Voters said yes to medicinal marijuana. Should the Feds be raiding dispensaries?

I live in CA. We voted yes overwhelmingly over 10 years ago.
The Feds make it nearly impossible for cities to allow new dispensaries, because the existing ones are being shut down.
Knowing someone with HIV, I know for a fact the healing properties of marijuana. Shouldn't the Feds be doing something more constructive like say...Securing our borders?
Thoughtful comments only, Thanks!

State and federal laws are independent -- and the federal govt has the legal right to have conflicting laws that prohibit something -- even something that the state voters want.

That being said -- in this particular situation, the federal govt is effectively engaging in the regulation of medical practice -- and that outside the scope of what it should be doing.

Federal law trumps state law. As for securing the borders, that's a whole different part of the government.

Only California voted on this. The law being enforced is a federal law. The voters of one state cannot vote to void a national law. If the federal government could not enforce laws that were contradicted by state votes, then any one state's voters could vote to exempt their state from federal income tax, reinstitute slavery, etc.

It also shrinks tumors. It has to be good for us or they wouldn't work so hard to keep it from us!

Notice how they always go for the easy stuff like prostitution or drugs - not terrorists or gangs.

I live in California too and when it comes to Marijuana or any other subtance banned at the Federal Level it doesn't matter what the voters passed.

We citizens here in Arizona ALSO passed a Medicinal Marijuana Law, with Tax Stamps for quarter ounces, halfs, etc. The Referrendum passed overwhelmingly, but our "leadership" decided we REALLY didn't know what we were voting for, so they threw out the measure entirely, AFTER it had been passed by the people, the SAME people who are supposed to be represented by their "leaders" in government.

At one time or another, every newspaper and magazine in this country has referred to pot as "America's Biggest Cash Crop", which it is, except we are even importing most of THAT now too.

Legalizing it, regulating its growth and sale and taxing the HELL out of it would raise more money for this country than cigarette taxes do anymore. People are quitting tobacco because of all the negative health problems tobacco (and 48 other, nonnatural ingredients, including formaldehyde) causes. Marijuana causes NONE of these problems.

Ever hear of someone so high on pot (and JUST pot) they jumped out a window, thinking they could fly? Ever hear of anyone high on weed robbing a liquor store?

Ever hear of anyone overdosing on marijuana?

I live in CA too and they are raiding the dispensaries, the delivery services and even the doctor's who are perscribing it. It was just on the 60 minutes Sunday though they were focusing on Frisco, it is happening everywhere. We live close to the border in Diego and wish they would put just as much effort into enforcing the laws about illegal immigration and securing the borders as they are enforcing the federal laws concerning MJ.

This is one of those state's rights VS federal deals. Ideally, a state does not have the right to take a federal law and liberalize it -- which is exactly what California did. A felony is a felony is a felony regardless of what the state claims is legal. The California legislature was wrong to even allow such an ammendment on the ballot. It takes you back to a state of pre Federal Constitution. Back to the days of The Articles of Confederation when each state claimed the right to print and issue its own currency. For one state to refuse to honor the laws that the rest abide by creates a huge schism. The federal government should deny the state any and all federal funding until the state is brought back to a state of homeostasis with the rest of the nation.

Are you talking about the Rosethal case?
Anyway, the first poster had it right, the federal government has control.
IN 2003 I was at the ONDCP reauthorization hearing, the senate committee dems were trying to offer ammendments to the bill, they were shut out by the majority repubs who were either nowhere to be seen durring the discussion, or one, who was reading the USA Today at his chair, didn't even try to hde the rubber stamp nature of it. The dems tried to give the ONDCP admin the ability to choose whether to campaign against state bills, they were shut out and the drug czar has to actively campaign against these bills...

The US is ***-backwards on almost everything...

Spreading Democracy ROTFL....Imperialism.

The War on Terror....manufactured.

The War on Drugs....lost before it started, yet they still spend $7,000,000,000 a year catching and prosecuting marijuana offenders when alcohol and tobacco cause more human suffering than it ever will.

Feds can do whatever they want within their jurisdiction. Fed law doesn't trump state, but it does overlap sometimes. While I disagree with the law, the DEA's job isn't to secure the border, it's to enforce drug laws. Talk to congress--criticizing law enforcement is a waste of time. They're just doing their jobs.

Edit: Tell someone to talk to congress instead of criticizing the DEA and I get a thumbs down. Look, NORML is saying the same thing!

It's funny, the people who support the raids by the Feds in this case are the same people who always squawk about "states rights" when causes of the Civil War are discussed or the modern day practice of some states flying the confederate flag.

yes.

it should also be legal in all states.
we spend so much time stopping minor non-harmful drug use and then wonder why violent crime is high, over 60% of murders are unsolved, our boarders are practicly non-existant, and people dislike law enforcement.