Drug War

Pot Dispensary Owner Faces Life Sentence for Being Too Profitable


Medical marijuana dispensary owner Aaron Sandusky might be going to jail for a long, long time.

While President Obama made news last week by putting a temporary stop to the deportation of immigrants who've resided in the U.S. since childhood, Mike Riggs noted the inconsistency of the administration's refusal to apply a similar do-no-harm approach to medical marijuana.

Another Sandusky in trouble.

Don't Make Money

Sandusky has the misfortune of sharing a surname with a news-making, alleged child molester, but he has the perhaps greater misfortune of potentially facing a prison sentence equally harsh to what Jerry Sandusky's might be. But instead of sexually abusing more than 50 young boys, Aaron Sandusky's alleged crime is simply that of supplying people with a product they want and legally are allowed to have in the state of California.

Sandusky, whom reason.tv profiled in this video, faced a post-arraignment hearing and a pre-trial hearing in two Los Angeles federal courtrooms on Monday, as did his brother Keith Alan Sandusky and four other employees of Sandusky's dispensary, G3 Holistic. According to the federal indictment, the Sandusky brothers each face six separate counts, and each of the defendants face counts that could also carry life sentences.

A group of about 30 friends and activists gathered outside of the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building, where the first hearing of the day occurred at about 8:30am. Among those gathered was Dan Forman, a friend and colleague of Sandusky's who, in the clip below, speculates about the motives of the DOJ and DEA in targeting G3.

"I really believe it was a case of the government believing that Aaron was commercializing and profiteering," he says.

Thom Mrozek, the press representative for the Department of Justice's Central California district, responded to questions about G3 Holistic with this emailed statement:

"Those associated with the G3 marijuana store ignored a series a warnings that the retail store in Upland was operating in violation of the law. Those warnings came from local officials, through letters from the Department of Justice, during the execution of search warrants and through civil lawsuits. The allegations of illegal activity are clearly laid out in the indictment."

But Forman's speculation seems consistent with past statements made by DOJ officials in describing the raids.

"The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money," said Melinda Haag, one of California's U.S. Attorneys, at a DOJ press conference on October 11, 2011.  

In other words, Haag isn't bothered by the concept of medical marijuana, so long as it remains safely in feel-good, nonprofit "collectives" where, supposedly, nobody makes a dime. Because Sandusky, a former real estate businessman, created a supply chain and a distribution network that provides his customers with high-quality, low-cost product—i.e., established a workable business model—he must be stopped.

Drugs aren't bad. But making money off drugs is bad, or something.

Too Many Governments, Too Much Corruption

While the medical marijuana fight is largely a battle between state and federal jurisdiction, the Sandusky case is even more complicated. Reason previously covered the problems that Sandusky had with his city government. The mayor of Upland, where the original G3 Holistic was located, was himself indicted on federal corruption charges after he allegedly attempted to extort Sandusky and other local business owners.

In 2010, Upland's city council attempted to ban medical marijuana dispensaries altogether, which triggered a series of legal challenges that landed the issue in California's Supreme Court in the form of Pack v. Long Beach. Until that case is decided, however, some dispensary owners, including Sandusky, believe they are allowed to stay open unless the city can prove they are acting illegally under California state law.

This raises the question, are city officials colluding with the the DEA and other federal agencies to do the dirty work while their hands are tied? Nothing in the federal indictment indicates that Sandusky was engaging in activity inconsistent with state law, though these are precisely the sorts of operations Attorney General Eric Holder promised that DOJ wouldn't target. Don Duncan, California Director of Americans for Safe Access tackles that question in the clip below.

"What this feels like is retribution," says Duncan. "Because what we have here are collectives that are fighting with the city over what are basically land use and license issues, really local issues."

Stalling Tactics

The Sandusky brothers have been sitting in prison since last Thursday. Aaron Sandusky, a soft-spoken, 42-year-old man with a full head of salt-and-pepper hair, looked downright haggard and defeated as he sat in court wearing an orange 2XL jumpsuit and chain restraints. 

This hearing was meant to set the trial start date, which is tentatively scheduled for August 7, 2012, as well as to resolve the issue of Sandusky's bond. Sandusky and the other defendants were arrested last Thursday, and a judge set bail for each defendant at the initial bond hearing in Riverside. However, prosecutors successfully filed an appeal, which kept the Sandusky brothers in prison until now.

Aaron Sandusky's attorney, Roger Diamond, raised this issue, mentioning that Sandusky has a heart condition called a cardiomyopathy and stressing the importance of setting bail as soon as possible. Judge Percy Anderson seemed willing to proceed with the hearing, but prosecutors had failed to bring a crucial transcript from the prior hearing, which was necessary to proceed.

"It's just a stalling tactic," Diamond said after the hearing. "They just don't want him out at all."

The court failed to set a deadline for the production of the transcript. In the meantime, Sandusky will have to sit in jail, wait, and hope his heart doesn't go out before the trial.

Watch the video below and decide for yourself whether or not this man, who never hid any of his activities from the government and, in fact, invited government officials to tour his facilities, deserves multiple life terms in a federal penitentiary.

NEXT: Justice Anthony Kennedy, Libertarian?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money”.

    This is consistent with a lot of what the Obama Administration does.

    This was their big focus with what they thought was wrong with Wall Street–for a while there, it looked like the Obama Administration’s primary concern was executive pay on Wall Street and little else…

    The Obama Administration doesn’t like insurance companies in the healthcare industry making money. The Obama Administration certainly doesn’t want to see any biotech, pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturers making too much money.

    So why pick on specific medical marijuana suppliers?

    Because they can? And because the Obama Administration thinks they’re making too much money?

    At least they’re consistent on that one point.

    1. So why pick on specific medical marijuana suppliers?

      I know you don’t like cursing Ken, so I will say it for you:

      “Because Fuck You, that’s why!

      1. Just for the record, what I’ve said wasn’t against cursing in general.

        It was about how when we use certain words to describe women us libertarians don’t like, words that denigrate them for being women, it creates more sympathy for them. What I’ve said is that creating sympathy for the people we don’t like is strategically stupid. And so, if we don’t want to create sympathy for the Liz Warrens, Nancy Pelosis and any other women, then we should avoid calling them the “c-word” or the “b-word” because it takes an opportunity to make them look bad and turns it into an opportunity to make us look like a bunch of stupid misogynists.

        It’s like calling the president the n-word, which would be likewise unbelievably stupid–if what we’re trying to do is get him out of office? And instead you make us look like a bunch of racists, then calling the president the n-world would be unbelievably stupid.

        I don’t have any problem with calling the president a stupid ass effing ahole, and I use profanity myself around here all the time.

        Wanna call me the c-word? I really don’t care. Wanna call me a bitch? I don’t really care about that either. But let’s refrain from saying stupid shit about specific women that hurts the libertarian cause, m-kay?

        That’s all I’ve been trying to say, and it shouldn’t have been so controversial. It’s just that some people got so bent out of shape for having the stupid shit they said called out, that it blew their minds.

    2. I am pretty sure they would have no problem with Solyndra making money…….

      1. Suthenboy|6.18.12 @ 9:13PM|#
        “I am pretty sure they would have no problem with Solyndra making money…”

        You bet! But the chance of that was zero from day one.

      2. Those are hardly comparable matters. Profit not lead by the visible hand of technocracy leads to social chaos and the evils of individualism.

      3. I am pretty sure they would have no problem with Solyndra making money.

        Well that’s a favored industry, where the people have good intentions–according to the Obama Administration.

        The Obama Administration doesn’t have a problem with a favored industry making money–it’s just that if they don’t personally approve of what you’re doing for a living, then you may get into trouble for it at any time…

        It’s like how Bloomberg doesn’t want people making too much money selling sugary soft drinks. If the Obama Administration thought they could get away with going after McDonalds and other fast food restaurants for making too much money, they would. I’m sure they’ve looked at how much money McDonalds is making, and I’m sure they don’t like it one bit.

        The Obama Administration would treat the guy that runs your neighborhood McDonalds like the guy that runs this dispensary if they thought they could get away with it. They’d do it in a heartbeat.

    3. “The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money”.

      That’s the unstated sentiment of the government villains in Atlas Shrugged, but I don’t think that any of them actually stated the feeling that concisely.

      So congratulations to everyone in the Obama administration. You’re more explicitly socialist that even Ayn Rand thought you would be.

    4. I also liked:

      Drugs aren’t bad. But making money off drugs is bad, or something.

      Yeah… unless you are Pfizer.

  2. Here’s a radical idea – if he violated some state law or local ordinance, prosecute him under the state law or local ordinance.

    But…if they did that, they couldn’t give him up to a life sentence!

    1. exactly. If the feds are going to use the “they were not state compliant” excuse then there ought to be some sort of state law enforcement involved, shouldn’t there?

      And why are the feds involved in enforcing state law?

      1. Exactly, this is the third or fourth case of lately of the feds overstepping their authority by claiming that they were enforcing state law.


        Maybe a state should decide to enforce federal law then and arrest Holder and Corzine.

  3. Until there is actually legalization, and not this penny ante bullshit about medical MJ, there will continue to be horrific levels of corruption and graft, and more ridiculous arrests and prosecutions.

    1. Exactly. It’s one of the reasons that I’ve soured on the whole medical marijuana regime. I get the whole narrative about obtaining liberty in piecemeal babysteps, but it seems to me that it just opens up this whole corruption and graft all while providing just enough access for middle class suburbanites to be sufficiently satiated that there is no longer any political will for a full scale legalization.

      1. And the politicians and cops still get to decide who smokes it, and when.

      2. Not to mention establishing a new protected industry that will lobby against competition.

        1. No shit. I met a dispensary grower in Washington and he was full tilt against general legalization ’cause it would cut into his profits.

    2. Exactly the problem. The law in California is nebulous and a plain reading of it would indicate that selling for profit, or selling period violates the compassionate use law. Specifically What California’s medical marijuana law does allow is qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers to associate collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.In particular one section of the law notes: “Nothing in this section shall authorize? any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit.”

      The whole medical marijuana ruse is falling apart in California and advocates for full legalization should stay as far away from defending that system as possible. The cash and records seized in raids are clear that the system is mocking the law and any good will towards full legalization built up by the presence of medical marijuana is being squandered on suspicions of corruption and graft in the whole dispensary system.

      In my opinion the reason California is getting hit with so many raids by the feds now is that local pols and law enforcement are so fed up with the games that the people are playing with the law and the obscene profits being collected by a few that they are more than happy to let the feds come in and take them down. They bring it on themselves.

      1. obscene profits being collected by a few

        Fuck you.

        1. ^^This^^ times one hundred.

        2. VG Zaytsev|6.18.12 @ 10:37PM|#
          “obscene profits being collected by a few”
          Fuck you.

          I missed that on the first reading. You are correct.

        3. Fuck you.
          Thanks for the offer, but I’m married already.

          In this case obscene profits was not an indictment of selling for profit, rather it’s an indication that the market for marijuana isn’t free and ultimately the consumer is getting screwed here. Likely most of the dispensaries try to comply with the law as it is written. But there are a few players who are gaming the system and are gradually gaining control of it and forcing prices into the stratosphere because open competition can’t exist in this system. A markup of 5X-10X from grower to consumer is not fair market pricing. It’s just another form of racketeering. Nobody should cheer that kind of system. And when it comes to consideration of full legalization, which side of the argument is the guy going to be on if his 10X markup is threatened by a more reasonable legal usage law?

          1. In CO medical marijuana costs $250-300 an oz. There is no way it costs that much to produce.

            The medical marijuana dispensaries have a government enforced oligopoly so they do make obscene profits.

            1. You can set up a whole grow room of your own for under $300.

      2. obscene profits

        but you repeat yourself.

    3. Agree, full legalization is it. Even decriminalization of possession isn’t good enough; it just tells people “hey, as long as you don’t sell, you’ll just get a small fine”, thereby cutting out much of the middle class discontent while keeping the problem in place.

      1. Broseph of Invention|6.18.12 @ 10:12PM|#
        “Agree, full legalization is it.”

        Anything else is subject to selective enforcement.

      2. “de-crim” tickets are still a conviction, right? I assume you lose all the same rights as in a misdemeanor conviction.

        1. I think that’s usually the case, though it depends on the state. In Michigan, it’s a “civil infraction determination”. It wouldn’t be considered a criminal conviction, and probably wouldn’t come up on a criminal background check. But sometimes drug offenses are treated differently.

  4. B…Bu….But if we stop enforcing drug laws, some DEA pig won’t be able to feel up and get his BDSM fetish off 11 year old girls.

    1. He’ll just have to become a priest.

      1. TSA agent, if he’s married.

  5. Ignoring for the nonce the stupidity of the government deciding who can smoke what:
    “The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money,” said Melinda Haag, one of California’s U.S. Attorneys, at a DOJ press conference on October 11, 2011.”
    Please, Ms. Haag, define ‘profiteer’.

    1. Oh, and Ms. Haag, please show where the law allows sale of a good unless there is ‘profiteering’.

      1. Show us on the doll where Teh Pot Speculator violated you, Mrs. Haag…

      2. I stand corrected:
        box_man|6.18.12 @ 9:11PM|#
        “In particular one section of the law notes: “Nothing in this section shall authorize? any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit.”

        So, since the government didn’t “grant” the right, well, I guess it isn’t a right.

        1. You’re catching on.

          1. Nando|6.18.12 @ 9:16PM|#
            “You’re catching on.”

            “Catching on” has nothing to do with anything here; the particular wording was shown.
            But ignoramuses tend to see other than that.

        2. How exactly does Big Gov expect to rape loot plunder collect any tax revenue if no one turns a profit?

    2. +++1 “for the nonce”

    3. “The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money,”


      Adam Smith cover this about 250 years ago, WTF????

  6. Pot Dispensary Owner Faces Life Sentence for Being Too Profitable

    That’ll learn ‘im

  7. And re: wasting taxpayer money, they’re finally going to have to quit it in one case:
    “Baseball’s Roger Clemens acquitted of all charges”
    Little favors and all that.

    1. And Eric Holder is still on the loose despite the fact that he’s never made a single true statement testifying before Congress after “Please state your name for the record.”

      1. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word he says is a lie, including “and” and “the”.

  8. This reminded me to look something up, I’d been meaning to.


    Life Sentence

  9. I wouldn’t lionize this guy. We’ve analyzed how to operate within the confines of the law. The biggest problem is that you cannot, without taking major risks, make a lot of money. That’s the law. This guy should have known this is how it will end and anyone making a ton of money. There are ways to operate within the law but not at an industrial level. Cost of capital, adjusted for risk, in my view, can be recovered. The law doesn’t provide for what is going on at a few of these places. Any of those operators, cough, Dr. Kush, should take out large insurance policies and, I guess, be prepared to bounce once the heat comes as it eventually will.

    1. Jeff Dermer|6.18.12 @ 9:03PM|#
      “We’ve analyzed how to operate within the confines of the law.”

      This “we” you speak of; who would that be?

      1. So this Jeff Dermer guy is snitching out the competition?

        1. Sorta sounds like he (and the “we” of which he speaks) have figured out how to hide the income and game the law.
          I really don’t have any gripes with that; tax ‘avoidance’ and all that sort of stuff is the sin qua non of a society ducking onerous gov’t interference.
          But I’m less thrilled by the inference that Sandusky ‘deserved’ it.

    2. The more people operate in defiance of the law and the more people who support its defiance, the more likely the laws are to change. Well.. unless you don’t want it to.

      Mini-rant: there’s law, as in positive laws drawn up by legislation, then there’s The Law

    3. Jeff Dermer ? *Babel Fish* ? stupid comment above:
      “I’ve already paid off my local pols because, see, I know how to play the game. This guy just wasn’t willing to play ball.”

  10. Obama consistently hates profit (except for himself and his cronies), so um yay?

  11. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-H…..sufferable

    new Yorker doesn’t like Aaron Sorkin’s new show.

    “Sorkin’s shows are the type that people who never watch TV are always claiming are better than anything else on TV”

    So the Newsroom is Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones?

  12. Wasn’t this covered in “Zeitgeist”?

    1. Perhaps, but it doesn’t seem to fit within the gestalt.

  13. “”The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money,” said Melinda Haag, one of California’s U.S. Attorneys ”

    So the guy is being prosecuted because of what he was thinking when he sold the stuff? Maybe he wouldnt be facing the gallows if he had just had the right look on his face when he was making sales, you know a kinda sad but empathetic face?

    1. Suthenboy,
      See box_man|6.18.12 @ 9:11PM|# and Jeff Dermer|6.18.12 @ 9:03PM|#
      The law seems to be written to require you to hold your mouth right when selling this good and some have figured out how to game it.
      It is obviously a *wonderful* law; designed specifically to allow selective enforcement and the employment of various thugs who didn’t make the cut at TSA.

      1. There is a ‘cut’ for the TSA? Wow.

        1. Yeah, the ones that slap your balls instead of feeling them up get tossed.
          I’m guessing here…

        2. You gotta be a little more rapey than the average Fed to be a member of the TSA.

          1. I read that in Yogi Bear’s voice…very amusing.

            1. Coffee thru nose to keyboard

  14. Gotta meet those quotas. They have to put somebody in all of those Supermax prisons they built.

  15. Sandusky’s alleged crime is simply that of supplying people with a product they want and legally are allowed to have in the state of California.


    “Contempt of congress, this week, we mean it.”

  16. The federal government, including the DoJ, is riddled with socialists. “Are you now, or have you ever been, in the private sector?”

    1. have you ever been in the private sector?

      Translation: Have you ever stepped over your own mother to make a buck?

      1. Check out the magic trick in the video I linked to below Nando, it will blow your mind I am sure.

      2. Nando|6.18.12 @ 10:07PM|#
        “have you ever been in the private sector?
        Translation: Have you ever stepped over your own mother to make a buck?”

        Translation: Nando never made a buck in his life that wasn’t either from the government or a result of fraud.
        Stupid shit.

        1. Nando just pawn in great game of life.

          1. Yep, and no surprise. Nando is an infantile ego; Nando’s personal activities have no effect at all, except for Nando’s whining.
            Everything in Nando’s life ‘happens’ to Nando. Everything Nando wants has to be provided by Mommy. Nando has no idea of what his wants cost, nor does Nando care; Mommy gives all. And if Mommy doesn’t give it, why Nando whines more.
            Nando is a pathetic excuse for a moral agent, and probably has no idea what that means

  17. Anyone care to bet that the majority, if not all, of the people in this video are obama voters?

    Really, the prank is slightly more sophisticated than the bullshit tricks he used to get elected. I am getting some satisfaction out of watching this whole war on drugs under obama thing, but I am surprised there is not more outrage. But then, a cup hanging from a string is mind blowing. Ugh.


    1. That motherfucker is a DEmON!

  18. But just keep voting in the team blue-tards, hippies, I’m sure they’ll take you seriously someday.

  19. What is legalization going to do? Just as globalization has gone everywhere, it will reduce the field to one kind of pot. Today we have many kinds of pot, with many different flavors.
    They day you legalize it, you will have one grower, maybe two. Not more than three.
    With legalization, pot won’t have the same charm. I don’t know if people would grow it at home if they can buy it in the sprawlmart. But when you go looking for it, asking for a specific type, finding a new variety, it gives it a certain charm.
    But with legalization, it would be offered everywhere. Sprawlmarts, Dunkin Donuts, it would become ordinary. It is the infamous ongoing disappearance of flavors. It is the civilization of McDonald’s and Coca Cola. I refuse that civilization.

    1. Oh, Nando, that was beautiful.

    2. Just as globalization has gone everywhere, it will reduce the field to one kind of pot. Today we have many kinds of pot, with many different flavors.
      They day you legalize it, you will have one grower, maybe two.


      Just like there is only one kind of salad dressing, beer and coffee.


      1. Nando|6.18.12 @ 10:46PM|#
        “What is legalization going to do? Just as globalization has gone everywhere, it will reduce the field to one kind of pot. Today we have many kinds of pot, with many different flavors….”

        Truly, a post worthy of derision. Shithead is consistently dishonest, and RAL is ignorant, but this steps far beyond any post from those assholes! Nando, you have re-set the bar!
        Is it possible to get a stickee here? This one deserves it. This needs to be regularly available as a shining example of stupidity!

    3. With legalization, pot won’t have the same charm.

      And I want my weed charming god damn it. I don’t care how many spics have to die so my weed doesn’t lose its luster. I’d be willing to let another thousand brown people, hell make that two thousand brown people die if I could get my weed to smell like cheesecake.

    4. How I wish there was some other beer than this shitty Budweiser to drink!

  20. Fuck obama hes a piece of shit and better not be reelected to run the office. he likes to put all the blame on the bushes when HE is CURRENTLY in office and FUCKING us ALL over. EAT A DICK OBAMA YOUR WORTHLESS….




    1. Who gives a shit if something is “man made” (as if cultivation of mj is any different than say cultivation of poppies or coca)?

    2. I’d like to see a reporter in an interview ask Obama if he has ever done LSD, and I don’t think he has ever admitted to it so the answer is likely no. Follow up, ‘why should America trust you given you don’t trust yourself?’

      BTW, it would be a pretty good and an awkward question for Mitt Romney, as well. However, you can start with the caffeine. Just caffeine, man. He says no, you follow up, why not? Are you afraid of the altered state of mind from a little perk up? It would get kind of fucking crazy asking Mitt those questions. Eventually you’ll hit up against the walls of piety which is always nice.

      And if Obama says ‘yes.’ Then follow up with ‘have you ever done, PCP?’ He’ll say no. Almost everyone says ‘no’ to that because PCP is d?class?. Probably more so than even crack. You have really got to trust yourself to ride that beast, but once over the anxiety hump, it’s a pretty damn fearless experience.

      Also, I’d like to see him asked, ‘after your presidency, be it in a year or five years, how do the rest of us wipe the shit stains on the Constitution that you leave behind?’

      1. BTW, married now, got a kid, daddy sticks to beer. Trade up is more than worth it.

      2. Obama was a heavy weed smoker who was in HS late 70s and undergrad late 70s/early 80s. I guarantee you he’s dosed at least once.

        1. I’d bet he was too chickenshit. Didn’t one of his buddies say that Obama exaggerated his cocaine usage to be copacetic with his peers?

    3. Wouldntyouliketoknow, seems your caps-lock key is stuck. Time to get a new ‘puter.

      1. I generally recommend this simple, but useful utility:


    4. You’ll never win with the argument that all things that come from the ground are good for you. There are poisonous plants that if you ingest even a small amount of it, you will die.

      You gotta stick with the argument that the government doesn’t have the right to regulate what substances you put into your body as long as you do not use them irresponsibly.

  21. Cambridge, MA

    A fo’ real resolution under consideration:


    WHEREAS: High intake of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages increases the risk of obesity and diabetes; and

    New York City has a plan to limit the serving size of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages sold in restaurants; now therefore be it

    That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.

    Note the important part: New York City has a plan to limit the serving size of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages sold in restaurants

    Progress envy! It’s the real underlying motivation for everything progressives do. OMG, New York is ahead of us, we’re no longer the cutting edge of progress! We’ll have to show them by taking this shit one step further!

    1. As much as I hate New York’s stupid soda ban, I’m dreading the “martyrs” that will come out of it. You know, the Midwest tourist who boldly shows off his Jersey-purchased WaWa 32oz cup to a couple passers-by like he just fought the law and won, to maybe a little applause. In the meantime, there are guys like Sandusky who are suffering real consequences in a real prohibition that ruins lives. Just a prediction.

      1. Yeah, there will be an egregious injustice involved. Being about pot, and being about a profiteer, there exist a cross section of animus that prevents a deserving guy like Sandusky from getting the critical public support he needs to fight the goddamned government.

        I wont discount the attention Midwestern soda guy gets because it will still be an embarrassment to the totalitarians. I don’t care the size of the belt he wears, if he pushes back against the state, he is a soldier in the army of the righteous. Don’t think that just because he’s an everyday guy with a misdemeanor concern that the thugs wont beat him and taze him. All the better for the cause because he is a Joe Smoe, and that is what strikes fear in the populace. The straight and narrow path don’t mean shit in terms of whether they get beaten down by the government. They assume it is only the drug dealers, hoodlums, pimps and terrorist that get the business end of the stick. The more piss ant nanny state laws that get passed, the more everyday citizens find themselves on the ‘wrong’ side of the law, and frankly, that is what is needed for a massive push back to take place.

        1. You’re probably right, but the hypocrisy of the soda warrior statistically being okay with the state protecting his snowflake from the devil weed will be a little irritating. Who knows though, maybe it takes equivalence like this to make him realize the folly of prohibition, whether pot or Dr. Pepper.

        2. Three felonies a day!

      2. What an unfortunate name right now, it took me a second to remember the name of the guy in the article after reading this:

        In the meantime, there are guys like Sandusky who are suffering real consequences in a real prohibition that ruins lives.

        And then this:

        there exist a cross section of animus that prevents a deserving guy like Sandusky from getting the critical public support he needs to fight the goddamned government.

        1. If I ever run for political office, please use that quote on me, for my own sake. Growing up, Sandusky was the Ohio home of Cedar Point, a child’s paradise of fun. Unfortunate indeed.

  22. Jason Sudekis banging Olivia Wilde is what’s wrong with America.

    1. You hit the nail right on the head. Before he banged her I was puzzled why he was even a star. Now I know there is something wrong, an abomination born in the forces that make up the cosmos, going on there, and not just a fluke involving a boring ass, plain faced fuck like Jason Sudekis getting in the movie business.

  23. a lot of articles on reason comment on how draconian many laws are (and they ARE), especially federal ones.

    however, as i make the case frequently, state law especially FILING STANDARDS are often incredibly lax.

    but this surprised even me. i had no idea we were THIS lenient on felons with firearms in WA state

    “By contrast, under state law, ex-cons who are caught with a gun could face a two-year sentence if their underlying felony is considered “serious.” If the underlying felony is not considered serious – burglary, drug cases, and child pornography among others – it takes four convictions for being a felon-in-possession before the offender is sent back to prison for one year, said King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, who hosted the news conference Monday.

    Few people realize how lenient state law is about felons who get guns, Satterberg said, and Washington state is also permissive when it comes to armed children. Children under 18 have to be convicted of illegal gun possession five times before they are sent to a state Juvenile Rehabilitation Authority facility for 15 weeks, he said.”

    1. Do you think that being a felon inherently means you can’t be trusted with a gun? Serious question, I’m not trying to be snide.

      1. i personally do not think most NONviolent felonies should disqualify one from gun ownership/carry

        however, that’s my personal belief

        regardless, ANY felony (and many domestic violence misdemeanors) make one prone to VUFA (Violation Uniform Firearms Act) WA’s “felon in possession” law.

        think about it. i have to catch some juvenile fuckstick 17 yr old gangbanger with a gun AND he has to get convicted FIVE TIMES before he is sent to jail.

        5 convictions before he is sent to jail time.

        and on the sixth conviction, he gets 15 weeks.

        that is insane.

        for felon in possession (adult), i can catch a burglar in process of committing a burglary, and who is a convicted felon in possession of a gun at the time, and he has to get FOUR of those cases lead to conviction before he gets a mere year for the firearms violation

        again, that is insane.

        until recently, the filing standards were (in my county – all felonies are filed in county court) 5 convictions for auto theft for a juvie before he got jail time


        i could not even BOOK him. i had to process him briefly at the station and then call his mommy to pick him up. juvie would not hold him even for a night. for auto theft and eluding (evading during a pursuit).

        1. also, many times when cop convictions are brought up and the sentence seems lenient, it’s because people here don’t know how lenient the laws are, especially for first time offenders.

          they assume they are strict, and they often base this on some case where some scumbag gets like 5 yrs for burglary and gun possession felon in possession, NOT realizing that it’s the guy’s like 6th conviction for a felony. that makes all the difference

          so next time people read about a cop getting probation and ASSUMING it’s a double standard, they need to research what the ACTUAL FILING STANDARDS are (not what the penal code says. that’s irrelevant. it’s filing standards of the prosecutors office that determines sentencing)

        2. I think that’s too lenient. Generally, I’m in favor of progressive punishments, especially when the first offense is erased from the person’s record. I think people that are against mandatory minimums often are more against the harshness of the punishments than the idea of it (no sentencing discretion). You would know better than I would, but I think there needs to be some allowance for felons to own a gun. I did some pro bono defense work for a sex offender a while back. The guy wasn’t violent and seemed exactly the type that could use the protection, yet couldn’t own a gun until three years after his sentence was over. There should be some middle ground.

          Also, I’m surprised you can’t get a burglar in possession of a firearm for a serious offense. Not doubting you, just surprised.

          1. burglary is not considered a “serious offense”. it’s a definitional thang.

            that aside, like i said, we probably agree… many felonies should not disqualify one from firearm’s ownership. but GIVEN that they do, the state of the law AS APPLIED is pretty absurd.

            the right of self defense is damn important and stripping somebody of that right (in effect) by stripping them of the right to ahve a gun because of some garden variety nonviolent felony is wrong imo

            imo, it’s also wrong that it’s automatic in the case of domestic violence convictions, in many cases the crimes do not warrant firearms rights revocations.

            if you get in a verbal argument with yuor brother, and lose your temper and slap him across the face, resulting in pain, AND the cops are called, they would have zero discretion and HAVE to arrest you and if the prosecutor prosecuted you, and you were found guilty (most likely i would hope they would make a plea bargain for a non DV crime), that’s it. no firearms. domestic violence crime

            that’s a bit absurd.

            1. Thank you once again, Dunphy, for surprising me yet again with your open-mindedness.

  24. Caging a human being because he sells a plant you don’t like is evil. The federal fascist monster must be caged itself, and probably executed, to set an example for future fascists. There is no Constitutional authority to regulate marijuana. The government needs a good ass kicking to remind it of its place – as a servant of the citizen. If a government can exist without aggression and violence than it can remain – otherwise, it must be exterminated.

    1. Commerce Claws, bitches!

      1. That’s Intersate Commerce Clause. Exactly how that applies to cases like Raich v. Gonzales, let alone Wickard, is just mind-blowing in its authoritarian justifications.

  25. If a government can exist without aggression and violence than it can remain – otherwise, it must be exterminated.

    fuckin’ fixed

  26. whether the person’s motivation was profit or suffering people with cancer needing relief should be ENTIRELY irrelevant.

    of course, what should be the case, rarely is when it comes to the WOD

  27. “The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money,”

    I got plenty of compassion for money. I don’t know what these fuckwads are talking about.

  28. Is that fucking cunt hole Melinda Haag prosecuting this? She needs to be ass fucked with a telephone pole.

  29. supplying people with a product they want and legally are allowed to have in the state of California

    OK, boys and girls, just because a state has enacted a law saying that something isn’t against that state’s law doesn’t make it something that people “legally are allowed to have” in that state.

    Or do you think that if California decided to repeal all its laws against owning nuclear missiles, it would suddenly be legal for Californians to own missiles?

    1. No, no one here as ever thought about that at all. You got us!


  30. zsounds like a pretty good plan to me dude. WOw.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.