PDA

View Full Version : Kirkland pot grower barred from buying guns


YubaRiver
03-31-2010, 9:34 AM
He was involved in defending himself in a home invasion and lost his
guns to the investigators. Then not allowed to buy replacements.




http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011483199_potactivist31.html

a1c
03-31-2010, 9:40 AM
Funny how so many SOs like to pick and choose which law to follow - state or federal - and always opt for the strictest one. Many LEOs hate medical marijuana because it makes their job more complicated, and many hate the idea of legalization.

The guy really got screwed by the federal law here.

Gio
03-31-2010, 9:44 AM
Funny how so many SOs like to pick and choose which law to follow - state or federal - and always opt for the strictest one. Many LEOs hate medical marijuana because it makes their job more complicated, and many hate the idea of legalization.

The guy really got screwed by the federal law here.

I'd have to agree with this, sucks that they had to do it like that.

-Gio

Untamed1972
03-31-2010, 9:48 AM
I'll bet as you see home med-pot growers becoming more common you're also gonna see them becoming victims of buglary and home invasion more often too.

Prolly a good idea for people that do that to not spread that info around to liberally if they wish to minimize their risks.

bodger
03-31-2010, 9:56 AM
Next I suppose we'll have to submit urine samples to the DOJ.

wash
03-31-2010, 10:01 AM
I'm hoping for legalization. That should drive the price down enough that people won't grow at home unless it's just a personal use type of hobby and crooks won't bother to steal some grower's stash if it's only worth a few hundred dollars.

Legalization would also put the Mexican drug cartels out of business and allow coffee shops or whatever to control who they sell to.

Draankol
03-31-2010, 10:03 AM
What a fustercluck...

M1A Rifleman
03-31-2010, 10:06 AM
Cool, for once I agree with Law Enforcement in taking away someone gun rights. :) Keep up the good work.

bwiese
03-31-2010, 10:10 AM
I'll bet as you see home med-pot growers becoming more common you're also gonna see them becoming victims of buglary and home invasion more often too.

Easy to find 'em too - just follow 'em home from the local hydropoinic gardening supply.

As for the the Kirkland dude, what part of "Federal crime" don't you understand?

k1dude
03-31-2010, 10:10 AM
You knew it was going to happen eventually. Regardless of what California law says, it's still illegal to the feds and they control the gun purchasing process. Common sense tells you if you're a doper and/or grower, you're jeapordizing your weapons. You have to decide which is more important to you, your drugs or your guns.

POLICESTATE
03-31-2010, 10:25 AM
Kirkland pot grower barred from buying guns
:rofl2:

jnojr
03-31-2010, 10:27 AM
Cool, for once I agree with Law Enforcement in taking away someone gun rights. :) Keep up the good work.

For growing plants? :rolleyes:

Won't be long before you do or say something that'll result in someone else saying, "Good, I'm glad he lost his gun rights."

Ballistic043
03-31-2010, 10:44 AM
Many LEOs hate medical marijuana because it makes their job more complicated, and many hate the idea of legalization.


the irony.

of course, they don't consider how much easier their jobs would be if pot were suddenly legalized.

i like how some of you are quick to rationalize with the bigots on a weed issue, but are eager to dismiss them with a firearms related issue.

"yes ban weed! stupid losers are all derelects to society with their laziness and incompetence!"
"no dont ban guns, not everyone is a douche only the crazy ones who abuse them!"




think about this. did LEO's jobs get easier, or harder, after alcohol prohibition ended?

dirtnap
03-31-2010, 10:50 AM
the irony.

of course, they don't consider how much easierfast they would lose their jobs if pot were suddenly legalized.....

Fixed it :)

CABilly
03-31-2010, 10:55 AM
Too bad he wasn't a violent illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city. Then the SO would be bending over backward to shield him from the feds.

dustoff31
03-31-2010, 10:55 AM
You have to decide which is more important to you, your drugs or your guns.

By mixing those two things they have decided which is more important. They just haven't been caught yet.

JDoe
03-31-2010, 11:06 AM
As for the the Kirkland dude, what part of "Federal crime" don't you understand?

This.

rp55
03-31-2010, 11:07 AM
I'm hoping for legalization. That should drive the price down enough that people won't grow at home unless it's just a personal use type of hobby and crooks won't bother to steal some grower's stash if it's only worth a few hundred dollars.

Legalization would also put the Mexican drug cartels out of business and allow coffee shops or whatever to control who they sell to.

I was reading The Poisoner's Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/Poisoners-Handbook-Murder-Forensic-Medicine/dp/1594202435) and learned many interesting tidbits I had never heard of before. One is that the opposition to alcohol prohibition was pretty much centered in New York. At the start of Prohibition New York State had passed a law providing law enforcement support for the outlawing of alcohol but barely 2 years into Prohibition, when they saw what a miserable failure it was, they repealed the law and returned "the responsibility for enforcing an unpopular law to the federal government, which was, after all, responsible for the whole debacle."

We could just do something like that here. DEA wants to raid a clinic? Fine have at it. No assistance and, by the way, don't bring your prisoners to our jails.

CABilly
03-31-2010, 11:07 AM
By mixing those two things they have decided which is more important. They just haven't been caught yet.

Personal freedom in one's home? That's what I thought, too.

Merc1138
03-31-2010, 11:12 AM
Wait, so this guy breaks federal law, and when the feds decide that because he's broken federal law, that the federal government won't let him buy guns anymore, there's a problem?

Quick, lets all rally to save the 2a rights of everyone that violates federal laws!

dirtnap
03-31-2010, 11:19 AM
Quick, lets all rally to save the 2a rights of everyone that violates federal laws!

**** the federal government...and the horse they rode in on. :)

M198
03-31-2010, 11:19 AM
Funny how so many SOs like to pick and choose which law to follow - state or federal - and always opt for the strictest one.

I've got an idea. How about they enforce all laws that apply to their jurisdiction. A crazy idea, huh? That being said, legalization is not a simple wave of the wand (though I'm in favor of it). There will been to restrictions on use and possession. If I get drunk everyday, I'm an alcoholic, and therefore not able to legally buy a firearm, I know some people who get high every day, should they be able to buy firearms? I think we can all agree that people shouldn't be driving high, but what constitutes high (THC levels)? What about possession in cars? It's a tricky thing to legalize pot. I'm all in favor of letting responsible adults do whatever the hell they like inside their own homes, but we, as a society, have to agree to some limits on use and possession.

CABilly
03-31-2010, 11:29 AM
I've got an idea. How about they enforce all laws that apply to their jurisdiction. A crazy idea, huh? That being said, legalization is not a simple wave of the wand (though I'm in favor of it). There will been to restrictions on use and possession. If I get drunk everyday, I'm an alcoholic, and therefore not able to legally buy a firearm, I know some people who get high every day, should they be able to buy firearms? I think we can all agree that people shouldn't be driving high, but what constitutes high (THC levels)? What about possession in cars? It's a tricky thing to legalize pot. I'm all in favor of letting responsible adults do whatever the hell they like inside their own homes, but we, as a society, have to agree to some limits on use and possession.

Except that there has been no scientific conclusion on whether pot is addictive. Doing something with regularity does not an addiction make*.

(I've always hated that syntactical twist. I can't piece out how it's grammatically correct, and it makes the writer sound like a pretentious twig. But, there it is, in my post, just for the heck of it.)

Edit: BTW, if every law was always enforced, everyone would be a criminal and society would halt in its tracks.

dirtnap
03-31-2010, 11:38 AM
Edit: BTW, if every law was always enforced, everyone would be a criminal and society would halt in its tracks.

Have you seen the size of our prison system, and the state of our society lately? :p

POLICESTATE
03-31-2010, 11:45 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. The U.S. incarceration rate on December 31, 2008 was 754 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. The USA also has the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world.

RideIcon
03-31-2010, 11:51 AM
The Sheriff's Office forwarded the burglary report to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. "They informed us that possession of a medical drug card is sufficient to establish an inference of current use," Swartz wrote.

So if a doctor recommends its use to you, that's sufficient evidence to prove current use?

Have to agree to some limits on use and possession.

If they make it legal, how can they impose a limit? Having a stash of cigarettes or alcohol isn't illegal, either is a stash of ammunition... Allow them to impose limits on one thing is like asking for limits on other things.

I don't like the stuff, but I say make it legal, who cares?

loather
03-31-2010, 12:20 PM
Won't be long before you do or say something that'll result in someone else saying, "Good, I'm glad he lost his gun rights."

I'll bite. I read recently that the average person unknowingly commits 2-3 felonies every day during their normal course of daily activities. While the article in question was in regards to our system of laws becoming so complex that it's impossible for one person to come even remotely close to knowing all the laws, it's directly applicable here: What happens if you get caught committing one of these felonies?

You want the war on drugs to stop? Legalize pot. I'm not a user and likely won't if it's legal, but I know a *lot* of people will -- the same people who do now!

BigJim_610
03-31-2010, 12:33 PM
Was a money maker for the counties?

I was reading The Poisoner's Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/Poisoners-Handbook-Murder-Forensic-Medicine/dp/1594202435) and learned many interesting tidbits I had never heard of before. One is that the opposition to alcohol prohibition was pretty much centered in New York. At the start of Prohibition New York State had passed a law providing law enforcement support for the outlawing of alcohol but barely 2 years into Prohibition, when they saw what a miserable failure it was, they repealed the law and returned "the responsibility for enforcing an unpopular law to the federal government, which was, after all, responsible for the whole debacle."

We could just do something like that here. DEA wants to raid a clinic? Fine have at it. No assistance and, by the way, don't bring your prisoners to our jails.

JDay
03-31-2010, 12:47 PM
Legalization would also put the Mexican drug cartels out of business and allow coffee shops or whatever to control who they sell to.

We would need to legalize all drugs to get rid of the cartels. There's less money in marijuana than the harder stuff, cocaine and heroin fetch far more per ounce on the black market.

JDay
03-31-2010, 12:48 PM
You knew it was going to happen eventually. Regardless of what California law says, it's still illegal to the feds and they control the gun purchasing process. Common sense tells you if you're a doper and/or grower, you're jeapordizing your weapons. You have to decide which is more important to you, your drugs or your guns.

Well yes, this happened in Washington.

JDay
03-31-2010, 12:49 PM
the irony.

of course, they don't consider how much easier their jobs would be if pot were suddenly legalized.

What they do consider is all the easy money they will lose out on from busting grow operations.

stan
03-31-2010, 12:56 PM
I'll bet as you see home beer brewers becoming more common you're also gonna see them becoming victims of buglary and home invasion more often too.



see what happens when its legalized? :p

stan
03-31-2010, 1:00 PM
Common sense tells you if you're an activist and/or writer, you're jeopardizing your weapons. You have to decide which is more important to you, your free speech or your guns.


:p :TFH:

Eckolaker
03-31-2010, 1:04 PM
Legalization of Marijuana is going to happen. The big Tobacco companies are purchasing large plots of Fertile Land in the Central Valley area of CA.

Us, none ruling class folk will have maybe 2 years at most before all other laws and regulations are in place to make some money off the change in laws.

Ultimately, it will be the big tobacco companies and Big Pharma that will be growing all the Marijuana in this country with the help of Mansanto.

loather
03-31-2010, 1:10 PM
We would need to legalize all drugs to get rid of the cartels. There's less money in marijuana than the harder stuff, cocaine and heroin fetch far more per ounce on the black market.

Less money per ounce, perhaps, but they make up for it in volume.

I can think of no less than a dozen people off the top of my head I know or work with who smoke pot on a regular basis. And that's without trying. I can't think of a single one who's into the hard stuff. So, even if a gram of coke costs $1000 and an ounce (28.3g) of pot costs $300 or whatever (I really have no idea), they make up for it by selling an assload more pot than they do anything else. It's their major source of income. This is why so much effort is put into keeping marijuana smuggling in check: the DEA knows this too.

If they really wanted to get serious about the war on drugs, they'd legalize marijuana and use the taxes from the sale to fund drug rehab programs and efforts to curtail the harder stuff coming into the country.

I've said it before: pot smokers are generally harmless folks who just want to chill out. You're only in danger near one of them if you happen to be a bag of flamin' hot funyuns.

Matt@EntrepriseArms
03-31-2010, 1:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

As the U.S. is the third most populous country in the world, it sort of makes sense.

The only two other countries that have more - China and India. First of all, I wouldn't belive China's statistics as people tend to "disappear" over there, and India is a 3rd world countrywith all sorts of lawlessness going on in the less developed areas.

Untamed1972
03-31-2010, 1:14 PM
see what happens when its legalized? :p


Well when pot becomes as commonly available at the local 7-11 as beer is, then the pot will more likely get stolen from there too, like where beer is most commonly stolen. Till then....the play on my words doesn't quite apply.

loather
03-31-2010, 1:15 PM
Ultimately, it will be the big tobacco companies and Big Pharma that will be growing all the Marijuana in this country with the help of Mansanto.

Monsanto represents all that is evil and foul in this land.

I do agree that it'll be Philip Morris et al. capitalizing on it. They've been anxiously awaiting this for a very, very long time. And I say good for them: if they want to help rid the world of the drug cartels and chill people out at the same time, be my guest.

Untamed1972
03-31-2010, 1:16 PM
You're only in danger near one of them if you happen to be a bag of flamin' hot funyuns.



:rofl2:

Phil79
03-31-2010, 1:28 PM
You gotta be kidding! He was a medical marijuana patient for crying out loud. There are other pain drugs much are more powerful than mj. You believe people with those prescriptions should lose their rights as well? You think the next time he's invaded he should be helpless just because he uses a naturally grown plant for medicinal purposes? Can't you be content enough that he may die early from disease, and not be killed by robbers? I guess not all gun owners are compassionate or logical thinkers. Keep agreeing with LE who want to take away our rights. Yours will be next.

Cool, for once I agree with Law Enforcement in taking away someone gun rights. :) Keep up the good work.

bulgron
03-31-2010, 2:33 PM
You gotta be kidding! He was a medical marijuana patient for crying out loud. There are other pain drugs much are more powerful than mj. You believe people with those prescriptions should lose their rights as well? You think the next time he's invaded he should be helpless just because he uses a naturally grown plant for medicinal purposes? Can't you be content enough that he may die early from disease, and not be killed by robbers? I guess not all gun owners are compassionate or logical thinkers. Keep agreeing with LE who want to take away our rights. Yours will be next.

The feds are applying the law. You and I might disagree with the law, and wish that LEO wasn't so eager to enforce laws that we disagree with, but nevertheless the feds are merely enforcing laws that we as a society have agreed to have on the books.

If we disagree with what the feds are doing (and I certainly do) then the proper course of action is to work to repeal those laws that we think are unjust. But suggesting that LEO should or will do anything other than what they were hired to do is like suggesting we should expect a fire to not burn if we put our hands into it.

MP301
03-31-2010, 2:36 PM
As the U.S. is the third most populous country in the world, it sort of makes sense.

The only two other countries that have more - China and India. First of all, I wouldn't belive China's statistics as people tend to "disappear" over there, and India is a 3rd world countrywith all sorts of lawlessness going on in the less developed areas.

The size of a country really doesnt matter when talking per capita...FYI

dfletcher
03-31-2010, 3:02 PM
For some reason I can't get all up in arms over this fellow getting pinched. I'm glad he saved his fanny in the shooting and all, I'm not all that hot on legalizing the stuff or tossing folks in jail - but I don't see pot growers and sellers as providing some sort of benefit to society. The guy played the game, took his chances and it didn't work out all that well I guess.

As an aside, when (if) pot becomes legal and the price drops I'd expect that many folks who are now selling pot for big $$$ will move on to other illegal and lucrative endeavors - start pushing Meth, E, coke and such. It's not like they're going to start working at Demoulas.

OrovilleTim
03-31-2010, 4:03 PM
You knew it was going to happen eventually. Regardless of what California law says, it's still illegal to the feds and they control the gun purchasing process. Common sense tells you if you're a doper and/or grower, you're jeopardizing your weapons. You have to decide which is more important to you, your drugs or your guns.

+1. Exactly how I feel.

Glock22Fan
03-31-2010, 4:32 PM
Doing something with regularity does not an addiction make*.

(I've always hated that syntactical twist. I can't piece out how it's grammatically correct, and it makes the writer sound like a pretentious twig. But, there it is, in my post, just for the heck of it.)

It was grammatically correct in one of English's roots (old German?) and therefore is a hangover. One must still this way in German speak.

Similarly, in English English today, one never uses the word "gotten." Most English people think that we are nuts over here for distorting the language this way, but "gotten" actually follows the old rules for forming a past participle, and the same construction is also used today in German.

Super Spy
03-31-2010, 5:42 PM
Legalizing Marijuana in California won't affect Federal Law! Yes it's on the ballot, I'll even vote in favor of it. I'd rather have the state collecting tax revenue than support the Mexican drug cartels. How much will the state legalizing it matter as long as Federal Law prohibits it? Public opinion may favor it in California but the rest of the country isn't as progressive.......thankfully otherwise all the states would have our same BS gun laws.

There is no way I will be able to walk into a 7-11 in two years a buy a pack of Phillip Morris Blunts......It will still be a Federal crime. I value my gun rights, so I'll be abstaining....

Curtis
03-31-2010, 6:19 PM
I'm not a fan of legal marijuana, but it is becoming more and more difficult to justify keeping it illegal. I would support decriminalization for personal use, but you can't grow or sell.

I think read that the feds have said that they raid the California shops because there is no way to show the marijuana was grown only for use in California (similar to the some of the recent gun laws). If big tobacco came in and started a large scale production of a packaged product that could be traced (some type of marker) that should stop the federal raids. For the tax revenue alone, I could support this.

ElvenSoul
03-31-2010, 6:39 PM
I'll bet as you see home med-pot growers becoming more common you're also gonna see them becoming victims of buglary and home invasion more often too.

Prolly a good idea for people that do that to not spread that info around to liberally if they wish to minimize their risks.

I can't find the Craigslist Add anymore...but a few weeks ago there was a add for Armed Security Officer at one of these dispensaries in the Inland Empire.

Phil79
03-31-2010, 8:11 PM
Sigh. I never stated or implied that the feds were not applying the law. It is quite obvious that they were. And I never suggested that they should disobey their superiors to do any less (though that would not be a bad thing if they did).

My post was merely a rebuke of M1A Rifleman's agreeing with LE taking away the victim's rights. Capish?

The feds are applying the law. You and I might disagree with the law, and wish that LEO wasn't so eager to enforce laws that we disagree with, but nevertheless the feds are merely enforcing laws that we as a society have agreed to have on the books.

If we disagree with what the feds are doing (and I certainly do) then the proper course of action is to work to repeal those laws that we think are unjust. But suggesting that LEO should or will do anything other than what they were hired to do is like suggesting we should expect a fire to not burn if we put our hands into it.

Sleepy McGee
04-01-2010, 12:46 AM
I'm not a fan of legal marijuana, but it is becoming more and more difficult to justify keeping it illegal. I would support decriminalization for personal use, but you can't grow or sell.

I think read that the feds have said that they raid the California shops because there is no way to show the marijuana was grown only for use in California (similar to the some of the recent gun laws). If big tobacco came in and started a large scale production of a packaged product that could be traced (some type of marker) that should stop the federal raids. For the tax revenue alone, I could support this.

Mellow-Yellow Pot:

http://glossynews.com/science-and-technology/201003060908/subsidi-farm-granted-usda-contract-to-develop-seedless-pot/

CalNRA
04-01-2010, 1:04 AM
And here I thought Costco was getting into weed business....

jdberger
04-01-2010, 1:42 AM
Sort of a thread veer - but regarding the person he shot:

The suspect shot by Sarich has undergone surgeries on his heart and lungs and on Monday got one of his legs amputated below the knee, according to his lawyer.

And the gun he shot him with...

Sarich said he was awakened at his Kirkland home by the barking of his dogs, then grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and headed down a hallway.

Wow....

Sleepy McGee
04-01-2010, 2:13 AM
I'm hoping for legalization. That should drive the price down enough that people won't grow at home unless it's just a personal use type of hobby and crooks won't bother to steal some grower's stash if it's only worth a few hundred dollars.

Legalization would also put the Mexican drug cartels out of business and allow coffee shops or whatever to control who they sell to.

Leading advocates of the Tax & Regulate Cannabis Act are uncertain of passage and face an entrenched and expanding opposition which included religious coalitions, law enforcement agencies, the existing medical marijuana providers, soccer moms, educators and PTA groups, nurse associations, established growers, youth advocate groups and the majority of conservative voters in California. It's passage is far from certain. Based on preliminary polls, if the vote were held today it would fail.

The dismal condition of city, county and state coffers indicate the tax and regulate aspect of the proposed Cannabis Act will yield a significant increase in price. Presently, on average, an ounce of medical marijuana now costs approx $400 per ounce in a dispensary. I've heard some estimates that after state, county and city/ municipal taxes are factored in, coupled with regulatory fees (back ground checks for growers and sellers, inspection fees for growers, inspection fees for sellers, sellers liability insurance, building, fire and safety inspection fees for indoor growers, etc., etc.,ad nauseum) the end user (consumer) can expect to pay about $700+ per ounce. We can be certain that all levels of cash strapped gov't will try to maximize the sin tax placed on marijuana.

I seriously doubt any group or individual that claims the price of marijuana will actually go down. LOL! The same claim was made prior to Proposition 420 passage and it never happened and it's not going to happen if this bill passes. When was the last time the price went down on anything??
If Big Pharma gets involved as they are expected to, do you think they will lower prices? Bloody hell, pharmaceutical companies raise prices on medicine on a monthly basis!

I don't smoke marijuana but if I did I would vote against this law and opt for the status quo with medical marijuana. Yes, everyone has to dick-dance around with a doctors note but at least with marijuana being classified as a medicine it is exempt from a multitude of taxes. The doctors note also allows the 'patient' to grow marijuana for personal usage. If the Tax and Regulate law passes, marijuana growers will have to obtain a growers permit,and invite big brother in to their yard or house to inspect and verify compliance. They'll have to get rid of their guns too.

CalNRA
04-01-2010, 2:19 AM
Leading advocates of the Tax & Regulate Cannabis Act are uncertain of passage and face an entrenched and expanding opposition which included religious coalitions, law enforcement agencies, the existing medical marijuana providers, ... established growers,..

:rofl:


The dismal condition of city, county and state coffers indicate the tax and regulate aspect of the proposed Cannabis Act will yield a significant increase in price. Presently, on average, an ounce of medical marijuana now costs approx $400 per ounce in a dispensary. I've heard some estimates that after state, county and city/ municipal taxes are factored in, coupled with regulatory fees (back ground checks for growers and sellers, inspection fees for growers, inspection fees for sellers, sellers liability insurance, building, fire and safety inspection fees for indoor growers, etc., etc.,ad nauseum) the end user (consumer) can expect to pay about $700+ per ounce. We can be certain that all levels of cash strapped gov't will try to maximize the sin tax placed on marijuana.

but...but... I was told "if we legalize, price will fall, and cartels will go bust". :sleeping:

Silencer
04-01-2010, 4:33 AM
It's simple for me, I'm glad he got his rights taken away. I don't like it when insane people have a right to purchase a gun, no less than extraordinarily violent people or alcoholics. This action was justified.

I personally hate pot and more so pot smokers. I have never met a regular pot smoker whom I've liked. And, I would never trust one either. I have no problem supporting a ban of firearms for any of them, much like insane or violent people.

franklinarmory
04-01-2010, 8:31 AM
the irony.

of course, they don't consider how much easier their jobs would be if pot were suddenly legalized.


Actually, you are wrong. There is not a test to adequately detail the level of intoxication while driving like there is with alcohol. So when a doped up pot head drives down to 7-11 for chips cause he has the munchies and happens to smash into your loved one's car, there will be no way to prove his status as under the influence.

As a former trucking company owner, I can tell you that the tests for MJ can only tell if the person has used within the last 30 days. Unfortunately that has little relevance. If the person smoked four weeks ago, they were not under the influence. But, if they smoked four hours ago, they still are and the pee test can't tell the difference.

So if the pot is legalized, then the SO's job will be harder because they can't scientifically prove the intoxication. All they can do is note subjective tests (e.g. nystagmus, red eyes, droopy eye lids, sluggish movements, etc.)

Use drugs = go to jail.
Use drugs & carry a gun = go to jail longer.
Use drugs & use a gun = Don't expect sympathy!

Bhobbs
04-01-2010, 8:35 AM
I'm hoping for legalization. That should drive the price down enough that people won't grow at home unless it's just a personal use type of hobby and crooks won't bother to steal some grower's stash if it's only worth a few hundred dollars.

Legalization would also put the Mexican drug cartels out of business and allow coffee shops or whatever to control who they sell to.

I concur.

Glock-matic
04-01-2010, 8:58 AM
There are still areas in this country where people bootleg alcohol and cigarettes to avoid the taxes, I am sure we will see the same with MJ.

Further, the drug cartels won't go away because marijuana is legalized in California, it is still illegal in the other 49. I doubt there will be any legal exportation of MJ from CA. Further, the Cartels have a wide variety of product ranging from drugs, to weapons, to little slave girls, they are what investors call well diversified.

I've seen the effects of long term MJ use on some people, paranoia is a common side effect and one, IMO, which should preclude chronics from owning guns. Imagine your kid going to the front yard of Mr Chronic to retrieve his frisbee and get shot because Mr Chronic thought he was a government spy. Laugh, but we had a Mr Chronic neighbor a few years ago, pointed a 30/30 at his nearest neighbor because he thought they were spying in him. Arrested by cops, 6 plants pulled out of the house, and off to the state pen.

MJ is probably the least harmful prohibited substance, but it is still harmful. Because it is prohibited, there aren't a lot of long term studies done as with alcohol or tobacco.

I also doubt you will see many major retailers (ie 7-11) selling MJ. Because it is a federally prohibited substance, these retailers will get pinched by the DEA in a hurry. Right now, the current administration is looking the other way, but it won't be long before waco tactics will be used against medical MJ dispensaries, probably 3 years or so.

All that being said, if it passes, I will be buying stock in Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, and Frito Lay, they will be the real winners in the cannabis initiative.

franklinarmory
04-01-2010, 9:01 AM
+1...

Al Norris
04-01-2010, 10:45 AM
Inference: n. the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct fact or observation.

Let's see, we have 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which declares that
"it shall be unlawful for any person - who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

Then we have the controlling CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, which specify how the statute is enforced); 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 defines an unlawful user:
Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

There are also 2 relevant cases which say, “that to sustain a conviction under § 922(g)(3), the government must prove ... that the defendant took drugs with regularity, over an extended period of time, and contemporaneously with his purchase or possession of a firearm.” United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 812–13 (9th Cir. 2001), and in United States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), the government conceded "that, for a defendant to be an ‘unlawful user’ for § 922(g)(3) purposes, his ‘drug use would have to be with regularity and over an extended period of time.’"

But, we aren't talking about a conviction here. We aren't even talking about known possession, which is clearly covered in the CFR, but was not the reason for the NICS denial. We are talking about placing a person into the category of a prohibited person, thereby depriving that person of his rightful use of necessary tools for self defense, by mere inference, without any seeming evidence of actual use (let alone addiction), other than possession of a medical marijuana use card (for lack of a better term).

One cannot infer that because you have a drivers license, that you actually drive. There must be some other evidence, in order to make that connection.

Likewise here, one cannot infer that because you posses a medical marijuana use card, that you actually use marijuana, as the FBI has done by inserting this information into the NICS system.

This isn't about the power of Congress to regulate an item that may have some economic impact over interstate commerce (Gonzales v. Raich). It is about Congress saying that once an item enters interstate commerce, that item remains forever in commerce and therefore the Congress may regulate the item at all times, until the item is destroyed.

It is also about using the power of Interstate Commerce, without a trial, without probable cause, without a reasonable articulable suspicion, but by mere inference, to deprive a person of a fundamental right.

Stop and think for a moment where this type of power can ultimately lead. Do you really want the Feds, the State or local government(s) to be able to deny your fundamental rights, based merely upon inference of some possibly unlawful action or activity?

Such a power, causes the person under its influence, to have to prove the negative. In many cases, an impossible task.

Noxx
04-01-2010, 10:55 AM
The suspect shot by Sarich has undergone surgeries on his heart and lungs and on Monday got one of his legs amputated below the knee, according to his lawyer.

At least the pot isn't affecting his aim. To use the vernacular, he jacked that guy up pretty good.

nicki
04-01-2010, 1:17 PM
The Hope and Change guy has taken a position to leave peopled who are in states that have medical marijuana alone.

I guess since he supposedly supports patient's choice, does that mean he also supports that one should not lose fundamental rights for exercising medical choice.

Is Obama pro choice when it comes to rights or is he selective choice.

The reality is most people in the country support medical marijuana and a growing number support outright legalization.

Anyone who votes for legalization this november has the mindset that prohibition doesnMt work. If we work with this mindset, we can shift public opinion in this state to our side.

I realize many on this board hate pot smokers and some of you probably would even support executuion for drug users.

All I can say is that if you support government violations of one person or groups rights, when the government gets around to targeting you, you will be there all by yourself.

Wonder if he can just buy a gun from a private party, just skip the gun shop

BlindRacer
04-01-2010, 3:36 PM
For some reason I can't get all up in arms over this fellow getting pinched. I'm glad he saved his fanny in the shooting and all, I'm not all that hot on legalizing the stuff or tossing folks in jail - but I don't see pot growers and sellers as providing some sort of benefit to society. The guy played the game, took his chances and it didn't work out all that well I guess.

I'm having a little trouble with the part in both here. Why do you think that someone must provide some sort of benefit to society?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - popularized by Karl Marx

If someone wants to be a hermit and live in the hills and never see anyone, does that mean that we should go hunt him down and get rid of him because he's not contributing? Or if someone is an artist, and they don't produce anything that actually has any benefit to society (other than making pretty pictures and such - but no real benefit), should they be gotten rid of? Or tobacco companies - they have no real benefit, which is probably most similar to your remark on growers and sellers.

I don't know if that's exactly what you were meaning by this remark, but it just struck me as odd, especially on this board.

Sleepy McGee
04-01-2010, 4:20 PM
I'm having a little trouble with the part in both here. Why do you think that someone must provide some sort of benefit to society?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - popularized by Karl Marx

If someone wants to be a hermit and live in the hills and never see anyone, does that mean that we should go hunt him down and get rid of him because he's not contributing? Or if someone is an artist, and they don't produce anything that actually has any benefit to society (other than making pretty pictures and such - but no real benefit), should they be gotten rid of? Or tobacco companies - they have no real benefit, which is probably most similar to your remark on growers and sellers.

I don't know if that's exactly what you were meaning by this remark, but it just struck me as odd, especially on this board.

I had a physics instructor who always told the students "nothing good ever came from sitting on a bar stool". I think the same can be said about sucking on a marijuana joint.

BlindRacer
04-01-2010, 4:52 PM
Nothing good may come of it, but who's to say that a person should not be allowed to do it? As long as it's controlled similarly to alcohol (like no driving under the influence), then it doesn't affect anyone other than themselves.

Does someone have to contribute to society in such a way like being a doctor, or a construction worker, and have direct inpact in peoples' lives to worthy of life?

inbox485
04-01-2010, 6:07 PM
Solution seems pretty simple. Stop using pot for long enough to get his guns back and go back to life as usual.

Noxx
04-01-2010, 7:34 PM
I had a physics instructor who always told the students "nothing good ever came from sitting on a bar stool". I think the same can be said about sucking on a marijuana joint.

You have obviously not listened to enough Willie Nelson.

Twist18
04-01-2010, 9:20 PM
The Hope and Change guy has taken a position to leave peopled who are in states that have medical marijuana alone.

I guess since he supposedly supports patient's choice, does that mean he also supports that one should not lose fundamental rights for exercising medical choice.

Is Obama pro choice when it comes to rights or is he selective choice.

The reality is most people in the country support medical marijuana and a growing number support outright legalization.

Anyone who votes for legalization this november has the mindset that prohibition doesnMt work. If we work with this mindset, we can shift public opinion in this state to our side.

I realize many on this board hate pot smokers and some of you probably would even support executuion for drug users.

All I can say is that if you support government violations of one person or groups rights, when the government gets around to targeting you, you will be there all by yourself.

Wonder if he can just buy a gun from a private party, just skip the gun shop

Nobody said anything about executing drug users, and last I checked, there is no amendment to the Constitution that guarantees anyone's right to use or abuse marijuana or any other drug.

Al Norris
04-01-2010, 9:39 PM
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/245-0720210603-DoubleFacePalm.jpg

bomb_on_bus
04-01-2010, 9:52 PM
man some of the posts on here are outright bizzare and hilarious!

bottom line is it is a federal offense.

And if you think the reasoning behind the law is bad wait till you see someone off their perscription meds waiving a gun around because they see demons comming out of the walls and the voices are telling the person to kill the demons before the demons kill him. I see stuff like that on a weekly basis at the psychiatry ward.

Not saying that pot will or will not keep someone from going crazy but it is a controlled substance for a reason

Twist18
04-01-2010, 10:01 PM
man some of the posts on here are outright bizzare and hilarious!

bottom line is it is a federal offense.

And if you think the reasoning behind the law is bad wait till you see someone off their perscription meds waiving a gun around because they see demons comming out of the walls and the voices are telling the person to kill the demons before the demons kill him. I see stuff like that on a weekly basis at the psychiatry ward.

Not saying that pot will or will not keep someone from going crazy but it is a controlled substance for a reason

WHAT?????? Every pothead I've talked to claims pot is COMPLETELY harmless! :rolleyes:

dfletcher
04-01-2010, 10:04 PM
I'm having a little trouble with the part in both here. Why do you think that someone must provide some sort of benefit to society?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - popularized by Karl Marx

If someone wants to be a hermit and live in the hills and never see anyone, does that mean that we should go hunt him down and get rid of him because he's not contributing? Or if someone is an artist, and they don't produce anything that actually has any benefit to society (other than making pretty pictures and such - but no real benefit), should they be gotten rid of? Or tobacco companies - they have no real benefit, which is probably most similar to your remark on growers and sellers.

I don't know if that's exactly what you were meaning by this remark, but it just struck me as odd, especially on this board.

"Originally Posted by dfletcher
For some reason I can't get all up in arms over this fellow getting pinched. I'm glad he saved his fanny in the shooting and all, I'm not all that hot on legalizing the stuff or tossing folks in jail - but I don't see pot growers and sellers as providing some sort of benefit to society. The guy played the game, took his chances and it didn't work out all that well I guess."

I think you may be reading just a touch more into it than I intended. :o Actually all I meant was the guy is selling pot just to make money, broke the law and got caught. That's about it.

Sleepy McGee
04-01-2010, 10:25 PM
You have obviously not listened to enough Willie Nelson.

I was a fan of Willie's for a long time. I stomached it when he was palling around with Jimmy Carter in the 70's. I suffered the fool while he was chumming around with the Clinton's and smoking joints on the White House roof in the 80's. I finally got turned off for good by him when he was campaigning with Dennis Kucinich during the presidential primary in 2004.I'll listen to his songs if they come on the radio but I'd never buy any of his Cd's again.

Speaking of music, perhaps the OP will enjoy listening to this little tune:

Because I Got High

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw

check it out:cool:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aldous Huxley, On psychological totalitarianism (1959):
And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing ... a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

Sleepy McGee
04-01-2010, 10:38 PM
Nothing good may come of it, but who's to say that a person should not be allowed to do it? As long as it's controlled similarly to alcohol (like no driving under the influence), then it doesn't affect anyone other than themselves.
Does someone have to contribute to society in such a way like being a doctor, or a construction worker, and have direct inpact in peoples' lives to worthy of life?


This is going nowhere. It seems a shame that people become so dedicated to a cause that has no provable benefit other than escape from reality. Kinda reminds you of Health Care Reform.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aldous Huxley, On psychological totalitarianism (1959):
And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing ... a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

Mr.CRC
04-01-2010, 10:40 PM
Legalization of Marijuana is going to happen. The big Tobacco companies are purchasing large plots of Fertile Land in the Central Valley area of CA.

Us, none ruling class folk will have maybe 2 years at most before all other laws and regulations are in place to make some money off the change in laws.

Ultimately, it will be the big tobacco companies and Big Pharma that will be growing all the Marijuana in this country with the help of Mansanto.

Then we'll bust the home growers for patent violations.

One thing we can be sure won't come to America when it's all added together: more freedom.

Mr.CRC
04-01-2010, 10:59 PM
For some reason I can't get all up in arms over this fellow getting pinched. I'm glad he saved his fanny in the shooting and all, I'm not all that hot on legalizing the stuff or tossing folks in jail - but I don't see pot growers and sellers as providing some sort of benefit to society. The guy played the game, took his chances and it didn't work out all that well I guess.

As an aside, when (if) pot becomes legal and the price drops I'd expect that many folks who are now selling pot for big $$$ will move on to other illegal and lucrative endeavors - start pushing Meth, E, coke and such. It's not like they're going to start working at Demoulas.

The question of whether something provides a "benefit to society" (as judged by whom?) is only of relevance in a collectivist, socialist, or communist state in which the "common good" is the criteria for determining what economic or other activity is permitted.

However, in a free society based on liberty the only relevant criteria is that the activity does not clearly harm the life, self-ownership, or property of other people. Whether it harms the one performing the activity is irrelevant.

All drugs should be legalized completely, with no taxes other than ordinary sales taxes. Perhaps some mandatory quality certification for wholesalers. That's it. You want freedom, or not?

Mr.CRC
04-01-2010, 11:06 PM
Leading advocates of the Tax & Regulate Cannabis Act are uncertain of passage and face an entrenched and expanding opposition which included religious coalitions, law enforcement agencies, the existing medical marijuana providers, soccer moms, educators and PTA groups, nurse associations, established growers, youth advocate groups and the majority of conservative voters in California. It's passage is far from certain. Based on preliminary polls, if the vote were held today it would fail.

The dismal condition of city, county and state coffers indicate the tax and regulate aspect of the proposed Cannabis Act will yield a significant increase in price. Presently, on average, an ounce of medical marijuana now costs approx $400 per ounce in a dispensary. I've heard some estimates that after state, county and city/ municipal taxes are factored in, coupled with regulatory fees (back ground checks for growers and sellers, inspection fees for growers, inspection fees for sellers, sellers liability insurance, building, fire and safety inspection fees for indoor growers, etc., etc.,ad nauseum) the end user (consumer) can expect to pay about $700+ per ounce. We can be certain that all levels of cash strapped gov't will try to maximize the sin tax placed on marijuana.

Sounds like we're hell-bent on actually strengthening the Mexican Drug cartels. We're seem to be desperate to have our society over-run by drug gangs in the name of law and order.

Legalize pot, tax and regulate, screw it all up just like government does with everything it gets its hands on, the housing market, the banking system, etc.

Zhukov
04-02-2010, 1:09 AM
They said the same thing when they pushed prohibition. That worked out so well. :cool:


This is going nowhere. It seems a shame that people become so dedicated to a cause that has no provable benefit other than escape from reality. Kinda reminds you of Health Care Reform.

Sleepy McGee
04-02-2010, 1:31 AM
Sounds like we're hell-bent on actually strengthening the Mexican Drug cartels. We're seem to be desperate to have our society over-run by drug gangs in the name of law and order.

Legalize pot, tax and regulate, screw it all up just like government does with everything it gets its hands on, the housing market, the banking system, etc.

Your pessimism appears very feigned. I'd guess your next post will claim that the drug war is un-winnable. That's the usual spin that legalization advocates try to use. The facts are contrary to your misleading pessimism:

-Over all drug use in America is down by more than 1/3 since the late 1970's. (that's 9.5 million fewer people using illegal drugs)

-cocaine use is down by a remarkable 70% in the last 15 years (that's 4 million fewer people using cocaine)

-student drug use is at it's lowest levels in nine years

-2/3 of teens say their schools are drug free. It's is the first time this majority of schools has occurred during the seven year study

To put things in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. Think about that: More than 95 percent of Americans do not use drugs. How could anyone but the most hardened pessimist call this a losing struggle? Does anyone really expect the Tax Regulate and Control Marijuana initiative to pass? I think not.

Your logic and reasoning eschews and important element called common sense, my friend. If one were to follow your trend of thinking then the United States should throw the towel in and cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan because our troops are still being killed. Or perhaps you think we should dissolve the Department of Homeland Security because terrorists are still trying to board planes to fly into the United States. Should we try to control and regulate them too? :rolleyes:



I came across an interesting web site which I've listed here for you. Perhaps we can all gain some insight from reading about the negative impact marijuana legalization will have on California:

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana www.CALMCA.org
--------------------------------------------------------




Man Crashes 13 Times – Says He Was High on Pot

Temecula, San Diego – A man who admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana caused at least 13 crashes yesterday afternoon, police said. The spree ended when he hit a vehicle head-on, disabling the 1998 Nissan Pathfinder he was driving.

The 24-year-old from Temecula began hitting vehicles at about 2:40 p.m. while driving the sport utility vehicle north on Bear Valley parkway near Royal Crest Drive, Escondido police Sgt. Don Shumate said. At least seven crashes were reported to police in that area, and the man did not stop for any of them, Shumate said.

He made a U-turn and started driving south, most of the time on the wrong side of the road, Shumate said. Several drivers swerved to avoid hitting the SUV. There were another six wrecks before he crashed head-on with a vehicle on Via Rancho Parkway near Interstate 15, Shumate said. At one point the driver passed in front of San Pasqual High School.

Two people were injured and taken to a hospital. They are expected to survive, authorities said.

When confronted by officers, the man said he had smoked marijuana and showed them a medical marijuana card that he obtained for treatment of an undisclosed ailment, Shumate said. The man struck one officer in the face while being arrested Shumate said.

Thirteen crashes were reported in a one-mile stretch. Police believe the SUV may have crashed into more vehicles because of debris officers found on the road.

The man was booked into County Jail on suspicion of felony hit and run, battery on a peace officer and driving under the influence of marijuana.

Jose Luis Jimenez
Source
March 26th, 2010 Posted in Vehicle Accident

Sleepy McGee
04-02-2010, 1:44 AM
They said the same thing when they pushed prohibition. That worked out so well. :cool:

OK, we've seen Spudz Mckenzie being used to try to market alcohol to kids.
We've seen Joe Camel cartoons used to try to market tobacco to kids.
If by some outside chance, the Tax, Regulate and Control Marijuana initiative ever passed (it won't), how long before kids see a Billy Buds cartoon or a Suzy Kush advertisement aimed at them? Do you think such an ad would be acceptable?

Mr.CRC
04-02-2010, 9:14 AM
Your pessimism appears very feigned. I'd guess your next post will claim that the drug war is un-winnable. That's the usual spin that legalization advocates try to use. The facts are contrary to your misleading pessimism:

-Over all drug use in America is down by more than 1/3 since the late 1970's. (that's 9.5 million fewer people using illegal drugs)

-cocaine use is down by a remarkable 70% in the last 15 years (that's 4 million fewer people using cocaine)

-student drug use is at it's lowest levels in nine years

-2/3 of teens say their schools are drug free. It's is the first time this majority of schools has occurred during the seven year study

To put things in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. Think about that: More than 95 percent of Americans do not use drugs. How could anyone but the most hardened pessimist call this a losing struggle? Does anyone really expect the Tax Regulate and Control Marijuana initiative to pass? I think not.


These "facts" are highly suspect. In fact, they defy common sense. Let's see. Just a cursory search turns up many contradicting pieces of information:

http://www.topix.net/content/csm/2010/03/teens-and-drugs-after-long-decline-drug-use-climbs
http://www.meditests.com/students-drug-testing.html
http://www.teendrugabuse.us/marijuana.html

Actually, I think such facts are irrelevant. In every case, they are likely to be highly suspect due to the biases which result from the agendas of the organizations promulgating them.

I prefer to start with the principle of liberty, the thing we often claim to be so interested in defending in the US, but actually ensure its loss by having the solution to every problem be more government power, and more "wars."

Simple question for anyone who can enlighten me:

What part of the US Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate the contents of one's blood stream?

And yes, the drug war is un-winnable. It's been going on for 50 years with a cost of innummerable deaths and ruined lives, in many cases to innocents. All we have to show for it are contradictory stats. We have lost. It would be far better to simply allow druggies to destroy themselves while not getting innocents caught up in the crossfire. If fully legalized, the crime associated with procuring drugs via theft will decrease in direct proportion to the reduction in cost (or even more, since if cost is low enough, then even barely functional addicts can make enough money to buy their drugs legitimately), while the violent crime associated with the criminal black market will simply disappear. Drug users may be released from prison and the functional ones can become productive members of society.

We won't even win (though it will be much easier to lie to ourselves that we have) if we implement full-blown totalitarianism, which is in fact exactly what we are creeping toward. There is a second consequence to this. I'm quite certain that if we persist with the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" that we will ultimately not retain the right to keep and bear arms, and we will live under totalitarianism.


Your logic and reasoning eschews and important element called common sense, my friend. If one were to follow your trend of thinking then the United States should throw the towel in and cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan because our troops are still being killed. Or perhaps you think we should dissolve the Department of Homeland Security because terrorists are still trying to board planes to fly into the United States. Should we try to control and regulate them too? :rolleyes:

The lines of reasoning do not relate. Thus, attempting to make an analogy is false. If one is defending their life and property, then the appropriate action is to fight to the death. If one is engaged in an illegal unconstitutional and immoral imperial war, the honest action is to admit fault and terminate the wrong action immediately, followed by making amends. In such a case it is not to "cut and run" as you phrase, but beginning the process of redemption.

I have no sympathy for terrorists, but I do have sympathy for those in our imperial provinces who's lives we destroy in our quest for world domination and oil. Islamic terrorism may best be mitigated by simple political responses. 1. End imperialism in all its forms. 2. Prohibit any foreign citizen from entering the USA who is from a non-approved country or who doesn't have an important business relationship. 3. Maintain a strong defense of the USA.

We should dissolve the Department of Homeland Security because we will ultimately loose all of our freedom (including the right to bear arms) as the price paid for "winning" the War on Terror, which means we will actually loose, which is exactly what is happening.

Finally, about CALM below, their stats and information appear to be biased and highly suspect propaganda. I am fully aware that there are many members of society who's very livelihoods depend on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, no matter how destructive.

I came across an interesting web site which I've listed here for you. Perhaps we can all gain some insight from reading about the negative impact marijuana legalization will have on California:

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana www.CALMCA.org
--------------------------------------------------------




Man Crashes 13 Times – Says He Was High on Pot

Temecula, San Diego – A man who admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana caused at least 13 crashes yesterday afternoon, police said. The spree ended when he hit a vehicle head-on, disabling the 1998 Nissan Pathfinder he was driving.

The 24-year-old from Temecula began hitting vehicles at about 2:40 p.m. while driving the sport utility vehicle north on Bear Valley parkway near Royal Crest Drive, Escondido police Sgt. Don Shumate said. At least seven crashes were reported to police in that area, and the man did not stop for any of them, Shumate said.

He made a U-turn and started driving south, most of the time on the wrong side of the road, Shumate said. Several drivers swerved to avoid hitting the SUV. There were another six wrecks before he crashed head-on with a vehicle on Via Rancho Parkway near Interstate 15, Shumate said. At one point the driver passed in front of San Pasqual High School.

Two people were injured and taken to a hospital. They are expected to survive, authorities said.

When confronted by officers, the man said he had smoked marijuana and showed them a medical marijuana card that he obtained for treatment of an undisclosed ailment, Shumate said. The man struck one officer in the face while being arrested Shumate said.

Thirteen crashes were reported in a one-mile stretch. Police believe the SUV may have crashed into more vehicles because of debris officers found on the road.

The man was booked into County Jail on suspicion of felony hit and run, battery on a peace officer and driving under the influence of marijuana.

Jose Luis Jimenez
Source
March 26th, 2010 Posted in Vehicle Accident

dfletcher
04-02-2010, 9:38 AM
It's a bit boring and from an anti tobacco group, but the basic premise is that higher prices for the product resulted in lower demand - taxes of course increase the price and producers, realizing this, sought to lower prices and increase demand:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i62.full

So I suppose the big questions are, would legalizing MJ result in a price drop and if so, shouldn't we expect use to increase? Will prices drop once the government gets their tax hungry hands in the deal or will they tax the hell out of it to keep prices high and influence use?

Shouldn't we expect government at some point to develop the same love - hate relationship with MJ that it has with tobacco? As in, love that tax money but hate the habit?

Whoever said "sales tax only" if legalized I agree if only for the reason of denying tax revenue to the tumor that is government, but I doubt that's going to happen. The tax rate in CA for tobacco is huge - nearly 50%. If a dealer buys a cigar for $4.00 the tax is almost $2.00 - the dealer has to make some $$$, so that $4.00 cigar sells for almost $8.00. Who knows what they'd do with MJ.

mzimmers
04-02-2010, 10:11 AM
Pot is an amazing drug. You don't even have to consume it; judging from some of the responses here, just discussing it makes your mind a bit fuzzy.

All of the spurious arguments/justifications/rationalization about how MJ should be legal simply doesn't cut any dice here. It is illegal. The grower was a criminal. If the feds really wanted to come down hard on him, they'd throw the book at him in addition to taking his guns away.

Why is this so hard to understand/accept?

Twist18
04-02-2010, 10:49 AM
I wonder if those who advocate ending the war on drugs because it's unwinnable and is/has been a dismal failure would advocate the ending of the so called "war on poverty"? We've been fighting the "war on poverty" longer than we've been fighting the war on drugs, and these social programs are very obviously a dismal failure!

dfletcher
04-02-2010, 10:57 AM
The question of whether something provides a "benefit to society" (as judged by whom?) is only of relevance in a collectivist, socialist, or communist state in which the "common good" is the criteria for determining what economic or other activity is permitted.

However, in a free society based on liberty the only relevant criteria is that the activity does not clearly harm the life, self-ownership, or property of other people. Whether it harms the one performing the activity is irrelevant.

All drugs should be legalized completely, with no taxes other than ordinary sales taxes. Perhaps some mandatory quality certification for wholesalers. That's it. You want freedom, or not?

My "benefit to society" comment was an offhand reference to the notion that folks who grow or sell are according to some pushing social reform or another agenda when they're doing it for the plain old American reason of making money. And while a few use it medically, people smoke it to get high. Woody Harrelson wearing a Hemp suit to convince folks growing MJ should be legal is so much palaver. Focus of the discussion should be "I want to grow it & make $$$, you want to smoke it to get high". He broke the law trying to make $$$, that's all.

bomb_on_bus
04-02-2010, 11:06 AM
all i have to do is look at my pot head neighbor as reason enough not to use it and know why it is illegal.

the other thing people fail to realize that if it is legalized it will also become a private industry just like pharmaceutical companies. Instead of going to the neighborhood supplier you go through insurance just like for any other perscription med. The drug will be better controlled but so will the prices and if people are paying what they pay for pot now just imagine the spike in price once pfizer and kaiser get their hands in your wallets.

mzimmers
04-02-2010, 11:18 AM
all i have to do is look at my pot head neighbor as reason enough not to use it and know why it is illegal.
Food for thought: is the fact that some people misuse/abuse something sufficient grounds to make the "thing" illegal?

the other thing people fail to realize that if it is legalized it will also become a private industry just like pharmaceutical companies.
Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Instead of going to the neighborhood supplier you go through insurance just like for any other perscription med. The drug will be better controlled but so will the prices and if people are paying what they pay for pot now just imagine the spike in price once pfizer and kaiser get their hands in your wallets.

Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows what would happen to prices if MJ were commercialized. I can see valid arguments on both sides here. One thing about MJ, though: it is undeniably cheap and easy to grow. If commercial prices were prohibitive, many would just grow their own, unless the laws against doing so became much sterner than they are currently.

Merc1138
04-02-2010, 11:22 AM
If commercial prices were prohibitive, many would just grow their own, unless the laws against doing so became much sterner than they are currently.

And you'd still have an established group of cartels doing exactly what they're currently doing, except instead of just drug charges then they'd also be dodging taxes and undercutting the commercial producers.

stan
04-02-2010, 11:29 AM
everyone in this thread just needs to chill out and burn one.

Mr.CRC
04-02-2010, 1:02 PM
Pot is an amazing drug. You don't even have to consume it; judging from some of the responses here, just discussing it makes your mind a bit fuzzy.

All of the spurious arguments/justifications/rationalization about how MJ should be legal simply doesn't cut any dice here. It is illegal. The grower was a criminal. If the feds really wanted to come down hard on him, they'd throw the book at him in addition to taking his guns away.

Why is this so hard to understand/accept?

Because this is the "2nd Amend. Politics and Laws" forum of Calguns.net, where we generally have a keen interest in keeping the government following its own rules so that we can retain the right to keep and bear arms, a basic human right, which the US Constitution prohibits the government from infringing, but which is meaningless if we let the government exceed the scope of the Constitution in matters where we personally don't like what other people are doing and would like to bludgeon them with government power to make them stop or live according to our values.

If the government doesn't follow any of its other rules, then its only a matter of time before it takes away our guns.

That is why this question is so important:

What part of the US Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate the contents of one's blood stream?

If you say "the commerce clause" then you have just stamped approval on the government's use of the commerce clause to intervene in every aspect of the economy and every aspect of our lives, such as Obama's health care abomination. Good luck keeping your gun rights in that case.

If you say that the commerce clause doesn't give the government the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, but it does allow the government to regulate the contents of one's blood stream, or what plants one grows in their home for personal use, then it will be awfully difficult to argue why that same clause doesn't allow the government to do anything else, such as force us to buy health insurance, regulate guns in any way shape or form, etc.

Merc1138
04-02-2010, 1:11 PM
Because this is the "2nd Amend. Politics and Laws" forum of Calguns.net,

Yes, so what does whether or not pot is legal have to do with this forum? Oh wait, nothing.

mzimmers
04-02-2010, 2:02 PM
Because this is the "2nd Amend. Politics and Laws" forum of Calguns.net, where we generally have a keen interest in keeping the government following its own rules so that we can retain the right to keep and bear arms...

Good points made, but IMO you're ignoring a fundamental difference between our rights to arms and our other "rights:" I can point to the part of the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land -- that (supposedly) ensures my right to arms. I can't do that for MJ.

This distinction can't be overstated. As a law-abiding gun owner, there are many, many laws restricting my possession and usage of firearms that I observe. I don't agree with all of them; indeed, I rather detest several. Many, moreover, are under challenge for their unconstitutionality. But, I obey them. I do so, not for fear of getting caught, but because I don't wish to engage in criminal acts.

Bringing this back to the original topic of this thread, I don't see how someone who violates federal law (one whose constitutionality has NOT been seriously challenged, AFAIK) and loses his gun rights as a result...has much to do with me or anyone else who is lawfully exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right. Perhaps I just don't have enough imagination.

Sgt Raven
04-02-2010, 3:03 PM
Good points made, but IMO you're ignoring a fundamental difference between our rights to arms and our other "rights:" I can point to the part of the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land -- that (supposedly) ensures my right to arms. I can't do that for MJ.

This distinction can't be overstated. As a law-abiding gun owner, there are many, many laws restricting my possession and usage of firearms that I observe. I don't agree with all of them; indeed, I rather detest several. Many, moreover, are under challenge for their unconstitutionality. But, I obey them. I do so, not for fear of getting caught, but because I don't wish to engage in criminal acts.

Bringing this back to the original topic of this thread, I don't see how someone who violates federal law (one whose constitutionality has NOT been seriously challenged, AFAIK) and loses his gun rights as a result...has much to do with me or anyone else who is lawfully exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right. Perhaps I just don't have enough imagination.


Do any of y'all know where our current drug laws came from? In the early 1900's they were against Blacks in the south east US and in the south west against Mexicans. The same places that our racist CCW laws came from. :eek: :rolleyes:

RideIcon
04-02-2010, 4:12 PM
Honestly, no ones right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, no matter what, unless they are incarcerated.

Mr.CRC
04-02-2010, 4:52 PM
Good points made, but IMO you're ignoring a fundamental difference between our rights to arms and our other "rights:" I can point to the part of the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land -- that (supposedly) ensures my right to arms. I can't do that for MJ.

You are advancing the erroneous position that the government has unlimited powers, except for those prohibited it by the constitution.

The US Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. The 10th Amendment states "the powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."

The correct logic is thus: Unless the Constitution states that the government has the power to regulate marijuana, it is prohibited from doing so.

Getting this wrong is extremely dangerous, because the alternative is total government. The subtler error and greater danger is thinking that our rights are derived from the guarantees in the constitution. This is incorrect. Our rights to life, liberty, property, to bear arms, etc. should be viewed as fundamental human rights. The Bill of Rights simply spells out explicitly what is already implied by the US Constitution, that the government has not the power to infringe these rights because it is not granted the power to regulate these things by the constitution.

Since it must be assumed that government will try to scam its way around the pure intent of the constitution to accrete more powers than it is legally permitted to exercise, so the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to spell this out. There is really nothing added to the government's power if the Bill of Rights is not even present.

Note what happens if your thinking is correct: A constitutional amendment to nullify the 2nd would negate gun rights. So you have to make up your mind: are gun rights fundamental human rights (as a logical extension of the right to retain life), or government granted rights via a piece of paper?


This distinction can't be overstated. As a law-abiding gun owner, there are many, many laws restricting my possession and usage of firearms that I observe. I don't agree with all of them; indeed, I rather detest several. Many, moreover, are under challenge for their unconstitutionality. But, I obey them. I do so, not for fear of getting caught, but because I don't wish to engage in criminal acts.

Bringing this back to the original topic of this thread, I don't see how someone who violates federal law (one whose constitutionality has NOT been seriously challenged, AFAIK) and loses his gun rights as a result...has much to do with me or anyone else who is lawfully exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right. Perhaps I just don't have enough imagination.

Once again I maintain that having a correct interpretation of the manner in which the constitution limits the powers of government is critical to preserving gun rights.

Whenever the government exercises power not explicitly granted it by the constitution such as regulating the contents of our blood stream and what we put in our cigarettes, then gun and all other rights are imperiled directly by this breach of the constitution. Additionally, our rights are threatened more subtly and corrosively by the conditioning of the populace to the incorrect view that their rights are granted by the constitution rather than being fundamental rights that the government is being explicitly warned to steer clear away from by the Bill of Rights.

BTW I advance the argument to legalize drugs as a matter of principle even though I personally believe that use of intoxicating drugs including alcohol is morally wrong. However, by being in a class of wrongs which are personally destructive (with widely varying degrees based on drug chosen and quantity/frequency consumed) and not directly harmful to myself or others, I believe that the only position to take which is logically consistent with the principles of liberty and limited government is that drug use should not be prohibited.

For a free society to remain free we must understand that we have to tolerate others performing actions that we don't approve of, provided that they don't harm us, if we wish to maintain our own liberty. It really is as simple as that.

Sleepy McGee
04-02-2010, 5:06 PM
snipped for brevity

The correct logic is thus:

This is going nowhere. It seems a shame that people become so dedicated to a cause that has no provable benefit other than escape from reality.

Merc1138
04-02-2010, 5:11 PM
snipped for brevity


This is going nowhere. It seems a shame that people become so dedicated to a cause that has no provable benefit other than escape from reality.

It's funny, the only dedication I've ever seen in person for the legalization of pot, is hippies at the mall asking me to sign petitions who get upset when I ask them when the last time was that they held down a real job.

inbox485
04-02-2010, 5:18 PM
snipped for brevity


This is going nowhere. It seems a shame that people become so dedicated to a cause that has no provable benefit other than escape from reality.

I've never smoked pot (or anything) and I never intend to. But I can think of a few benefits to legalizing drugs. A big one is my tax dollars stop getting spent on developing a massive anti-social para-military infrastructure operating on domestic soil. Another big one, is SWAT nut jobs have one less excuse to trash my house at 3AM when they think they have intel after some recently arrested druggie rattles off a random address, or when they get the address wrong.

mzimmers
04-02-2010, 5:21 PM
You are advancing the erroneous position that the government has unlimited powers, except for those prohibited it by the constitution.
Not so; see below.

The US Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. The 10th Amendment states "the powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."

Well, if we're going to quote the noble parchment, let's begin at the beginning:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This one sentence is the source of which ALL of our government's "rights" derive. Fairly vague, no? Perhaps deliberately so? In any event, there's a lot of wiggle room there, like it or not.

A reasonable man could construct a viable argument that banning the use of deleterious, mind-altering chemicals falls under the category of "promote the general Welfare."

A reasonable man can NOT deny that the intention of 2A is to allow private citizens to keep and bear arms. I imagine that the founding fathers felt strongly enough about this right to deem it worthy of its own section in the document.

Therein lies the difference. Guns are EXPLICITLY protected from any interpretation of the Preamble. MJ is not. Therefore, IMO, the government can legally ban pot in a (possibly misguided) effort to "promote the general Welfare."

dfletcher
04-02-2010, 5:24 PM
Perhaps to bring this back to guns, if I read correctly this fellow was not drug tested when he bought a gun, wasn't observed smoking a joint just before he went inside to buy nor was he loaded when the act occured - his ability to legally purchase a gun was prohibited because he possesses a "Buy MJ" card and that alone was deemed sufficient.

Is there a due process concern here? Is the only reason a person could have a "buy" card to use for themself? How about having a card for yourself because sick Mom or Dad or better half is too sick to go to the pot store themself?

Is this at all similar to barring gun ownership by a person placed on the "no fly list"?

mzimmers
04-02-2010, 5:36 PM
Perhaps to bring this back to guns, if I read correctly this fellow was not drug tested when he bought a gun, wasn't observed smoking a joint just before he went inside to buy nor was he loaded when the act occured - his ability to legally purchase a gun was prohibited because he possesses a "Buy MJ" card and that alone was deemed sufficient.

Is there a due process concern here? Is the only reason a person could have a "buy" card to use for themself? How about having a card for yourself because sick Mom or Dad or better half is too sick to go to the pot store themself?

Is this at all similar to barring gun ownership by a person placed on the "no fly list"?
From the article in the OP:
The Sheriff's Office forwarded the burglary report to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. "They informed us that possession of a medical drug card is sufficient to establish an inference of current use," Swartz wrote.

Glock-matic
04-02-2010, 6:41 PM
Yup, unless the medical marijuana card was issued by the federal gov't, I am pretty sure they feel that he illegally using, that and smelling like a skunk probably didn't help him out any. Nor the ubiquitous incense in his house. Maybe when being interviewed, he shouldn't have chuckled every other word.

bomb_on_bus
04-02-2010, 6:59 PM
Food for thought: is the fact that some people misuse/abuse something sufficient grounds to make the "thing" illegal?

I see that you are very passionate about this subject. I am not saying that if something is being abused that it should be made illegal. all i said was take a look at my neighbor. he will never amount to anything. he lost his wife and kid when he rolled his truck while high almost killing the kid in the process. cant hold a job, is very moody when he doesnt get his puffs in the morning.


Is this necessarily a bad thing?



I would say looking at the aspect that he cant kick his habbit and lost everything in the process I would say it is a bad thing.


Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows what would happen to prices if MJ were commercialized. I can see valid arguments on both sides here. One thing about MJ, though: it is undeniably cheap and easy to grow. If commercial prices were prohibitive, many would just grow their own, unless the laws against doing so became much sterner than they are currently.



I can guarantee you that if pot is legalized they will outlaw home grown plants. when was the last time you could go down to your buds house and buy home made asparin or prilosec. albeit its a whole lot easier to grow a few weeds in the dirt then it is to make chemical and protien compounds but im saying it could be done.



Its a mood and mind altering drug. it isnt going to make you see paranoid images but it does effect the mind none the less.perscription drugs like haldol and the like are controlled for its mind altering effects like other drugs with similar side effects. plus the public as a whole isnt fond of the idea of legalizing it. now i know that idea sucks but it was the way the country was ran. but nowadays it seems to be the other way around.