No one in Mountain View voted to allow cannibus sales here except some city councilmembers. New councilmembers may vote otherwise before stores and warehouses are established. The staff report for March 5 says the City commissioned some polling and found majority support for sales but the main issues are the number of places to start and LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Also, if you read the other thread on another commentator's whining about the issue, you will be reminded that cannibus is STILL AGAINST FEDERAL LAW. Get that law changed. And re-read this post before replying just in case you have forgotten it already!

Trying to deny reality doesn't change it. The minority who don't like the implications of the public votes on this topic (and who keep trying to insist, condescendingly, that a vote for retail procedures wasn't a vote for retailing -- that the majority of Mountain View voters didn't know what they were doing, three times in a row) are the ones who need to re-read and UNDERSTAND Sam Parker's well-reasoned post here. Or stop pretending they don't understand it.

The people trying to pressure the City Council into dishonoring its prior good-faith commitment are the ones who should bear the liability in any litigation that then ensues.

Federal Laws may only apply regarding "interstate" commerce.

THere is an exception, if the "Cannibus" is grown in the state of California for California consumption, then the DEA may not be able to act. The Supremet court recent decision stated:

"No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court’s precedent “firmly established” Congress’ commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a “class of activities” with a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a “class of activities”: the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use “essential” to regulating the drug’s national market."

BUT IF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSED GROWTH OF CANNIBUS FOR THE LEGAL USE DEFINED UNDER STATE LAW, THE DEA WOULD BE NOT ALLOWED TO INTERVENE. AS LONG AS SUCH USE WAS RESTRICTED TO SUPPLIES PROVIDED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND NO OTHER STATE.

This has always been the kryptonite regarding the DEA. THe courts as of now never stated that the DEA can override state laws if the suplly is constrained to intrastate resources. The court decision "assumes" that the sources of the cannibus will be interstate in nature.

Soimply put, there is plenty of agricultural resources to grow enough cannibus within the state of California, it does not need any external resources as long as the "free market" allows for licensure of growing cannibus in the state. THe Federal Government under the Supremacy Clause would be handcuffed to allow it because every contract or license in any state cannot be invalidated by the federal court and is required to be accepted as valid.

So as long as the State of California takes such actions, that shields the legal use of Cannibus in the state of California.