Will Charlie Lynch Avoid Prison For Legally Operating a Medical Marijuana Dispensary?
December 26th, 2009
| Tags: barack obama, California, california law, Charles Lynch, charlie lynch, drug war, federal agents, federal judge, judge, mandatory minimum sentence, marijuana, Medical Marijuana, medical marijuana dispensary, prop 215, REASON.TV, war on drugs
On April 23, 2009 a federal judge postponed the sentencing of Charlie Lynch, the man at the center of the nation’s debate over medical marijuana. Lynch operated a medical marijuana dispensary that was completely legal under California law. His business was raided by federal agents in 2007 and last year he was found guilty in federal court of distributing marijuana. The judge signaled that, if possible, he wanted to find a way to avoid the five-year mandatory minimum sentence proscribed by …
No related posts.
Loading...

The only way we are going to stop the persecution of Marijuana users, under the Obama Administration, is to allow ALL Americans to consume and cultivate without ANY taxation, regulation or other interference. All “tax and regulate” models will not destroy the cartels or stop the harassment of law abiding pot smokers. Treat Marijuana like “Beer” and not like “hard alcohol.” To understand how this could be achieved as early as 2009 go to:
NewAgeCitizen
and then click on “MERP Headquarters”
What would the consequences be if Judge Wu just refused to comply with the mandatory minimum? I know little about these things.
@lenghyounarther: “jury nulification anyone? ”
He had his trial already. The jury found him guilty on all counts.
@ MooseOfReason: “So Obama can stand up for retroactive immunity for telecom companies who helped spy on us, but not for Charlie Lynch, who helped people with terminal diseases?”
Not just immunity for telcoms but also for torturers and betrayers of the Geneva Convention.
Remember, to a political class person, spoken words mean absolutely nothing unless they are spoken by your enemy, and only in an election do they actually get used against your enemy. At all other times, if it isn’t written in a Bill somewhere (and many times even if it is) the political class can and most likely will ignore it.
All the political class are puppets. The only “politician” who isn’t a puppet is Ron Paul. Even if I don’t always agree witht he man, he shows no fear in standing up for freedom and the US Constitution… and so far, he’s the only politician who has lived up to his oath of office. We should throw the rest of the bums out.
Dennis Kucinich is a goodman, I disagree with politically. Also there are a few other good congressmen, mostly part of the liberty caucus.
Did you know that the NIXON administration started a program that is still active today called “The Compassionate Investigationala New Drug Program” Where the Federal Govt. grows Marijuana at the University of Mississippi, Certifies it. Put a USDA stamp on it and ships it every 25-30 days to the remaining 5-7 of the 12-25 that are still alive.. back then it was call Medical Marijuana.. 30 years ago
also in 2003 the 2nd Bush administration said that Marijuana had no medical properties.. BUT the same administration that was LYINNG to us. Applie for and was awarded a Patend 6630507 And this was also a Republican admisitration.. But there was two recent bills introduced by a Democrat about Medical Marijuana.. And because it was introduced by a democrat. A majority of the Repbulicans will vote NAY on them.
Free Charley!
When I tell people I believe in “taxing and regulating” I mean that it should be treated like alcohol. You can go out to any store and purchase as much alcohol as you would like. All alcohol purchased has a state or local tax on it, just like tobacco does. I think such a system is sufficient, as the amount of people distilling their own liquor for illegal distribution is negligible.
The better model is the MERP Model which is more of a “beer” Vs. “hard liquor” model. I want people to able to grow Marijuana just as they can now brew beer: NO TAX, NO REGULATION.
For More:
go to:
NewAgeCitizen
and then click on “MERP Headquarters”
the geneva convention applies only to uniformed soldiers it does not apply to terrorests. no more than it applies to a guy who shoots a store clerk in a robbery.
The prosecution would simply appeal the case and the next higher-up Judge would have to take up the case.
Please moonshine is the cleanest & smoothest alcohol.
Agreed. The main stream media from both the left AND the right always made sure to ridicule the LP representative[s] and refuse to talk about the issues. Every time a LP is on a show, they would waste the session with questions like “LP is pro hooker and pro drugs right?” and completely ignore the fact that LP is PRO CONSTITUTION.
Rick Simpson … “Hemp Oil Cures Cancer”
Dr. Robert Melamede … “Cannabinoids kill Cancer Cells”
Dr. Di Marzo … “THC exhibits anti – tumor effects on various Cancer Cell types”
SETH Group “Herbal (THC) compound kills brain Cancer Cells – but not normal brain cells.”
Dr. Guzman … “THC can promote the autophagic death of human and mouse Cancer Cells”
Dr. Mechoulam … “we gave THC oil drops 400 times to children 1 -13 years old with Cancer & prevented vomiting & nausea 100%”
This is silly. It’s disingenuous to say that he was ‘legally’ operating a pot shop when federal law bans such practices.
I’m a supporter of legalizing/taxing the crap out of hippies who smoke weed, but it’s got to be legalized country-wide. You can’t just make it legal in a state any more than you can make rape legal in a state.
The Federal drug laws are unconstitutional and therefore illegal, I also love how you think that pot smoking is analogous to rape.
I love how you read something and think the writer said something different than what he said.
Who said smoking pot is analogous to rape? They’re just two examples of federal laws that state’s can’t legally skirt.
I can’t see how the drug laws are unconstitutional, but if you’re right, then this guy won’t be going to jail anyway. He just needs to get the law thrown out by the court.
the state of California is right to skirt federal drug laws and under the constitution it is the states right to ignore unconstitutional federal laws, the federal drug laws are unconstitutional. oh and by the way the laws regarding rape vary state to state, there are no federal rape laws.
The feds have very many laws on rape. google
federal law rape
to see some. Although it’s true that states have additional laws regarding rape as well. Which laws apply to a rapist depends upon which entity charges them with the crime.
Again, I have no idea what makes you believe that the federal drug laws are unconstitutional. You may be right. But the answer is not to break the law, the answer is to get it removed for its unconstitutionality.
More Mandatory Minimum Laws getting in the way. America law makers have been destroying us.
S. 1082 The FDA Revitalization Act – 2007 Page 7″
“This provision would require those who produce, market or sell marijuana for medical uses to comply with the same rules that pharmaceutical manufacturers are legally bound to follow.”
Prayer is healing too.
hempmuseum org
Some people in order to change laws broke them. Look at Rosa Parks. Sometimes when people in power are acting like fuck heads you have to stand up to them directly and say “No we will not let you do this”
OH and btw, you are a fuck head also.