home

LA Pot Raids Surpise Local Cops

The DEA busted 11 medical marijuana clubs in Los Angeles yesterday, without telling local authorities of their plan until 30 minutes beforehand.

City spokeswoman Helen Goss said West Hollywood has a "long-standing commitment" to the use of medical marijuana for people suffering from illnesses like HIV and AIDS, and city officials said they were taken by surprise, learning of the raid as it was going on.

California voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which made marijuana available by prescription for medicinal uses.

The feds refuse to recognize the state law, and say the clubs made so much money there had to be a front for "high-tech drug dealing."

This is pot we're talking about, that goes to those whom it medically helps. For some of these patients, being without it is a form of torture.

Don't the feds have better things to do with their time?

< Supreme Court Hears Texas Death Case | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Nixon once commissioned a study of... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    ...marijuana and was so distressed at the results he had it suppressed. See HERE:

    In 1972, a Congressionally created commission called the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, whose members were appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, completed one of the most comprehensive reviews ever undertaken regarding marijuana and public policy.   Their report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," proclaimed that "from what is now known about the effects of marihuana, its use at the present level does not constitute a major threat to public health," and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use.
    Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies regarding marijuana's health impacts.  None of these have revealed any findings dramatically different from those described by Nixon's 1972 Commission.

    The government has known since prior to outlawing it that marijuana was beneficial. The medical profession back then protested making it illegal because it was so helpful in so many cases.

    This "surge" in enforcing fed law in California is no different than their usual motivation... gaining large sums of money in forfeitures and "cracking the whip" to remind Ca. that it, too, is under the thumb of the bush maladministration

    no, they don't (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:18:04 AM EST
    how else would the DEA justify its existence? truly, an "black hole" agency.

    I guess there wil be (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:06:54 AM EST
    a few clubs opening without 'proper licensing' soon in LA - maybe as delivery services?

    Ummm.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    those clubs are already open, and have been for decades.  They will just see an increase in volume.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:20:07 PM EST
    I should have said 'more' clubs, of the 'organized' variety....

    Parent
    As usual it's not so simple... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 08:33:12 AM EST
    http://www.dailynews.com/ci_5027988

       Personally, I believe marijuana use should be legalized. It's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. However, let's not pretend to  be naive.

        It is common knowledge that the medical marijuana initiative is being abused on a grand scale. My thinking that marijuana should be legalized does not make me blind to the fact that many of these "clubs" are in fact commercial enterprizes seeking to make personal profits by selling marijuana to just about anyone who wants it and not compassion driven organizations seeking to comfort the afflicted.

       Despite the fact I believe that it should be permissible to sell marijauna to adults for recreational purposes, I have little sympathy for people who complain about being targeted  for doing so when it is against the law.

       I agree the DEA should have other priorities but like everyone else it will pick the low hanging fruit. Make yourself easy to bust and you'll get busted even if more dangerous people evade the law.

      The real shame is that the flagrant abuses will make it more difficult to establish legitmate means for providing marijuana to those seriosly ill people who really do need it.

       

    Does (none / 0) (#4)
    by aw on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 09:08:35 AM EST
    the DEA makes any distinction between need and abuse?

    Back in 2002:

    The Drug Enforcement Administration believes in starting at the top. By shutting down two of the most aboveboard and righteous of California's medical marijuana operations, the feds can perhaps instill such fear that they free themselves from chasing the shaky and the small-fry. Last October they shuttered the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center, so respected that the city of West Hollywood co-signed its mortgage and so open that it allowed Congress's General Accounting Office in for a look.
    ...
    WAMM board member and a guest in the house, Suzanne Pfeil, described the raid to a tele-press conference. She said she awoke sometime after 7:00 a.m. to find five agents in her bedroom pointing rifles at her. They told her to get out of bed; she told them as a polio patient and paraplegic she could not. Finally she scrambled up on her crutches, her wheelchair being elsewhere, and was handcuffed.

    link

    Parent
    anyone notice ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    that decon's article had zero facts, just unsubstantiated complaints by cops and the dea.

    The $$ quote:

    "It's mind-boggling that the state has allowed them to mushroom," Bratton said. "The state should be ashamed of itself for setting up a process so that this gateway drug is allowed to proliferate
    that's just plain lying, pot is not a gateway drug, that's just the standard disproven propaganda they always hand out.

    Parent
    again devoid of thjought... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:37:15 PM EST
      And your "facts" refuting the common knowledge that many of these clubs are abusing the sympathy aroused by the idea of seriously ill people neddlessly suffering is?

       I agree the "gateway" argument is silly but it's not "a lie."  Most people do in fact try   marijuana  prior to trying "hard" drugs. Of course, they also tried alcohol, not to mention milk and soda too.

       I'd argue not that the obvious observation that people very often use marijuana prior to other more dangerous drugs is untrue (because it's not),  but that that fact is actually a good reason for making marijuana legal. Precisely because marijuana is illegal it must be purchaserd illicitly and that often puts folk in direct contact with people who can and will also provide harder stuff and it probably increases the likelihood someone might graduate to more dangerous substances.

    Parent

    once again notice ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    ... that there are no facts contained in a decon post.

    Except for your allegations where are your facts for 'common knowledge?'

    I agree the "gateway" argument is silly but it's not "a lie."
    If you repeat something over andd over that you know to be untrue it is a lie.

    Precisely because marijuana is illegal it must be purchaserd illicitly and that often puts folk in direct contact with people who can and will also provide harder stuff
    How often? What percentage of pot dealers also deal other drugs? Once again you are assuming things that you have no basis for.

    In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana--often before they are of legal age.
    [...]
    But there is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

    next time show work.

    Parent

    common knowledge? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    Of course it's 'common knowledge'. It used to be 'common knowledge' that the earth if flat too. Emphasis on 'common'.

    Parent
    Facts (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    When people ask for facts 9 times out of 10 they don't have an argument, they just are being obtuse.

    Decon was making a point about legalizing Marijauna.

    He said


    Precisely because marijuana is illegal it must be purchaserd illicitly and that often puts folk in direct contact with people who can and will also provide harder stuff.

    In philosophy its called a rhetorical argument. It is set up to make a point and persuade your interlocutor to come on over to your way of thinking. It doesn't require facts, but it does requirre that your interlocutor share your interest in argument and discussion.

    Your response:

    How often? What percentage of pot dealers also deal other drugs? Once again you are assuming things that you have no basis for.

    Is obtuse becuase you refuse to discuss with Decon the possibility that people who are looking for pot often deal in the underworld where ther are unsavory characters who might introduce them to other drugs. This possibility is actually quite reasonable to most people. You might cite your facts that demonstrate that his assumption is ridiculous, therefore you won't partake in his rhetorical example. But to ask him for facts when it appears he is making a reasonable assumption is obtuse, no way around it.

    Why do I think it is reasonable? I will give this anecdote. I'v esmoked my share of pot, even recently, but I know longer look to purchase it. When I was buying it, I bought it from a friend I trusted. I'm a psychedelic guy and I've tried some shrooms and some acid, not a lot, but a little. I was never one who wanted to try Coke or Heroine, though. Well, my pot guy, my friend, would have me over and get me high on his latest procurements, and usually I would leave his apartment with a quater ounce and baked off my ass. On two occassions, while in some of the latest hydroponic induced haze, he offerred me a little extra. Once we smoked some crack and another time some opium. Neither I'll ever have again and niether would I have tried if I hadn't got it from my dealer/friend.

    Parent

    Now do you see why? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    Peaches I have to disagree on this one.

    decon made a statement. You can call it a 'rhetorical argument'  but I call it making a statement of fact with no support. To engage in a scientific debate one must actually be able to present some proof other than 'everyone knows.'

    and the response to my facts was

    do you not comprehend  how asinine you appear? I don't tknow the percetage of all people who deal marijuana who also deal other drugs, but only a complete and utter moron would not know that it is a significant percentage.
    So instead of actual facts he resorts to name calling as his method of rebuttal.

    This isn't debate class, it's science.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 08:00:50 AM EST
    You do science for work, and I am sure you are good at what you do, but actually, people come to TL to debate.

    If you can't make that distinction, you will end up looking asinine.

    Parent

    What good is a fact-free debate? (none / 0) (#33)
    by aw on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 08:51:29 AM EST
    Well, some of us (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    come here looking for debate anyway. Then there are others... (see rating of above comment)

    There are a few, who must have something to say in order to weigh in on every discussion here regardless of substance, providing the majority of comments here at TL. As Jeralyn advised on an open Thread a week ago, if you are posting more than 20 comments a day, start your own blog. TThese few do give the impression that TL is not a place to discuss politics or issues, but rather to divide the world up into black and white terms and try to discover who is friend or foe. So, I agree this is far from a debate class. Regardless, politics is not science, its debate and it requires skill in the art of rhetorical persuasion much more than it requires facts, no disrespect to facts intended. It's best to bone up on those skills. ppj, God love him, provides easy practice for liberals to do this. Aside from looking childish and asinine, You lose out on that opportunity if all you do is rate his comments a zero or one or use your patented OFF-TOPIC TROLL POST.

    Its all about debate and persuasion and has nothing to do with proving you are right or your interlocutor is wrong.  

    Parent

    I get it (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by aw on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:20:19 AM EST
    Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes? is good debating form.

    Parent
    No, you don't (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    Get it And YOU never will.

    I've have a little more faith that your sidekick does, though. He has the ability to debate and is capable of thinking. He's demonstrated that in the past. You've never shown the ability.

    Parent

    I would agree with Peaches here that (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:49:21 AM EST
    this is far from a debate class. Regardless, politics is not science, its debate and it requires skill in the art of rhetorical persuasion

    however, arguments made without factual support soon crumble under close inspection, and it takes little 'rhetorical persuasion' to help that process along.

    Some of the difficulties with debating those who try to argue without factual support though is the constantly shifting goal posts they set up and their use of insinuating subtext and unspoken layered messages in many of their comments rather than clearly stating what is on their minds and what their goals are that makes debate and discussion with them nearly pointless.

    These are tactics the right has used for years with great success, to the point that herding them over the cliff is, IMO, the only reasonable thing left to be done with them, rather than granting them their wish that such idiocy is a "point of view as valid as any other" and should be debated as such.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    they often resort to slinging insults when they are disagreed with, providing even less reason to 'debate' them.

    Parent
    It was wishful thinking, (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 10:02:38 AM EST
    but I was hoping you would do better than that.

    Its pretty simple. Decon was making an argument for legalizing Marijauna. He was calling the Gateway drug idea pretty silly. However, he said you could turn this argument on its head by saying, yes a marijauna user is exposed to harder drugs precisely because it is illegal. If it was legal this would not be the case. But instead of getting his point, you and Sailor start asking for facts and citations.

    Decon made an effective manuever for arguing for the legalization of Marijuana. However, you missed it because you don't like how Decon has insulted your thinking in the past. Its kind of hard to avoid, but I don't think it has helped that Decon does point out all of your shortcomings in thinking. He doesn't realize he is dealing with a very sensitive group with little self-esteem. But, I'd advise that you think of him as a coach-sort of like Bobby Knight. He's getting on you, but he wants you to learn. He expects more from you, because you are liberal and liberals see shades of gray, not black and white. Liberals are not out to prove anything. Eventually, with some hard work, you just might make Decon proud. However, I'm not placing any bets.

    That you wish to push viewpoints like his over the cliff will only do harm to viewpoints you endorse.  

    Parent

    Another annoyance with 'debating' (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 10:09:19 AM EST
    them is the often used tactic of missing points, deliberately sometimes.

    Parent
    So now I'm officially a (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    "Them"

    One of "those" guys. You're either with Edger or your against him.

    I don't want to debate you Edger. I want you to stop monopolizing TL. I don't want to silence you. AW and you should come in smaller doses like the rest of us. We should be free to come here to TL and read a whole host of opinions without your constant snarky, petty and humorless remarks. I actually want to read well-thought responses to ppj, not flippant insults (yes, you are as capable, and even more so, of insulting people you disagree with as anyone). Humor actually can go a long way. One of my favorite posters was Dark Avenger, until he discovered the ranking system.

    I wish Colin would give a breakdown of posts at TL since TL moved to Scoop. I'd be willing to bet that you have posted greater than 10% of all comments. In fact I would not doubt if Edger, AW and Bill have generated as much as 20% of the comments. IF he does and I am way off, I'll take back this criticism.

    You guys are as entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else here, but you have no right to monopoloize the discussions and divide up the commenters into us and them.

    For TL's sake, I wish Jeralyn could do something about it.

    Parent

    Unwarranted assumptions (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 10:43:14 AM EST
    are another childish tactic, similar to and on about the same level as argument made without factual support, not usually worthy of response, as they are also strawmen and a strong indicator of lack of honesty.

    Parent
    Unwarrented? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    There's only one child here, Edger.

    Count 'em up.

    I'd also be interested in a breakdown of average number of comments a day. I can think of only three people here who would come close to averaging over 20 per day since the move to scoop. The other two are close, but you surely meet that threshold. Go ahead Edger, Count 'em up. Nothing unwarrented about it

    For the sake of ending this discussion for the benefit of TL, I'm done for the day. I don't have your stamina.

    Parent

    I for one (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    am sorry to see your insult slinging lately, Peaches. We used to have very good discussions, you and I. Now, though, instead it appears that you want only to do what you have accused me of: limit discussion, support dishonest tactics, and censor things you don't want to hear.

    If Jeralyn wants me to leave or comment less often, she would hear no argument from me. It would take her only one request.

    Parent

    That's funny (none / 0) (#50)
    by aw on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    I thought a blog that generates traffic and discussion was desirable.

    Parent
    I did too. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    It think it is, for most people.

    Parent
    Abundance (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    Think abundance Peaches, scarcity is a poor model. As far as protecting Jeralyn from commenters that you think monopolize TL, I think that she can take care of herself.

    It seems that your intent is fueled by bitterness rather than compassion.  

    Parent

    Yeah, I'm leaning toward 'them' (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    don't think it has helped that Decon does point out all of your shortcomings in thinking. He doesn't realize he is dealing with a very sensitive group with little self-esteem. But, I'd advise that you think of him as a coach-sort of like Bobby Knight. He's getting on you, but he wants you to learn. He expects more from you, because you are liberal and liberals see shades of gray, not black and white. Liberals are not out to prove anything. Eventually, with some hard work, you just might make Decon proud.

    To think that decon has any ability to debate or right to insult others (which thru some bizarre process you think calling folks morons and worse is pointing out their 'shortcomings') or is in anyway attempting to 'teach' is ludicrous. decon hasn't been able to supply a single fact to back up the groundless assertions.

    That's not debate and it's not teaching, it's just noise. If one cares to sway another then one should back up opinions with facts.

    Then peaches contradicts himself :
     

    you are liberal and liberals see shades of gray, not black and white.
    follwed a few lines later by:
    One of "those" guys. You're either with Edger or your against him.

    It's hard to debate someone who has mutually excusive statements.

    ]BTW, you could always skip over the commenters you don't care for, it's faster and easier than changing the channel.

    Parent

    Your debating skills (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    leave quite a bit to be desired. Thats not even good science, much less qualify as debate.

    It is the work of a fool, or moron or whatever other term Decon insulted you with.

    You are being very dense. Its no fun watching it. I know all the people who will come to your defense because after all, you've proven yourself adept at insulting our favorite villain, ppj, so you must be a good guy. One of 'us" not "them". So, you can get over my little insult as quickly as you get over Decons.

    Who gives a crap about insults. Call me whatever you want. You know what I know it. I'll say it for you, I'm bitter, I'm obtuse, I'm off-topic, I'm trolling, but you know what, I have the ability to think my way through an argument with liberals and conservatives. Gabriel can outthink almost everyone of you when he's completely crashed from work and law school. For some reason that worries me. I know I got better things to worry about, but still it bothers me for some inexplicable reason.

    Read over your work and do over-completely.

    As for now, I can only in good conscience give you an incomplete.

    Parent

    so....... (none / 0) (#63)
    by peacrevol on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    would you call your pot guy/friend an unsavory character who will get you involved in other drugs or a generous friend who hooked you up on occasion?

    the argument about illicit sales doesnt hold water b/c if it werent illegal, the sales wouldnt be illicit and from any of these "unsavory characters".


    Parent

    Peace, (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:39:48 PM EST
    My Friend is my friend, who has since done a done time for drug related offenses, but is now out of that line of work, living  free and doing legal business in Mexico. We were young and as youngsters are prone to do, we made some foolish decisions.

    As far as your other question, you have some catching up to do. iow, read some more comments, particularly btw Decon and Kdog. You've missed the point. (don't feel bad, you weren't alone)

    Parent

    do you not comprehend ..... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 05:15:28 PM EST
     how asinine you appear? I don't tknow the percetage of all people who deal marijuana who also deal other drugs, but only a complete and utter moron would not know that it is a significant percentage.

       If you would ever THINK you would realize you are about to write something foolish before you do it. Neither I nor anyonm else knows the number of people who deal anything so obviously we cannot "know" the percentages that exist, but since we do know that MANY people are prosecuted frequently for dealing both marijuana and other drugs we know the phenomenon exists at a significant level.

       It also takes nothing more than the application of a smidgen of common sense to understand that some percentage of people who seek to purchase marijuana will ultimately purchase some other drug as well simply because of the immediate opportunity to do so when they likely would not if they had to make the premeditated decision to seek an entirely new source of supply.

      That you are evidently proud of having no common sense is well documented by now.
    I get the point-- you will disagree with anything I say without regard for how ludicrous it makes you appear simply because I upset you by challenging your closed mind and challenging you to think about something, anything.

      That you'd rather play the fool than accept anything I say is your choice. I have no illusion that i or anyone else  can comple you to think. My responses to you are merely for the benefit of others who are noit afraid to think for themselves.

       

    Parent

    Wha...? (none / 0) (#23)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    I agree the "gateway" argument is silly but it's not "a lie."

    ...and why not?

    If I state that the moon is made of green cheese, that's definitely silly. Is it a lie? Depends on the context. If I'm speaking to someone who knows otherwise, then I'm being facetious, and no, I suppose it isn't. However, if I'm speaking to a four-year-old, then yes, it's a lie.

    Your article was not a joke. It was a lie.

    Parent

    decon...................... (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:37:12 AM EST
    most heroin addicts tried snickers bars, before they went on to heroin. so, using your logic, snickers bars should be outlawed, because they are clearly a "gateway" to heroin addiction.

    in fact, i'm willing to bet money most heroin addicts watched professional football, before becoming heroin addicts..................

    do you detect a pattern here?

    Parent

    missed point (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 06:51:06 AM EST
     As I stated in my post the "gateway argument is silly in that is implies an inherent causal effect between marijuana use and harder drug use. I pointed out that most people use alcohol and soda before hard drugs too.

      Resognizing that does not require one to be too stupid to recognize that other factors surrounding marijuana besides its psychoactive and physical properties create circustances where some  people who do purrchase marijuana become more likely to eventually try other drugs. these are environmental factors and the most obvious and undeniable is the nature of the distribution system. requiring marijuana ro be distributed through  illegal networks does OBVIOUSLY create an environment where people purchasing marijuana will be exposed to other drugs than if it was sold legally.

      The inability of some of you to understand the simplest things is simply mind boggling. That you inisist upon being belligerently proud of your total inability to reason is simply sad.

    Parent

    citations? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#47)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    So, basically, you're saying that some people have a predilection to use any mind-altering substance they can get their hands on. This is in line with the "alcoholics are born, not made" theory that I generally agree with.

    However, this pretty much undoes your argument, because if marijuana weren't available then these people would simply go straight to heroin, right? And why is alcohol legal to sell even though everyone knows damn well that a decent percentage of the population has an inborn tendency towards complete addiction?

    (And why do none of the potheads I know shoot up?)

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#52)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:41:02 PM EST
      That's not even close to what I said and I cannot fathom how anyone could come to that conclusion from what i have written.

       I don't think anyone has a predilection to decide to USE anything. I do think some people probably have a predilection to develop a problem after simply making the choice to try something. Most people can and do use things like alcohol and marijuana in doses and at frequencies that are relatively harmless. Indeed a great many people can and do use hard drugs such opiates and cocaine only to a degree where it does not particularly damage their health or social and financial abilities.

       Of course, there are many who will develop problems with all of these substances (not to mention people who develop problems with other things such as gambling, etc.) Indeed I would posit that there exist a large number of people who would likely develop problems with alcohol, drugs or whatever if they ever began to partake but for whatever reason simply chose never to try them.

       How you possibly could interpret my remarks to suggest that if things  such as marijuana and alcohol did not exist people would go straight to heroin is beyond me. Nothing I said could possibly be  construed as suggesting anything close to that.

       Peaches appears to be the only willing to post who understands what I said. How many of the others are simply incapable of understanding very simple and straightforward arguments and how many are simply ferigning abject foolishness to incite a fight I cannot say.

     

    Parent

    what does the DEA care (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 09:26:20 AM EST
    about people.

    They have established beyond any doubt that they care nothing about people in chronic pain. If they aren't outright hostile.

    It isn't just marijuana clubs they bust (profit making or no) they also bust pain clinics. People die when they do.

    Patients are left scrambling to find something -- ANYTHING -- to stave off ... well. I know my friend (broken back) certainly thought of it when her pain clinic was shut down without notice and at least one man did commit suicide.

    They claim no doctors will be intimidated by these raids. That legitimate pain patients will be able to get medication. I am not sure if they actually believe any human over 5 is stupid enough buy that.

    It is hard as all get out to get relief for migraines, and thats not really chronic, just recurring. If doctors DO perscribe meds, sometimes pharmacies won't fill them. "sorry, were out"

    It isn't just marijuana that should be legalized, LEGAL PAIN MEDS should be legalized.

    no (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    No,  it doesn't. 21 U.S.C. § 841 is the law of the land and it makes no distinction between sales for medicinal or recreational purposes (although § 841 (b)(4) does make distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration a misdemeanor).

      However, the widespread and well known existence of abuses certainly emboldens the DEA to go after whomever it chooses. The California system is a bad one and it makes it easier for the DEA to portray the "industry" generally as an artificial construct intende3d to evade the law.

       In Federal Court, the existence of state laws contradictory to federal law is arguably irrelevant unless one can use the state law to make the claim that the act was done without knowledge of or intent to violate the federal law. That's going to be a difficult theory to get past a judge with something related to selling marijuana where the federal prohibition is common knowledge. In some complex regulatory offense that theory is far more likely to fly than trying to convince a judge that the defendant has a reasonable argument as to mens rea based on the state law.

       Short of simply legalizing marijuana and regulating it in the manner of alcohol, the practical solution is to get Congress to reschedule marijuana to Schedule II and have it legally prescribed by physicians and dispensed by licensed pharmacists rather than these "clubs" with huge incentive (both profit and political) to shall we say cut corners.

       A sole product private dispensary is simply a bad model for this. Methadone clinics are another example of why this is a bad method. establishing enterprises that rely solely on the sale of one product is bound to cause them to seek to increase sales with less regard for all other considerations.

    marijuana clubs (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 03:10:17 PM EST
    Marinol is a schedule 2 drug which has active THC and is often helpful in pain and nausea; perhaps if the only way one could join a marijuana club would be if one failed a documented full dose trial of marinol then the marijuana clubs would be more deserving of sympathy.

    Marinol. (none / 0) (#12)
    by kindness on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    What a joke.  The classic patient to use this is a Chemotherapy/cancer patient or an AIDS patient.  Both have low appetites and are constantly nauseous.  Not uncommonly, patients who actually took Marinol ended up throwing up the pill (they are very expensive too).  Lotta good that does them.  Plus, it's difficult to regulate the dosage with marinol.  With marijuana, you just take another breath.

    Previously, the DEA only raided clubs that the city fathers asked them to get rid of.  This is a new step for them.  Unfortunately, with this approach, it'll only be a matter of time before a patient or a DEA Agent gets shot & killed.  And all this over pot....

    I have a card.  My wifes a surviving breast cancer patient.  Don't give me the Marinol bs.

    Parent

    Cost analysis..... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    How much more does it cost to produce a dose of marinol compared to a dose of the natural, out of the dirt variety?

    I know, I know....god forbid someone gets a buzz.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    I think a lot more people and authorities would support Med MJ if there weren't so many other folks focused on "gaming the system" and thereby causing so many of these types of articles to be written:

    While many doctors and medical marijuana dispensary operators follow the letter of the law in how much marijuana they can grow and dispense to patients, others have interpreted the law in much broader terms and administer the weed liberally.

    Ultimately, doctors are the ones who make the decision whether medical marijuana is a fitting drug for any illness.

    Local teens reportedly have found it easy to obtain the medical marijuana identification cards and use the drug recreationally.

    I know, I know, they wouldn't have to "game the system" if the system wasn't broken to start with, etc., blah, blah, blah.

    Hey there (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:28:24 PM EST
    I hope you are well SUO.  I see no difference in kids gaming that system than doing the same with prescription drugs, i.e. hillbilly heroin.

    Truth be told, I would be far more relieved if my kid told me he was bonging instead of drinking or on oxycontin.

    But then again, i think it should be legalized so my view is admittedly tainted.

    How is biz?  We crapped out the last 3 months of the year but picked up fine this month. Was starting to worry for a bit there!

    Parent

    JL (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    I was referring more to the owner of the "copier store" than the kids when I said "gaming the system" but I certainly agree with your point.

    Biz is somewhat up, it's been a good month so far and last quarter was decent as well.

    I've seen how quickly things can go away, and how quickly unexpected expenses can hit, so I try to be happy with what we've got going on and try not to take anything for granted.

    Glad you've picked up!

    Parent

    suo.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 05:29:53 PM EST
    I think you hit mail instead of link...but I got there.

    I'd hope people would understand that the "wellness center" in the article was no such thing.  Here in NY where there is no medical use permitted we have video store fronts, deli fronts, dry cleaner fronts...you name it.  That's all that "wellness center" was, a front.  Shouldn't change how they feel about legit medical use and distribution, imo.  

    Parent

    Prohibition leads to front businesses? (none / 0) (#24)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 06:03:30 PM EST
    Gee whiz, if only we'd known this sooner. Now let's all hop into a giant black ford, we've got some guys in fedoras to catch!

    Parent
    You're kidding right? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    I think a lot more people and authorities would support Med MJ if there weren't so many other folks focused on "gaming the system"
    You cite a shopping rag as a source? This isn't a newspaper, it's a yellowsheet put out for coupons and using stenography instead of reporting.

    Sheesh, try actual science, it contains facts.

    Parent

    Hey, Sailor, (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 08:51:30 PM EST
    You cite a shopping rag as a source? This isn't a newspaper, it's a yellowsheet put out for coupons and using stenography instead of reporting.
    That's my hometown shopping rag you're disparaging! And it's free to boot, thank you very much! Can't really argue with the rest of what you said though...

    Parent
    I've also (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 06:53:51 PM EST
    seen a recent example of a 20 y/o gaming the system. He got the Rx from some MD. I'd like to find the MD and confront him.

    But this is not reason enought to keep it illegal. I, like others, use it for recreational purposes. But it should be available to anyone as an herbal remedy. I do not agree with Schedule II. The drug does not fit into that category of potential for abuse. The other lie about MJ is that it is a hallucinogen. I wish.

    re the DEA officers (none / 0) (#29)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:01:24 PM EST
    I have a question.

    Isn't what the DEA did something that Californians could and should consider a crime, although, by reasons of the federal constitution, they can't successfully criminalize it?

    There are things that some people do that amount to crimes, but aren't obviously criminal.  And, when they do, some people find some ways to inform the crooks of their evil deeds.

    So, in this case, perhaps, if it is morally wrong for the DEA to have done these things, why not put up a website and tell the public who did what?
    Pictures would be nice, too, but of course, no threats of harm or malice.  And, I'd include the name of the judge or judges who approved the warrants and the officers who testified to get the warrants.

    I don't now have time for this--but some of you might now, or, I might later.

    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    Absent any hard numbers from rigorous analysis, I would posit that many coke, meth, heroin, crack, etc., dealers would also be willing and able to sell you pot as well, but probably not liquor, soda, and snicker bars.

    Whether that makes pot a "gateway" drug or not I'll leave up to you.

    Perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    it's prohibition that is in fact the "gateway". A gateway to the black market underworld where someone is always willing to sell you anything illegal and in demand.

    If lettuce was prohibited...the guy who sells you coke would probably be willing and able to sell you black market lettuce.

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    Maybe so, but probably only if the customer was already going there for coke.

    I can't see my wife going anywhere near a coke and lettuce dealer's house, she'd do her grocery shopping at a lettuce-dealer's house. Probably be nice if the lettuce-dealer did nails and eyebrows as well...

    iow, being involved in black-market lettuce probably wouldn't often lead one to coke. I'm not sure I can say the same for pot.

    Parent

    but... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:11:44 PM EST
     ... if snickers WERE ILLEGAL the likelihood would be much increased. (on the other hand, at least back when, there were  a few candy stores that dispensed other treats)

      Kdog gets the point too. It's not the marijuana per se bit where it is often found. the point is letting people just go the liquor store or whatever would verylikely REDUCE the number of people who first try marijuana then something harder. Is that really so hard to get?

    I get it.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    and I agree that the "gateway" theory is in fact an argument for legalization...not continued prohibition.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    It's not the marijuana per se [but] where it is often found.

    Illegal drugs are often found together.

    Parent

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    not because they are all drugs, per se, but because they are all illegal.

    For example, my illegal bookie can probably point me in the direction of where to get an illegal gun, an illegal hooker, or an illegal drug.

    Parent

    Kdog (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    Per my preceding comment, I think it may well be because they are all drugs.

    If pot were legal, do you think that there would be no social interaction, no "Hey, come on over and we'll get a buzz on." between those who only buy legal pot and those who buy legal pot and illegal drugs?

    Just about anybody can grow the stuff, do you think it'll only be sold in liquor stores if legalized? iow, no one would grow and/or sell legal pot and also sell illegal drugs?

    Parent

    Thoughts.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    I agree there is some social interaction....when I go to parties legal alcohol and illegal reefer are prevalent, for example.

    As for the growing, it's not as easy as you'd think to grow good quality...speaking for me I'd go to the store.  For safety reasons as well...why mess with a guy selling homegrown pot and illegal coke and risk getting caught up in a bust when you can get the pot from the liquor store?  

    Here in NY there are bars knows as "coke bars", where the bartender or a regular is dealing coke out of a legal alcohol establishment.  I suppose it's possible a legal reefer distributor would sell illegal stuff...but judging by the expected customer base it would probably be hallucinogens if anything...not coke or heroin.

    Thank you as well...always enjoy commenting with you, it forces me to question my views, always a good thing:)

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    In case it's not clear, I'm not arguing that it's the chicken or the egg here - ie., whether or not it's a gateway drug or not, or, if it is, whether or not it's only a "gateway," per se, due to its illegality.

    Personally, I think, because it's a drug, it'll probably always be grouped together in "society's" conscious with other drugs, regardless of it's legality.

    iow, I'm not convinced that, in general, even if pot - a "drug" in our conscious - were legalized, that the progression among many from pot to harder drugs would be lessened.

    Parent

    Thats where we differ.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    I think the opposite...if reefer were legal, the gateway to the black market underworld is closed.

    Assuming there is validity to the gateway theory in the first place, of course...I'm not sure there is.

    Parent

    Regardless of gateway or not (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    fwiw, I don't think legalizing pot would increase harder drug use significantly.

    otoh, I don't think it would decrease harder drug use either.

    Parent

    No argument there.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    One thing I'm sure of is people are gonna do what substances they wanna do regardless of the legality of the substance.

    I don't even think reefer use would increase significantly if it was legalized.  Everybody who likes reefer is already using it, everybody who doesn't isn't gonna start cuz its legal.

    Parent

    Interesting discussion Kdog (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    Thanks.

    I hadn't really thought through the whole "gateway to harder drugs" theory.

    I feel like I learned something today - or, at least, figured something out...

    Parent

    Legal v. illegal (none / 0) (#79)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:54:06 PM EST
    Marijuana shown not addictive, not gateway

    Claims that cannabis produces addiction or dependence lead one to expect that many experienced users would report Pattern 2--escalation of use over time. But this pattern was reported by only 6% in both cities, which means that 94% of respondents had overall career use patterns that did not entail escalation across careers

    [...]

    The "separation of markets," in which lawfully regulated cannabis distribution reduces the likelihood that people seeking cannabis will be drawn into deviant subcultures where "hard drugs" also are sold is one public health objective of Dutch decriminalization.



    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    now that you see the Dutch ascribe to my theory, are you going to whine about them too?

    Parent
    Dude (none / 0) (#71)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:03:29 AM EST
    Not all drugs are interchangeable. Jesus. Nobody has ever said "Hey man, you know if anyone's got shrooms? No? But can you hook me up with some meth and crack? Well, good enough, then!"

    You seem to have the naive viewpoint that all drug users are strung-out junkies who end up dead in the gutter. (In other words, the "gateway drug" theory. "Just ONE PUFF of marihuana...") If 80 million people turn up dead, I'll concede the point.  But I submit to you that there are quite a few people who, believe it or not, enjoy pot but would not shoot up heroin even if "the pusher" offered it for free. I know, I know; a drug is a drug and a high is a high, et cetera! What on earth  could be going on here?

    Ugh.

    Parent

    Dude (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    Ugh.

    Parent
    Another thing ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:19:34 PM EST
     that, in my view, probably increases the number of people who progress from marijuana to harder stuff is the absurd propaganda which greatly exaggerates both the "high" and the dangers of marijuana.

      People who try marijuana and find it is not near as consciousness changing as they were led to believe and also detect no side effects on theie health are probably more prone to assume the horror stories about other drugs are likewise embellished and feel less fearful to try them.

    That's the thing (none / 0) (#58)
    by aw on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    that bothered me when my son was in school, absorbing the anti-drug programming, that the kids who find out that they're lying about the dangers of marijuana will assume they're lying about the dangers of everything else.

    Parent
    Don't get me started... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    on DARE and the like.  Those bastards had me thinking my older brother was gonna die when I found a pack of papers in his room as a child.

    Parent
    DARE told me (none / 0) (#72)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:06:19 AM EST
    That rat poison is pure cocaine and that's why you shouldn't ever do cocaine. I asked the cop why people wouldn't just buy the rat poison and I forget what he said but I went home and found out that rat poison is fluoride. And that was pretty much it for me.

    Parent
    That is to say (none / 0) (#73)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:09:20 AM EST
    Not that I'd ever touch the stuff, mind you, just that I knew I was being lied to. And the rest of the propaganda was already hopelessly out-of-touch. And so the overall effect became more pathetic than anything else. I'd simply say that it had no effect on me whatsoever.

    Parent
    That's one (none / 0) (#74)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    of the most irresponsible things I ever heard and far worse than simply exaggerating the dangers of a given substance. If some kid a little less curious than you had just gone, "wow, incredibly cheap cocaine at the gorocery store," and snorted up some rat poison he'd be directly responsile-- at least morally.

    Parent
    Just to clarify.. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    I'd like to see, from Peaches and his attorney, some documentation to back up the unassailable "common knowledge" argument pertaining to widespread "abuse". Are we claiming that that these clubs ever making any profit at all, in itself, constitutes abuse? How much profit, and, to what use is it put?

    Also, to state unequivocably that anyone who knowingly breaks the law,(any law?), even, presumably, those with a debilitating illness seeking some relief, are worthy of no sympathy, is, IMO, a kind of puritism that shades all-to-easily into moral cowardice. While we're a nation of laws, the nation itself and alot of what we value about it wouldnt exist if no one had ever broken the law.

    Maybe they're (none / 0) (#77)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:58:48 AM EST
    confusing "common knowledge" with "conventional wisdom."

    Parent
    re (none / 0) (#81)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:42:54 AM EST
      I'm not even going to waste time with the soll denial of the abuses.

    You8 also need to learn to read nowhere did i unequivocally stater yhat anyone who breaks any law is wortyhy of no sypmathy.

      Here's a thought if you are simply compleltely incapable of responding in a sensible manner to what I write just say nothing rather than mkae up things to respond to and ascribe them to me.THAT's cowardice.

     

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    The "any law" was a question stimulated by your obvious puritan indignation over the alledged "abuse" of marijauna laws.

    again... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:08:29 AM EST
    "Cowardice" is the fear of responding to what i say and instead relying on attacks of mischaracerizations of your own devise.

       I expressed no "puritan indignation" over anything. I merely observed that I have little sympathy for those who abuse a system and then attepmt to obscure that abuse by appeals to the well-intentioned sympathy of others.

       People who REALLY want to make marijuana available to those who truly need it for medical reasons should oppose the abuses not pretend they don't exist. A system that that effectively and efficiently provides the limited number of people who trulyneed marijana for relief from serious conditions could easily be attained. However, that goal is made more difficult to obtain by both those who mindlessly resist any effort to make marijuana available for legitmate therapeutic uses and those who "cleverly" expoit the current system to obtain marijuana for other purposes.

       I believe marijuana should be legal for recreational purposes, but I do not believe that eeither the cause of gerneral decriminalization or regulated therapeutic availability is furthered by the greedy people who game the system for profit or the people who just want to get high who game the system to get marijuana allegedly available for the seriously ill.

       If nothing else isn't that depriving the people who need it of access to a scarce supply that can be distributed throught thesemedical intiative organizations? Wouldn't thise truly committed to helping the sick rather than creating a quasi-legal source for pleasure use be concerned about  that?