3 ms·

Why not just seize all cash from all armored cars regardless of what kind of business it is? I don't see the distinction from seizing the cash from a LEGAL mar

by mikece 5y ago

Why not just seize all cash from all armored cars regardless of what kind of business it is? I don't see the distinction from seizing the cash from a LEGAL marijuana business versus seizing it from Walmart. What law is being broken by the marijuana business or the cash-movers?

ecf 5y ago
This will happen as long as the ruling class is prevented from taking their cut of the pie due to it still being illegal at the federal level. They’re mad and bothered that lower classes are able to establish marijuana business in select states, so they have their posse (police) do their bidding.
- foxyv 5y ago
  San Bernardino has been broke for years. They are paying most of the pensions for retired police so it's not a surprise they are pulling stuff like this. I guess they have the best police pension so most So. Cal. officers transfer there before retiring. Meanwhile, their city infrastructure looks like Steven King's "The Stand."
tssva 5y ago
There are no completely legal marijuana businesses in the US. All of them are in violation of federal law. This is why the money was transferred to a federal agency for the actual asset forfeiture.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? And why are his officers complaining that the truck is "light", and "what do you mean, that's all you got?" Let's not pretend this is being done for any reason other than to enrich coffers.
  - mikece 5y ago
    > Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? 1. Because his department (and possibly him specifically?) get a kickback from the federal agency on asset seizures. 2. To deny that he is simply pocketing the money for his department on his own authority.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    The incentive might be the seized property, but the purpose is to disrupt the drug trade in cases where prosecution would be difficult or impossible. Which it is technically accomplishing.
- mikece 5y ago
  Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce clause cannot be used. In California, several county sheriffs had publicly said that they would arrest DEA agents if they tried to enforce federal law in California. Historical precedent for this practice dates back to shorty before the civil war where the Milwaukee Sheriff arrested two US Marshall agents for kidnapping because they were trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This particular sheriff is flat-out committing theft and abusing his authority; he needs to go to jail for a very long time.
  - r2_pilot 5y ago
    Au contraire(and I don't agree with this reasoning), Congress granted itself this regulatory power because "if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state", that affects other state commerce (since demand would be affected by the lack of import of product), and thus can be regulated via the commerce clause.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    Gonzales vs. Raich held that the Commerce Clause lets Congress prohibit intrastate marijuana production. It's a messed up decision, but it's precedent now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - klipt 5y ago
    If a non-US citizen consumes marijuana even in a "legal" state that makes them deportable and perpetually inadmissible to the US. It's very much illegal at the federal level.
    - mikece 5y ago
      Under a law that is in violation of the Enumerated Powers and Tenth Amendment. Federal Law only supersedes state or local law where the Constitution stipulates that it does.
      - 5y ago

by mikece 5y ago

ecf 5y ago

This will happen as long as the ruling class is prevented from taking their cut of the pie due to it still being illegal at the federal level. They’re mad and bothered that lower classes are able to establish marijuana business in select states, so they have their posse (police) do their bidding.

foxyv 5y ago
San Bernardino has been broke for years. They are paying most of the pensions for retired police so it's not a surprise they are pulling stuff like this. I guess they have the best police pension so most So. Cal. officers transfer there before retiring. Meanwhile, their city infrastructure looks like Steven King's "The Stand."

tssva 5y ago

There are no completely legal marijuana businesses in the US. All of them are in violation of federal law. This is why the money was transferred to a federal agency for the actual asset forfeiture.

FireBeyond 5y ago
Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? And why are his officers complaining that the truck is "light", and "what do you mean, that's all you got?" Let's not pretend this is being done for any reason other than to enrich coffers.
- mikece 5y ago
  > Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? 1. Because his department (and possibly him specifically?) get a kickback from the federal agency on asset seizures. 2. To deny that he is simply pocketing the money for his department on his own authority.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The incentive might be the seized property, but the purpose is to disrupt the drug trade in cases where prosecution would be difficult or impossible. Which it is technically accomplishing.
mikece 5y ago
Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce clause cannot be used. In California, several county sheriffs had publicly said that they would arrest DEA agents if they tried to enforce federal law in California. Historical precedent for this practice dates back to shorty before the civil war where the Milwaukee Sheriff arrested two US Marshall agents for kidnapping because they were trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This particular sheriff is flat-out committing theft and abusing his authority; he needs to go to jail for a very long time.
- r2_pilot 5y ago
  Au contraire(and I don't agree with this reasoning), Congress granted itself this regulatory power because "if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state", that affects other state commerce (since demand would be affected by the lack of import of product), and thus can be regulated via the commerce clause.
- sterlind 5y ago
  Gonzales vs. Raich held that the Commerce Clause lets Congress prohibit intrastate marijuana production. It's a messed up decision, but it's precedent now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- klipt 5y ago
  If a non-US citizen consumes marijuana even in a "legal" state that makes them deportable and perpetually inadmissible to the US. It's very much illegal at the federal level.
  - mikece 5y ago
    Under a law that is in violation of the Enumerated Powers and Tenth Amendment. Federal Law only supersedes state or local law where the Constitution stipulates that it does.
    - 5y ago