Overreach By The Federal Government On Pot Shops, Pot Smokers
It is outrageous that we have allowed the government to tell us what substances we are allowed to put in our bodies. I turned on CNN last night while heating dinner and heard a piece with Morgan Spurlock that featured an Oakland pot business, "Harborside Health Center."
Now, I do think there's a lot of bullshit surrounding people's "medical need" for pot, but it comes out of the ridiculous government prohibition. (Sure, there are those whose ailments are helped by pot.)
I'm blogging about this because I was utterly disgusted in hearing about the Federal war on pot shops. There was a pot shop in my neighborhood, and frankly, their business was one of the best neighbors in my neighborhood -- quiet, no problems since they'd opened maybe four years ago. (They were forced to close because they were supposedly "too close" to a youth center, which is actually blocks away, in the neighborhood. I never see kids there but if there were kids there, they can go right into the liquor store and shoplift beer, easy-peasy. The pot shop has an armed guard and probably didn't let anybody in who was under 18.)
About that pot business in the CNN piece, here's a piece on it from February 2013 on HuffPo, by Carly Schwartz:
SAN FRANCISCO -- Oakland's Harborside Health Center, which bills itself as the "largest pot shop on the planet," was dealt a major legal setback last week when a federal judge rejected a lawsuit the city had filed on behalf of the popular dispensary.U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James dismissed the City of Oakland's suit against Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag that had sought to block Harborside's closure. Haag began proceedings in July to shut down the business on the grounds that it had become too large of an operation. Harborside remains open while it challenges the federal effort in court.
"We are, of course, disappointed in today's ruling," said Steve DeAngelo, Harborside's executive director, in a statement. "In the meantime, Harborside will continue to provide our patients with the very best cannabis medicines we can find, in the safest and most beautiful environment we can create, with the very highest level of care and service."
With outposts in Oakland and San Jose, the marijuana megastore serves nearly 108,000 patients and sells roughly $20 million in products each year, generating $3 million in annual local, state and federal tax revenue. Its community, which includes the city of Oakland, has spent the past seven months fighting to save the business.
In a court hearing last month, Oakland attorneys argued that closing Harborside would devastate the health and well-being of many residents, as well as city revenue. Representatives from the Justice Department countered that Oakland had no place in the case, because the city doesn't own the building where Harborside operates.
Medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996, when voters passed the landmark Proposition 215. But the drug remains illegal under federal law. In late 2010, the Obama administration launched an aggressive crackdown on California's flourishing cannabis industry. Over the past year and a half, hundreds of dispensaries have shuttered, leaving thousands without work.
Here's a highly successful business bringing revenue to the city and products the citizens want and the government responds by trying to kill it.
Our pothead president.
Volokh bloggers weigh in here, here, here. Reason debate on marijuana and states' rights.
The city government backed the shop owners? That's a switch. Other than that, we've got all the ingredients here of a leftist wet dream: central command and control, federalizing of a state issue, and closing down a private enterprise because it's too successful. And, let's not forget, the leftists are also pissed because pot isn't supposed to be for everyone -- only for the kewl kidz, i.e., themselves.
Cousin Dave at December 30, 2013 7:49 AM
And, let's not forget, the leftists are also pissed because pot isn't supposed to be for everyone -- only for the kewl kidz, i.e., themselves.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at December 30, 2013 7:49 AM
____________________
Er, explain? I've never heard that. Other than that of COURSE pot shouldn't be legally accessible to teens.
lenona at December 30, 2013 8:29 AM
Other than that, we've got all the ingredients here of a leftist wet dream
It's more complex than that, isn't it? Social conservatives on the right have always supported prohibition of drugs. Besides, CA supreme court ruled that cities or counties can legally ban medical marijuana dispensaries, despite medical marijuana being legal. LA and Orange Counties did ban dispensaries because supervisors were flooded with complaints about dispensaries.
But yeah, lots of growers want cannabis to remain illegal because the black market fetches a higher profit margin, which outweigh the risks of it being illegal. Look at how northern California marijuana-growing counties voted in 2010; they voted against the prop to legalize it. Ancient philosophers call it the "Baptists and bootleggers phenomenon" or something.
Jason S. at December 30, 2013 8:45 AM
> there's a lot of bullshit surrounding people's
> "medical need" for pot, but it comes out of
> the ridiculous government prohibition.
No, never; this failure of integrity is with the liars.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 9:40 AM
I don't know how the lawsuit will turn out, but I hope it puts pressure on Congress to recognize that the 1930s classification of "no medical use" is no longer proper. Distilled/purified THC is used often and there may well be more components of use, while the original plant may be likened to willow-bark tea - the original aspirin.
John A at December 30, 2013 10:05 AM
No, it is the governments intrusion into an individual's choice whether to use marijuana. And that is both at the state and federal level. Look at the prohibition of alcohol. It failed because the government was trying to control the person's action. And why did people lie? Because they didn't believe it should be the government's choice.
Jim P. at December 30, 2013 10:11 AM
CANNOT. LEGISLATE. MORALITY.
But they try and try and try...
Flynne at December 30, 2013 10:26 AM
"Social conservatives on the right have always supported prohibition of drugs. "
That would have some bearing if we were talking about Alabama. But in Oakland?
"Er, explain? I've never heard that. Other than that of COURSE pot shouldn't be legally accessible to teens.'
David Horowitz once explained it to me like so: "We only wanted our rights so we could use them to take away everyone else's rights." When the 68ers, as the Germans call them, were young and not in power, they wanted pot legalization -- and they came pretty close to getting it. But now that they are in power, they don't want others to have access to what they have. They want it to remain a privilege reserved only for themselves. Because that's just the sort of people they are. Leftism is basically a politicized form of borderline/narcissistic personality disorder.
Cousin Dave at December 30, 2013 11:54 AM
Honest people don't lie, no matter what's going on with their government... Certainly not to pursue petty indulgence with inebrients.
(If you're hiding Jews in the attic during a holocaust, we'll consider sponsoring some exemptions to the observation. These people aren't doing that. They're trying to sync 'Floyd with that movie.)
For more responses to fatuous bellowing about "medical necessity," see December 30, 2013 11:12 AM.
Glad to extinguish this idiocy now, before the start of a new year.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 1:48 PM
Are you saying that you have never:
<Sarcasm>Dear saint Crid please tell us all how wrong we are then.</Sarcasm>
The War On Drugs was started by Nixon in 1971, further stepped up by Reagan in the eighties and now we're bound to win it 2014. I also have some sweet farmland in the Okefenokee.
It has been forty-three (43) years. We now have hundreds of thousands in prison for non-violent offenses. We have now essentially militarized any number of police departments. We have police doing random checkpoints. We have numerous rights that have been virtually destroyed. There are numerous people's lives that have been ruined because they had felony amounts of drugs.
So dear saint Crid -- please tell me one good thing that has come from criminalizing marijuana, let alone the other drugs.
Jim P. at December 30, 2013 3:22 PM
Aw honey, do you have a fever?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 3:26 PM
Your link didn't work. So I'll repost the question properly:
So dear saint Crid -- please tell me one good thing that has come from criminalizing marijuana, let alone the other drugs?
Jim P. at December 30, 2013 4:13 PM
Jimperz… Bunny… Direct question follows. For you.
Who else, on this page, said (even) "one good thing […]has come from criminalizing marijuana, let alone the other drugs?"
I'm asking you for a citation. I'm asking you to read as many of these pages as necessary to find it, and share the precise quote. You won't.
Jimpers, you've been doing this for years. To me. On this blog. You imagine that I say things, become enraged about them, then toss sweat, spittle and flapping lips when I won't parrot these fantasies back to you, even though I never said anything of the kind. (Tressider used to do this all the time... Remember Tressider? She'd get infuriated at her own daydreams, and hold me accountable for them.)
One gets the sense you've never talked about public policy with people. You're a programmer, right? Abstractions and office politics.
The busted link was to the 9th Commandment, which I'm sure you've heard about. Even through the broken link, you could have taken the point from the URL... The med-marijuana argument is that of a seventh grader feigning a head cold, Beuller-style, wanting to stay home and watch game shows rather than go to school. Your bullet list is similarly childish, implying that if anyone ever tells a lie in any context, the rest of us need never approach public affairs honestly.
I don't think it works that way. I don't care how badly you want to blaze up.
It's okay that the weed people are wrong about this. They can be as wrong as they want. Free country!
But I need never take them seriously about anything again. If you tell people you're sick when you're not, it's over.
Do you want your comments taken seriously?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 30, 2013 5:48 PM
No one. But you said:
So outside of lying that you are hiding Jews in your home, what is acceptable?
You are trying to step around a direct question saint Crid.
Please tell me how me one good thing that has come from criminalizing marijuana, let alone the other drugs?
I want you to answer that. Not say "It's okay that the weed people are wrong about this.". That is your opinion. I want you to say that the positive effects of criminalizing of pot is ______________.
Please answer that question?
Jim P. at December 30, 2013 8:41 PM
Why? Why the fuck would I? Why are so horny (excuse me, horny) for me to say anything about it at all?
It happens over and over and you're still stuck in the loop. There are no sentences short enough for you to comprehend this point:
I never said they were good laws. I never made any comment about them at all! Why aren't you badgering Flynne or Ppen or Conan about this?
My comment was about the dishonesty of people who oppose them; if those people have no integrity, the worthiness of their cause is irrelevant.
But you've (once again) decided that, Godammit, there is this one argument that you're going to have with somebody, whether or not they oppose your position.
Why me?
If memory serves, it's an old joke from Florence King: 'I don't mind that this guy wants to do some navel-gazing. I just don't think he should have to gaze at mine.'
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 12:05 AM
Hey! I'm a bona fide pot head from the 70s! Leave me outta this!
Flynne at December 31, 2013 5:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/30/overreach_by_th.html#comment-4165271">comment from FlynneLove ya, Flynneski!
Amy Alkon
at December 31, 2013 5:56 AM
You are making personal integrity the responsibility of person. But you are dismissing the governmental obligation to have integrity.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" -- Matthew 22:21
So lying to the government is not a failure of integrity.
Jim P. at December 31, 2013 7:49 AM
> pot head from the 70s!
Me too, it's why we get along so well. We've forgotten about the same (ugly) stuff.
Jimpers, as you grow up, you'll find that adult thinking often forces you to hold more than one mildly contradictory thought in your head at once time.
The night is dark…
Drug policy sucks…
Insisting that others be simple-minded to quicken your team selection will not go well for you… Especially when they wouldn't want to join your squad anyway.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 31, 2013 10:51 AM
I should not have read all of the comments. Now I am so confused. What were we talking about?
Dave B at December 31, 2013 6:17 PM
So you are admitting to having cognitive dissonance?
No wonder I usually dismiss all your crap.
Jim P. at January 1, 2014 3:11 AM
Leave a comment