arrange for interviews, researchers, transcriptions, and translators.
Donate and be listed as a Rethink Afghanistan Producer.
Keep up with Robert in Afghanistan. Get real-time email alerts of Robert’s videos and comments from Afghanistan.
Plus, follow his frequent Twitter and blog updates on this site or directly.
Get real-time email updates from Robert in Afghanistan:
(You will only get these updates by signing up here.)
DIRECTOR ROBERT GREENWALD ON TWITTER:
* great questions flyiing in at rethinkafghanistan.com for my trip. so great to hear what folks are thinking and wanting to know. about 2 hours ago
* @jockravez and @metapolitica Gracias por su apoyo! The international peace community is essential to the Afghanistan Peace Movement about 2 hours ago
* @IPPNW rethinkafghanistan.com about 2 hours ago
LATEST FROM THE BLOG:
Why I Am Going to Afghanistan
Mar 10, 2009 4:25:01 PM
As I prepare for my trip to Afghanistan, part of our Rethink Afghanistan documentary campaign, I find myself devouring every book and article I can. The goal is to understand as much as possible before I arrive in Afghanistan. The big focus is to ask the questions. And from experience, I know the best guides are [...]
Read more in the blog →
QUICK POLL
What should Robert ask during his trip to Afghanistan?
How is the U.S. military perceived in your country?
What do you think the U.S. should do to end this war without causing more casualties?
Which groups should the U.S. be listening to right now regarding this war?
Nothing, our military leaders and politicians have already done a great job explaining this war.
or see results
Getting poll results. Please wait...
Sign the petition
25,257 signatures
Dear (Sen. John F. Kerry, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee, and Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee),
It is imperative that we hold oversight hearings on the Afghanistan conflict. Before committing more troops and taxpayer dollars to Afghanistan, we must first have a national conversation to address the many questions surrounding this war. At a time when our country faces a credibility crisis around the world, record casualties in Afghanistan, and an economic meltdown at home, oversight hearings are needed now more than ever. The government must examine how foreign policy is being executed in Afghanistan, while helping to alleviate our financial strains.
We urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to hold oversight hearings in order to rethink our policy toward Afghanistan and uphold the nation's system of checks and balances.
ALL FIELDS REQUIRED
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Zip Code:
Trailer
Read Bios | Share this video | Post on Facebook
Full Video (Part 1)
Read Bios | Share this video | Post on Facebook
Watch more Rethink Afghanistan videos →
PARTNERS:
PRESS CONTACTS
Please contact Axel Woolfolk at 310-204-0448 Ext. 232 or awoolfolk@bravenewfoundation.org.
CREDITS
Director: Robert Greenwald, Executive Director: Jim Miller, Producer: Jason Zaro, Associate Producer: Dallas Dunn, Associate Producer: Jonathan Kim, Researcher: Greg Wishnev, Editor: Phillip Cruess, Press Director: Leighton Woodhouse, VP Marketing & Distribution: Laura Beatty
LEGAL
Anyone is allowed to post content on this site, but Brave New Foundation 501(c)(3) is not responsible for that content. We will, however, remove anything unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, racist, or that contains other material that would violate the law. By posting you agree to this.
Brave New Foundation | 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
MichaelMoore.com : Labor Bill Faces Threat in SenateMarch 10th, 2009 11:57 am
Labor Bill Faces Threat in Senate
By Melanie Trottman and Brody Mullins / Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Key Senate Democrats are wavering in their support of legislation that would give more power to labor unions, dealing a setback to labor's top priority as businesses warn of the damage the bill would cause.
The battle over the "Employee Free Choice Act" -- expected to be introduced Tuesday -- is seen as a power struggle among labor unions and businesses, as well as a test of whether moderate Democrats and Republicans will push back on Democratic congressional leaders and the Obama administration.
At least six Senators who have voted to move forward with the so-called card-check proposal, including one Republican, now say they are opposed or not sure -- an indication that Senate Democratic leaders are short of the 60 votes they need for approval.
The legislation is divisive and distracting, said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in an interview Monday. The Democratic lawmaker, who was previously seen as a supporter, said the Senate should focus on creating jobs and improving the U.S. economy. "I have 90,000 Arkansans who need a job, that's my No. 1 priority," she said. The legislation, she said, would be "divisive and we don't need that right now. We need to focus on the things that are more important."
Sen. Lincoln is one of several moderate Democrats expressing doubts about the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join. A second provision would give federal arbitrators power to impose contract terms on companies that fail to reach negotiated agreements with unions. Both provisions are strongly opposed by business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor are among the Democratic lawmakers who have backed off their previous support.
An aide for Sen. Landrieu said the senator is carefully reviewing the issue. "She understands that it is a heated debate and wants to make an informed decision" in part by meeting with groups on both sides.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) was a supporter of the legislation in 2007, but he's wavering now and says, 'I'm being lobbied on it very, very heavily.'
Sen. Pryor said in a statement that "this legislation is not perfect, and while I have been supportive in the past, I will consider amendments to make it better if and when it is considered by the Senate." Like Sen. Lincoln, Sen. Pryor said there are more pressing issues relating to the economy that the Senate should be addressing, one of his aides said Monday.
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is another key member who is wavering. Though he voted with Democrats in 2007, he now says, "I'm still thinking about it." He added, "I'm being lobbied on it very, very heavily."
Several of the lawmakers face tough re-election races in 2010, or represent states with few unionized workers. Mrs. Lincoln is running for re-election in a state that Mr. Obama lost, 59% to 39%. Mr. Specter could face a more conservative Republican in a primary in Pennsylvania next year.
Business groups spent more than $30 million last year on TV ads opposing the idea, mainly in states represented by moderate Democrats, such as Arkansas, Nebraska and Colorado. The labor-backed American Rights at Work has spent $10 million on advertisements backing the legislation since Labor Day.
Both labor and businesses say they don't see a reason to compromise. But labor unions acknowledged Monday they are in for a long fight. "While we know it won't be easy, we're confident" that the legislation will be enacted, said Christy Setzer, a spokeswoman for the Service Employees International Union.
Some supporters of the bill have privately suggested requiring language on a union card to make clear that signing the card is equivalent to voting to join a union. There also are suggestions to extend the amount of time before mandatory arbitration kicks in.
The legislation is expected to sail through the House. But the new uncertainly over Democratic support makes it more likely the bill, in its current form, will be stalled without the 60 votes needed to approve contentious measures in the Senate.
The splits among Democrats underscore how difficult it will be for party leaders to move their agenda through the congressional process, even with large majorities on Capitol Hill. On such issues as health care and global warming, Democratic leaders will face divisions within their own party that are expected to require some compromise to reach 60 votes.
Democrats are "a regional party, representing a large swath of the country from rural to urban areas, North and South," said Marty Paone, a former top Democratic aide in the Senate. "On each issue, you are going to have members who will find something that will negatively impact their constituents. So you need to find compromise and on some issues...you are going to have to find Republicans to offset the Democrats that you lose."
President Barack Obama reiterated his support for the bill last week, the first time since his inauguration. In a videotaped message to top union officials attending an AFL-CIO meeting in Miami, Mr. Obama indicated he would help labor pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
"We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests because we cannot have a strong middle-class without a strong labor movement," he said in the message.
Bill Gould, former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board under President Bill Clinton, suggested replacing the card-check provision with secret-ballot elections that take place within five to 10 days after a union files a petition with the NLRB, quicker than they currently do. He also said government-appointed arbitrators should be called upon only when talks have completely failed.
With automatic arbitration, he said, the side with less leverage in negotiations will have little incentive to bargain. Mr. Gould, now a professor at Stanford University Law School, said he has been contacted by the staff of several Senators, "reflecting some unease about the legislation as it's drawn now."
He declined to say whose staff had called him.
MichaelMoore.com : Obama’s Budget Faces Test Among Party BaronsMarch 10th, 2009 12:05 pm
Obama’s Budget Faces Test Among Party Barons
By Jackie Calmes and Carl Hulse / New York Times
WASHINGTON — What the Democratic barons of Congress liked best about President Obama's audacious budget was his invitation to fill in the details. They have started by erasing some of his.
The apparent first casualty is a big one: a proposal to limit tax deductions for the wealthiest 1.2 percent of taxpayers. Mr. Obama says the plan would produce $318 billion over the next decade as a down payment for overhauling health care.
But the chairmen of the House and Senate tax-writing committees, Senator Max Baucus of Montana and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, have objected to the proposal, citing a potential drop in tax-deductible gifts to charities.
Billions in savings from cutting government subsidies to big farmers and agribusinesses? No dice, said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who heads the Senate Budget Committee.
Mr. Conrad also panned the limit on tax deductions. And his criticisms of those savings proposals aside, Mr. Conrad said Mr. Obama's 10-year plan would not do enough to reduce future debt.
Shrink spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, chairman of the House Budget Committee, suggested Mr. Obama's proposals did not go far enough.
Cap industries' emissions of the gases blamed for climate change? Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, who leads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will have to contend with dissent on a panel with Democrats from coal and manufacturing states.
“The legislative process requires compromise and being open to different alternatives,” Mr. Waxman said.
Mr. Obama is taking a gamble in outsourcing the drafting of his agenda's details to these five veteran lawmakers and others in Congress, each with his own political and parochial calculations.
“This is not an easy budget to market, for sure,” Mr. Spratt said.
He said he and other Democratic leaders would have to sell it one lawmaker at a time, but sell it they would. “Not every problem is a deal breaker,” Mr. Spratt said. “We will try and make corrections and accommodations.”
The process is like “a giant jigsaw puzzle,” Mr. Rangel said. “But it is going to come together.”
If the budget is to come together, the responsibility will be on the Democratic committee chairmen to deliver since most Republicans seem to have little appetite for the president's proposals.
After a $787 billion economic stimulus package and a $410 billion appropriations measure for the current year, “Republicans feel like they can oppose this spending spree and this shifting of power from Main Street to Washington enthusiastically,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina to whom the administration has looked for bipartisanship. “It means the year could be an ideological struggle instead of a problem-solving year.”
The House and Senate are aiming to agree on a budget in April, but it will not require Mr. Obama's signature.
Instead, that budget serves as a nonbinding blueprint for the committees — chiefly the Ways and Means and Finance panels — to write the legislation that Mr. Obama would sign into law. The changes he envisions for health care, energy, taxes, education, transportation and more have stymied Congress for years; in his budget, they come packaged together, and the resistance will be multiplied as a result.
The White House, meanwhile, is making clear that it is ready to push back, judging by its reaction to the strong resistance to its proposal to limit wealthy taxpayers' deductions.
When Mr. Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, soon after the Obama budget's release that the administration must find a more “viable” source of revenue for its health care plan, Mr. Geithner expressed openness to other options.
The next day, however, Mr. Geithner staunchly defended the proposed limit, telling the House Budget Committee it would affect few taxpayers and still let them take deductions at the same level as in the Reagan years: a 28 percent rate, nearly twice what most taxpayers can claim.
The White House has sought to broaden that defense, emphasizing that the impact on charitable giving is likely to be small and that the proposal is hardly radical. Mr. Geithner has called it “fair and reasonable.”
Mr. Baucus, a veteran of 34 years in Congress, has welcomed Mr. Obama's determination to overhaul health care this year. But he also has been drafting his own plan to contain costs and expand insurance coverage, putting him in potential conflict not only with the White House, but also with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the Senate health committee.
For instance, Mr. Baucus has suggested that one way to raise money would be to tax as income the value of the health insurance some employees get on the job, an approach Mr. Obama attacked when Senator John McCain, his Republican rival for the presidency last fall, proposed it.
For Mr. Conrad and some other Democrats, the political problem is that the upfront costs of health care reforms are huge while the promised cost savings are years in the future.
“When people say we won't see the results of any of that spending for 10 years, I become skeptical,” Mr. Conrad said.
Early meetings of representatives of his Budget Committee and the Senate's finance and health committees, Mr. Conrad said, have made for “very lively debates.”
As difficult as addressing health care will be, the energy issue may prove even more contentious and from the perspective of many lawmakers is the element of the administration's agenda most likely to be set aside temporarily if a major initiative must be sacrificed to push through other programs.
To spur development of alternative energy, reduce dependence on foreign oil and help arrest climate change, Mr. Obama proposes a cap-and-trade system after 2011 that would require polluting industries to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. Because companies would pass on the costs to customers, most of the revenues from auctioning permits would go to payments to low-wage and middle-income workers to offset their higher utility bills and other expenses. The rest would pay for alternative energy programs.
Republicans are already digging in against Mr. Obama's approach, opposing both mandates that businesses buy pollution permits, and the idea of tax refunds to workers who earn too little to pay income taxes.
Democrats have their own divisions on energy legislation. Further complicating matters is the fact that Mr. Rangel, who will have to share responsibility for health care with Mr. Waxman, wants his panel to have a piece of the energy policy fight as well. Both men say they can resolve such territorial disputes.
“We are going to have to work out whatever issues there are,” Mr. Waxman said.
Posts
