home

DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 07:51:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

More arrests are expected in San Francisco.

"We're empathetic to the ill and to the sick, however we cannot disregard federal law," said Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Javier Pena. "We have the power to enforce federal drug laws even in areas where it might not be popular."

Twenty people were indicted on federal drug charges in court documents unsealed Thursday, and an arrest warrant has been issued for another. Two others face state drug charges, and more arrests are pending, Ryan said.

< Proof That the Internet Has No Eraser | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts | 56 comments (56 topical)
    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Gee, who would use a pot club to launder money? Seems these people would and did. Of course this could all be made up and the defendants are innocent until proven guilty. I mean we all know that all cops are dirty, corrupt, lying cheaters.... Seems to me medical marijuana advocates would support this type of enforcement to ensure clubs remain controlled. The uncontrolled growth and unregulated sales will only turn public opinion sour. Incidents like this tend to show that law enforcement was right and these clubs will cause more problems than they will help. You know, it's just like the argument that honest cops shouldn't fear being invesitigated, which I hear here all the time.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    these clubs will cause more problems than they will help
    Tell that to the ill. As always, the busts will have no effect on the reefer market, they will just inconvenience some sick people. Empathetic my arse.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#3)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    If it has no impact on the market how will it "inconvenience some sick people"? Clubs which operate outside of the law, are not helping the situation, and should be shut down.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    I know they are only doing their jobs, but I wish they weren't. I wish their efforts were focused elsewhere on violent crime. I know the argument is if they do not enforce it, there is no point in having it as a law, but still this reallys seems like a bad allocation of resources considering the level of violent crime in the US.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    JL, I'm sure this is no surprise, but I disagree. It is important to take care of the quality of life issues as well. In my experience the "nuisiance" crimes, if left unaddressed, foster an environment where more violent crime becomes more pervasive. It's important to address violent crime, but it's also important to create a community where criminals don't feel emboldened.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#6)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    The DEA says its empathetic. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomaswrote in his minority opinion in the Raich case that the: "Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." It's that obvious. Even Clarence Thomas sees it. The USSC reaffirmed the end of limited government with: Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development Unlimited and as yet unimaginable of powers...

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Yeah, I feel so emboldened by the 1/8 oz. I purchased yesterday, I think maybe today I'll go out to snatch purses! Or maybe rob a bank! The patients are inconvenienced by not being able to go to the club they went to yesterday, they have to find a new one. Why the DEA bothers I have no idea, it must suck to got to work everyday for a lost cause. Any problems associated with the state initiatives would be moot if the feds just legalized allready.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Any problems associated with the state initiatives would be moot if the feds just legalized allready.
    Entirely untrue. Google california pot clubs if you want the truth. Every county in California, including Humbolt, S.F and Mendo (Three of the most liberal pot counties) is trying address problems that have nothing to do with the Federal Law.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#50)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Larry, I did not say that you were lying in this thread nor was it my intent to infer that. I said I saw no reason for you to lie, and that is what I meant. The written word loses something in the translation on occasion. And for that other matter you were right you did frame your argument around the point that it's (MJ Enforcement) inconsistent. But I would not characterize it as hugely with all capitals..... Seems like even Arizona is leaning towards lowering criminal exposure. I have no problem with that, I don't support outright legalization for recreational purposes. I'm a registered republican, yes...Living in a blue state, not that either fact has anything to do with this thread.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Ok, Patrick, Have you used mj?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Patrick, anyone on the right Give me a one LOGICAL reason why pot should be illegal at all. And please remain in the realm of reality when crafting an answer. And I ask you, have you ever heard of a person, solely under the influence of pot (as opposed to the countless drunk people who've committed crimes, often violent), who did anything terrible? Now, I'm sure the very rare case exists, but the larger point is...this prohibition is based on ignorance and puritanical prejudice. And, most likely, more than a little influence of the booze and "legitimate" drug comapnies, who wish to retain their share of the buzz market.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    because you keep talking about it like it is heroin. The recreational users on this site are laughing because pot lands right between nicotine and alcohol as far as intoxication, and between powdered sugar and water as far as addiction. Tell me why we shouldn't be mad about our oppression?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#12)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    It seems to me there are two types of clubs; non-profit social service-like types like WAMM and then there's the for-profit ones...apparently like the ones that got taken out. How to seperate them out is the problem. In this case, despite the ostensible good they were performing, they were apparently dirty. Nobody needs to be in close proximity to that.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    SeeEmDee: Dirty how? And they have to give it away to be ok? Explain

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    SeeEmDee, Innocent until proven guilty, no? V2Marty, Right on with the very concise physical description of pot's narcotic qualities. No one on the anti-legal side can offer one LOGICAL reason pot shouldn't be legal. They offer Reefer-Madness kind of responses, forged out of ignorance. It's a waste of resources on the highest order.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Dadler, I've discussed my views on legalization many times in these threads. I think the argument that alcohol and nicotine are legal therefore pot should be too is fallacious. Both of those substances cost society billions of dollars annually (More than the entire federal budget on the war on drugs) Legalizing more intoxicated substances will only increase that cost on society. Besides, I live in a decriminalized state and have said here before that I think that's the right balance. If you want to use illegally, then do it, with the understanding that if you get caught you pay the fine. No one is in prison in the State of California for simple possession of Marijuana. I have been to multiple vehicle accidents involving teenagers and marijuana, I don't track stats like the one you are requesting, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Marty, Yeah, I smoked and even inhaled. I liked getting high as a teenager, but that didn't make it right. I'm sure many here, including probably you, would use responsibly. But unfortunately as with many issues, it's not the responsible people that drive the legislation.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Patrick, It's not fallacious, it's LOGICAL. Prohibition costs us infinitely more, because you're paying for whatever costs you would PLUS all the law enforcement costs. It's nonsense. If you were really operating in the realm of logic and reason, you would call for alcohol's repeal and pot's legalization. Since alcohol is SOOOO physically addicting, while pot is not. You might get bummed if you can't smoke week, you get the DT's if you can't drink. And if there were ANY significant number of crimes committed SOLELY under the influence of marijuana WE WOULD SEE THEM, since the gov't is invested to the tune of billions criminalizing this plant, while statistics cost NOTHING to employ. Respect your job as a cop, respectfully and vehemently disagree with you prejudical and counterproductive support of marijuana prohibition.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Patrick, You are of course on the other side of the fence because the WOD pays your salary. Tell me why guns are legal since irresponsible use of guns causes DEATH.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#18)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Dadler, I agree alcohol is a far more dangerous substance. But that does not make the argument that less dangerous intoxicants should be legalized logical. Prohibition of illicit drugs costs society less than the costs associated with smoking or alcohol individually. Prohibition is not cost prohibitive, legalization is. Legalization of marijuana (Or all drugs, which I believe is the agenda of the majority of marijuana advocates) for recreational use has no benefit to society. There would still need to be regulatory oversight which would still cost money, like ATF and ABC. Who here thinks more government bureaucracy is a good thing. Plus there's still going to be enforcement costs, like with alcohol and nicotine, there are black markets for these regulated substances. So, IMO there will be no cost saving for legalizing marijuana and in fact there will be an increase in associated costs and I also believe use will increase, which will also increase the number of occasions when people "did anything terrible"... Marty, The WOD's does not pay my salary and that's a cop out (Pun intended). When people use that line on me, I know the've lost faith in their argument. My salary is paid by property taxes, and I'll still have my job regardless of what substances are legal or not.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Patrick said
    to multiple vehicle accidents involving teenagers and marijuana
    I noticed you asid involving and not caused by... considering the very high incidence of mj use in teens, and the latent irresponsibility they have while driving, do you think maybe they just crashed while high (as opposed to crashing from being high)? Now I will acknowledge that there is a slight perceptual change while you are using mj, but I have been driving and smoking for 7 years, as have my friends... no accidents that were caused by us while stoned. The driving errors made while stoned (mind you this is blatant red-eyed pasty-mouthed stoned) always amount to driving past a street or waiting for a stopsign to turn green.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Yeah, I smoked and even inhaled. I liked getting high as a teenager, but that didn't make it right.
    Other than pots legal status, what made it wrong? Why is it wrong to smoke pot?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    "And I ask you, have you ever heard of a person, solely under the influence of pot (as opposed to the countless drunk people who've committed crimes, often violent), who did anything terrible?" Of course committing crimes under the influence is not the reason drugs are illegal as you know. But, since you asked, a couple guys in my dorm in college had a fairly successful weekend routine of searching out fresh-faced freshman coeds, getting them high - often for the first time - and then getting in their pants. I would suspect that at least some of these "seductions" crossed the line over to date rape which, last I heard, is a crime and also terrible.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Ok, Patrick, the misdemenor fine for possession doesn't go to some general fund? And maybe you would be the one downsized if they cut the 10% (verrrrrry conservative estimate) of cops who were working on nonviolent drug crimes.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    U.S. Attorney Kevin V. Ryan said agents raided three pot clubs that operated as fronts for marijuana and Ecstasy trafficking
    That makes a lot more sense to me than the money laundering charges. Maybe the money laundering thing is an add-on charge to help ensure a conviction and a big sentence?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Patrick, The cost of prohibition and associated law enforcement costs cannot POSSIBLY be less than legalizing and regulating in the case of pot, since a significant portion of users will be growing their own, and the entire business is based on growing a plant. That is it. No distilling. No cooking. Just watering and pruning. This is the REALITY I mentioned earlier. Criminalizing a simple plant, a plant that is infinitely less addictive and dangerous than the USA's National Drug -- booze -- simply because the image of the pothead makes us uncomfortable (which is really what this is all about, the Reefer Madness mentality hangover), this is nothing but arbitrary discrimination based not on fact and reality but on perception and ignorance. Neither of which do a wise "drug" policy make.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    And if true, those guys are rapists. I will not be held responsible for a rapist's actions. Besides, booze is used for that exact purpose on a regular basis... still legal.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Marty, You must be young or inexperienced aroung general fund budgeting. Fines go to the state and are dispensed from there. I don't know the exact numbers, (Some enterprising researcher can find out) but I think a first offense possession in about $150. which would pay for less than 5 hours of my day if we got the whole fine and not just 3-5% if that. Now the last time I cited someone for MJ (To be fair, I work in adminsitration now) was many years ago, even before medical MJ hit the law books. In fact I never was a big one for misdemeanors treated as infractions and many times took no action. As for your other assertion that fines from drug cases make up 10% of our general fund budget. That's so far from the reality that I don't even know how to address that with you. If it's anything, it's less than 1%.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#28)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Dadler, Look at how it would have to be regulated. Right now, in the City of Ukiah in Mendocino County, the most liberal pot county in the country arguably, they are spending thousands of city dollars trying to figure out ways to address all the issues from the smell to the theft of to the armed robbery for their product. This is one city, in one county in one state. Multiply that times the rest and that's just one reason why I think legalization would cost more.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Ok, I know nothing about fund budgets, what I mean is that law enforcement is partially paid for by fines levied against drug criminals, correct? Would you say that 10% of total investigation time is spent on drugs? So if we stopped investigating them then we would need 10% less cops.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Marty, to be honest, I couldn't break down those numbers w/o more. If your just talking about drug investigations period and not crimes associated with drugs, I'd guestimate that it's less than 1%. Crimes associated with drugs or committed under the influence of any drug, including legal drugs, would be somewhere around 90-95%. BUt really, that's off the top of my head, and I can't vouche for that.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Marty, Also, if you legalized drugs, but then regulated them, there would still be time spent verifying people were in compliance with the regulations. Cigs are legal, but we still spent time investigating people avoiding taxes or selling to minors or minors in possession. Certainly you don't support drugs be available to minors do you?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#32)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Marty, And no, none of my pay comes from drug fines. It all comes from property taxes. Drug fines may fund other things, but my salary comes from property taxes.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    the DOJ study titled U.S. Department of Justice: An Analysis of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories found that nonviolent drug offenders with no previous criminal history constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners. 1%???

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Ok, since i know nothing about who funds you I will assume you are correct. Sorry.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    If distributed and taxed though the same channels as cigs, overhead would not increase too much, i would think.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Marty, That may be in other states or with drugs other than marijuana. In California, no one is in prison in a state facility for simple marijuana possession.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    It shouldn't be about cost, it should be about freedom. The freedom to smoke, eat, drink anything you wish without the threat of arrest or fines.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    V2 - wow, you're all over this one. I didn't even see my post before you already responded to it. Anyway, it is your right to believe or disbelieve as you see fit, but I assure you the story is true. In fact, here's another. I went to Catholic HS. Fr. John tried to seduce my best friend, Jim, who I think was 17 at the time, by gettng him stoned. Fr. John, who previously was pretty well regarded by us, invited Jim over to his apartment one night to "hang out." After a short time there, Fr. J busted out his bong and they got high together. Then Fr. John put the moves on my friend. Now, while Jim may not be the most "manly" guy in the world, he was and is wholly hetero, so Fr. John got rejected. Whether or not a crime was committed I can't say, maybe Patrick or TL would know, but I would certainly put the whole episode in the "terrible" category as Dadler phrased it. I just previewed and see you posted again at 12:28. Patrick nailed it in a previous post. Yes, alcohol is legal and also used in "seduction" (whether legal seductions or not) however there's no logic to say that that justifies other drugs being legal. Regarding the guys in my college dorm, no one holds you responsible for anyone else's actions. And, as I said in repsonse to Dadler's question,"Of course committing crimes under the influence is not the reason drugs are illegal as you know."

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Mj does not lower inhibitions, in fact it rases them. No applicable use as a date rape drug. So you are telling me that they are only illegal so the gov can infringe on my ability to choose what I can do? And dont give me the bs about protecting users from themselves, as I could walk around drinking a bag of crisco and sweet-and-low which would be pretty bad for my health, or even hit myself in the head with a hammer. That is called liberty. Why then, are they illegal?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    I am going to work now, but I will try to follow throughout the day. As you can see this is a topic I care and think quite a bit about. Patrick, although our opinions are different, you do engage a realistic dialog, and I appreciate that.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    There's aperfectly logical reason why pot should be legal since alcohol, a far more harmful dangerous and addictive drug is. It's the simple concept in our criminal jurisprudence that the law should punish behavior in proportion to the harm it causes. Shoplifters don't get life sentences (except occasionally in California and convicted murderers fon't get probation. Alcohol cause far more harm than pot, there's no question about that. But if society has decided that it should be legal to consume it, the criminal prosecution of marijuana smokers creates a HUGE inconsistency in the law in the sense that the priciple of proportionality has gone out the window. Most people I work with in the criminal courts think that it should be decriminalized, including a large number of cops and prosecutors (whose caseloads have gone throught he roof and would rather spend their time prosecuting serious crimes).

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Sorry 'bout the typos in the last post. Hope my point came across

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#43)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    marijuana smokers don't get life in prison either, at worst it's a ticket and fine, which hardly
    creates a HUGE inconsistency in the law in the sense that the priciple of proportionality has gone out the window
    For all intents and purposes simple marijuana possession in California is legal.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    "Mj does not lower inhibitions, in fact it rases them. No applicable use as a date rape drug." Well, it may raise your inhibitions, but to say categorically that it does so for all is kind of a stretch, don't you think? For example, when I used to get high, I lost a lot of sef-determination, if that's the right word. I'd get high and would feel like a vegetable; when someone else suggested doing something or going somewhere I'd usually just nod and follow along like a lost puppy.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Patrick, In Arizona where I practice, it's a felony. No, you won't go to prison for simple possession. But it can wreak havoc with one's employment, student can lose their loans, etc. That is hugely disproportional to allowing people to LEGALLY drink alcohol. Every single domestic violence case I've ever handled has involved alcohol (or meth). I've yet to see a case where a person got violent because they were stoned on pot. Alcohol causes much more harm than pot. Alcohol is legal, pot is not. Guess what? That means the law is inconsistent. More of your law enforcement friends than you think agree with me on this. But, like the politicians, they'd lose their jobs if they spoke the truth.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    You know, I see this as the beginning of the federal government trying to destroy prop 15 altogether. We've seen this same "baby steps" tactic with the war on Roe v. Wade, and now they're going to just try to kill prop 215 with death by 1000 cuts. This is their tried and true tactic because its easy for them to control public outcry by doing it little by little, but the end result will be the same.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    Yes fenria, but they are "empathetic" about it.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    Larry, If I was in Arizona, I might agree. I am not, and I've already publicly stated that I tend to agree with California law being what it is. Cops will lose their jobs in Arizona for supporting marijuana decriminalization? Wow, that's not how I hear it from two cops who left my agency and work in Mesa. They said it's a felony but never charged that way. And what about their 1st Amendment rights? I don't know what to believe now. Certainly they weren't lying, and you'd have no reason to lie, so perhaps a better argument would be it's inconsistant.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    Patrick, Yes, altough a felony it's usually pled down to a misdemeanor IF the prosecutor is being reasonable (depends on which county you're in), and it still causes major problems with employers and federal student loans, not to mention it's a mandatory $750 fine plus an 80% "surcharge" that brings the total for any one who gets popped to $1,350 in fines. And do these cops you mention publicly advocate outright decriminalization? I highly doubt it. I've never heard a cop here PUBLICLY support decriminalization - only "off the record." And "a better argument would be that it's inconsistent"? Did you even read my post? The whole point was that the law is inconsistent. Of course, since you can't refute that argument, you change the subject and imply that I'm lying. You're a republican, no?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    Well, it may raise your inhibitions, but to say categorically that it does so for all is kind of a stretch, don't you think?
    No, I do not think it is at all. Think what happens when you smoke mj, you get lethargic and paranoid. Every date rape drug makes you either unconcious or so inebriated that you cannot or do not want to respond. You are confusing real life with the orgies in Reefer Madness.
    For example, when I used to get high, I lost a lot of sef-determination, if that's the right word. I'd get high and would feel like a vegetable; when someone else suggested doing something or going somewhere I'd usually just nod and follow along like a lost puppy.
    Yes, and what would you have done if someone had groped you? Are you telling me you would have let them? B.S

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#52)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    Geez, marijuana isn't just the gateway drug according to Patrick; marijuana use is the gateway crime to rape and murder. I wonder when my Jekyll-and-Hyde transformation into a violent criminal will begin.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#53)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    Scar, You obviously have a reading comprehension problem or are deliberately misstating my position, but either way you damage your own credibility. Anyone can read this thread and find out for themselves that your statement is crap. Or, as I look at the timing of your post, its quite possibcle your jekyll & hyde transformation is well under way and I suggest you immediately stop smoking.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    No Marty, you are absolutely right, I would not have let someone grope me. But that's not the point. The question posed was: "And I ask you, have you ever heard of a person, solely under the influence of pot (as opposed to the countless drunk people who've committed crimes, often violent), who did anything terrible?" And I gave two examples where the answer is "yes." The rest of your comments really revolve around the definitions of "date rape" and "date rape drug," neither of which I'm an expert on, which is why I didn't say that they were, categorically, date rapes, but rather that I suspect some were. Regardless, pot was the drug employed as the primary enabler in the predatory seductions committed by these two guys. And Fr. John's attempt with my friend. Denial is not just a river in Africa my friend.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#55)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    In fact, here's another. I went to Catholic HS. Fr. John tried to seduce my best friend, Jim, who I think was 17 at the time, by gettng him stoned. Fr. John, who previously was pretty well regarded by us, invited Jim over to his apartment one night to "hang out." After a short time there, Fr. J busted out his bong and they got high together. Then Fr. John put the moves on my friend.
    What have we come to that we see a story like this and nobody even blinks. A priest/teacher at a Catholic High School,smokes pot regurlarly and is trying to seduce boys into homosexual encounters. Why do religious people think that they are more moral than non-religious people. They are just as sick as we are but hiding behind the cloak of religion just makes it seem so hypocritical.

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    No, SUO, The point that I am making is that someone on pot alone would not do anything that they wouldn't do sober. If you refute that you are misinformed or lying. Cocaine, alcohol, GHB, Rohypnol, exstacy... al of these have some use as date rape drugs as they lower your inhibitions. Of course you can commit date rape without a "date rape drug", and I believe that is what happened in both these incidents you speak of (if they are not fabrications), and the MJ was just there, same as you would view the story if it was "and then he gave her a cigarette and touched her" on rereading your earlier post:
    But, since you asked, a couple guys in my dorm in college had a fairly successful weekend routine of searching out fresh-faced freshman coeds, getting them high - often for the first time - and then getting in their pants. I would suspect that at least some of these "seductions" crossed the line over to date rape which, last I heard, is a crime and also terrible.
    It sounds very indefinate, almost like you knew they smoked pot and saw that they were freindly with some girls. Maybe the suspected date rape theory has more to do with your jealosy that some stoners were getting more than your square a**, no?

    Re: DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    remember Chupetin, "Jesus loves the little children, All the children of the world, Red and yellow, black and white, They are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world." and so do priests.

    DEA: SF Can Expect More Pot Busts | 56 comments (56 topical)