CANA change the name in fear of the FEDS I think... If they are going after advertisers then CANA would be a target... Right?
'Business Description We provide a focused variety of services to the medicinal cannabis industry. More specifically, we provide services in four different sectors:
We are not engaged in the growing, harvesting, cultivation, possession, or distribution of cannabis. Instead, we assist the physicians, dispensaries, and end-users in the medicinal cannabis industry in finding each other and in managing their businesses.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/norml_owes_the_medical_marijuana_community_an_apol.php#more ?NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre has called the medical marijuana industry a "legal farce" and "largely a sham" in an article which hit the web yesterday, creating a backlash among NORML's many supporters (quite a few of whom likely just became former supporters) in the medicinal cannabis industry.
How many times must we repeat this? Attacking medical marijuana is not a good legalization strategy.
?In one of the worst -- and most demonstrably false -- statements he made, St. Pierre claimed "The medi-pot industry, of course, opposes actual legalization, such as last year's Prop 19, which was also opposed by the profiteering communities in the state's northern 'grow' counties."
That certainly comes as news to many of NORML's heaviest contributors -- whom, I suspect, will be remembering this little incident next time NORML asks for a check. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!
I'm as aware as everyone else that many profit-hungry growers and dispensary owners opposed Prop 19 back in 2010 -- and I called them out on it, very publicly, in many cases by name. (I was told "You can't say that" and "It's really not a good idea to piss off the growers," and I basically told the greedy bastards to go fuck themselves.)
Cannabis Conversation...
[1/7/12 2:58:49 PM] iceQuity: norml is not for cannabis.... [1/7/12 2:59:34 PM] iceQuity: what if [1/7/12 2:59:44 PM] iceQuity: thats true [1/7/12 3:01:00 PM] iceQuity: alcohol and tobacco do it... create organizations with their own self interest in mind [1/7/12 3:01:11 PM] iceQuity: right? [1/7/12 3:01:45 PM] barry : its become extremely complex and convoluted now... [1/7/12 3:02:14 PM] barry : its not fair to say that, but they've done a very poor job of "Stewarding" this ship that is for sure... [1/7/12 3:02:48 PM] barry : and yes, there is very likely extremely strong interests entering the fray looking for their own "Disruptive Measures" to deploy.... [1/7/12 3:03:35 PM] barry: we're in the "Election Cycle" now, so all things are possible... [1/7/12 3:03:59 PM] barry : KannaLife is very illustrative of what direction this train is traveling in... [1/7/12 3:04:25 PM] iceQuity: smart if they did create the cannabis "authority", publicly denounce the movement [1/7/12 3:04:43 PM] barry: or the flip side could be so as well.... [1/7/12 3:05:40 PM] barry: what if it was the FEDS who hoisted "Medical Cannabis" onto the scene just so that they could soften up the body politic for it as "MEDICIEN" and then they could come in and shut the whole dance down and turn it over to their buds, the PHARMS..... [1/7/12 3:08:56 PM] iceQuity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting Aiding and abetting From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the United States legal provision. For the book of the same name, see Aiding and Abetting (novel).
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2011)
Aiding and abetting is an additional provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act(s) as an agent of the charged, working together with or under the direction of the charged party, who is an accessory to the crime. Internationally, it is comparable to other laws governing the actions of accessories, including the similar provision in England and Wales under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
It is derived from the United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Where the term "principal" refers to any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense.
For a successful prosecution, the provision of "aiding and abetting" must be considered alongside the crime itself, although a defendant can be found guilty of aiding and abetting an offense even if the principal is found not guilty of the crime itself. In all cases of aiding and abetting, it must be shown a crime has been committed, but not necessarily who committed it.[1] It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed, that he does, through his own act or omission, as he would do if he wished for a criminal venture to succeed.[2] Under this statute, anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act himself.[3] This is distinct from the concept of being an accessory after the fact, a charge distinct from being a principal. [1/7/12 3:09:26 PM] iceQuity: General Cannabis/ Weedmaps.com CANA - Guilty? or Not?
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
