Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

For those who thought they'd heard everything in defense of cannabis


rpn

Recommended Posts

On 7/2/2018 at 10:14 PM, rpn said:

I suppose that this might be classed as "poisoning the well', but the Star in the UK is a tabloid, and has a poor reputation over here in the UK for accuracy.  If the Star said something, even something that I agreed with, I'd feel the need to verify it somewhere more trustworthy.

I read it, but find the author's theory as full of holes as a colander.

Link to comment

My town of Lincoln City OR has a population of approx 8000 - 9000... We have 11 pot shops from the north end of town down the coast to Depoe Bay, a distance of about 15 miles... I hate it...

GG

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

My town of Lincoln City OR has a population of approx 8000 - 9000... We have 11 pot shops from the north end of town down the coast to Depoe Bay, a distance of about 15 miles... I hate it...

GG

Can you be more specific as to what you hate about them? Are there people hanging around them and getting stoned nearby? I'd for sure hate that. I'm all for medicinal, and possibly recreational, but have a tough time accepting a bunch of stoned people walking around. Just like I'd hate a bunch of drunk people walking around. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Can you be more specific as to what you hate about them? Are there people hanging around them and getting stoned nearby? I'd for sure hate that. I'm all for medicinal, and possibly recreational, but have a tough time accepting a bunch of stoned people walking around. Just like I'd hate a bunch of drunk people walking around. 

I'm against drugs period... including pot... but, 1) I hate my beautiful coastal town being tagged the "pot capital" of the Oregon coast... 2) I hate the prospect of people buying the pot, getting stoned on our beach and parks, and then getting in a car and driving (this is more likely because people are transient here vs having a home to go to in order to use the pot),  3)  I feel the same about alcohol here because of the propensity of people to drink/use and drive... it was bad enough thinking about drunk drivers let alone adding stoned to it...  I've not done any serious statistical research but we probably have a little more problem with pot than alcohol because at least we have state-run liquor stores.   It's 5:30 and I'm listening to the local (Portland) news where there is the annual July 4th Waterfront Music Festival going on, and for the last 15 minutes they've been talking about pot/alcohol issues and DUII's,,, 

GG

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/4/2018 at 5:21 PM, Garden Girl said:

I'm against drugs period... including pot... but, 1) I hate my beautiful coastal town being tagged the "pot capital" of the Oregon coast... 2) I hate the prospect of people buying the pot, getting stoned on our beach and parks, and then getting in a car and driving (this is more likely because people are transient here vs having a home to go to in order to use the pot),  3)  I feel the same about alcohol here because of the propensity of people to drink/use and drive... it was bad enough thinking about drunk drivers let alone adding stoned to it...  I've not done any serious statistical research but we probably have a little more problem with pot than alcohol because at least we have state-run liquor stores.   It's 5:30 and I'm listening to the local (Portland) news where there is the annual July 4th Waterfront Music Festival going on, and for the last 15 minutes they've been talking about pot/alcohol issues and DUII's,,, 

GG

Now that recreational weed is legal, wouldn’t it be great if Safeway, Seven/Eleven, Target, and Walmart had a pot section just like they have booze sections now. (Adult purchase only, of course). Since it’s harmless, they could also have a selection of weed and feed in the OTC pharmacy aisle and the bakery. Perhaps it would put all the mom and pop Weed and Feeds out of business, which would unfortunately add to the unemployment rolls. But, “Dude, “ I say, “the more intoxicants we can get into the system, the better!” Who could it hurt? 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Now that recreational weed is legal, wouldn’t it be great if Safeway, Seven/Eleven, Target, and Walmart had a pot section just like they have booze sections now. (Adult purchase only, of course). Since it’s harmless, they could also have a selection of weed and feed in the OTC pharmacy aisle and the bakery. Perhaps it would put all the mom and pop Weed and Feeds out of business, which would unfortunately add to the unemployment rolls. But, “Dude, “ I say, “the more intoxicants we can get into the system, the better!” Who could it hurt? 

Most definitely if it were medicinal such as the oils. 

Link to comment
On 7/22/2018 at 3:45 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Now that recreational weed is legal, wouldn’t it be great if Safeway, Seven/Eleven, Target, and Walmart had a pot section just like they have booze sections now. (Adult purchase only, of course). Since it’s harmless, they could also have a selection of weed and feed in the OTC pharmacy aisle and the bakery. Perhaps it would put all the mom and pop Weed and Feeds out of business, which would unfortunately add to the unemployment rolls. But, “Dude, “ I say, “the more intoxicants we can get into the system, the better!” Who could it hurt? 

The thing that bothered me about cannibis being illegal was the ease of planting evidence, or even planting seeds on someone's property. I don't know personally of such things, but it is scarilly easy to plant pot seeds in someone's garden, and then anonymously report them. Civil forfeiture could follow, even if the victim was found not guilty. 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/26/2018 at 2:11 AM, Stargazer said:

The thing that bothered me about cannibis being illegal was the ease of planting evidence, or even planting seeds on someone's property. I don't know personally of such things, but it is scarilly easy to plant pot seeds in someone's garden, and then anonymously report them. Civil forfeiture could follow, even if the victim was found not guilty. 

That is the most paranoid reason for legalization I have ever heard. Should we legalize meth labs for fear someone might break in and set one up in your house?

On 7/4/2018 at 7:21 PM, Garden Girl said:

I'm against drugs period... including pot... but, 1) I hate my beautiful coastal town being tagged the "pot capital" of the Oregon coast... 2) I hate the prospect of people buying the pot, getting stoned on our beach and parks, and then getting in a car and driving (this is more likely because people are transient here vs having a home to go to in order to use the pot),  3)  I feel the same about alcohol here because of the propensity of people to drink/use and drive... it was bad enough thinking about drunk drivers let alone adding stoned to it...  I've not done any serious statistical research but we probably have a little more problem with pot than alcohol because at least we have state-run liquor stores.   It's 5:30 and I'm listening to the local (Portland) news where there is the annual July 4th Waterfront Music Festival going on, and for the last 15 minutes they've been talking about pot/alcohol issues and DUII's,,, 

GG

As my company is developing drugged driving tests I say bring on legalization. I could use the bonus money.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is the most paranoid reason for legalization I have ever heard. Should we legalize meth labs for fear someone might break in and set one up in your house?

You know, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard recently. Thanks for the laugh!

It's not really a reason or justification for legalization -- more of a side issue.

Remember Donald Scott?  It is believed they were raiding him in order to get a good bust leading to civil forfeiture of his property -- a great enhancement to the law enforcement agency's budget.  It didn't work out, however.

How difficult would be to plant marijuana seeds on someone's property, especially if they had enough land that some parts were not regularly maintained?  And then, when the plants were mature enough, call in an anonymous tip to the local police.  I think I read about this in one of George Hayduke's "Get Even" books.

You know about such things as Swatting, right?  This is a species of that, except it puts your target's property at risk of civil forfeiture confiscation.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As my company is developing drugged driving tests I say bring on legalization. I could use the bonus money.

Just send them to Washington state.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You know, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard recently. Thanks for the laugh!

It's not really a reason or justification for legalization -- more of a side issue.

Remember Donald Scott?  It is believed they were raiding him in order to get a good bust leading to civil forfeiture of his property -- a great enhancement to the law enforcement agency's budget.  It didn't work out, however.

How difficult would be to plant marijuana seeds on someone's property, especially if they had enough land that some parts were not regularly maintained?  And then, when the plants were mature enough, call in an anonymous tip to the local police.  I think I read about this in one of George Hayduke's "Get Even" books.

You know about such things as Swatting, right?  This is a species of that, except it puts your target's property at risk of civil forfeiture confiscation.

Just send them to Washington state.

Donald Scott? The nutter who wandered out during a police raid with a gun in his hand? That was suicide by cop.

Yeah, there are lots of urban myths about it. Along with spermjacking and waking up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Donald Scott? The nutter who wandered out during a police raid with a gun in his hand? That was suicide by cop.

Yeah, there are lots of urban myths about it. Along with spermjacking and waking up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney.

You've read about the Donald Scott incident?  Obviously not.  I linked to it, perhaps you prefer the urban myth version of it, yourself.  Allow me. 

Note that Scott was not a nutter, or trying to commit suicide, by cop or any other means. He woke in early hours with his wife screaming for apparent home invaders not to kill her, and like anyone who had no reason to expect that a massive police raid was in progress, he emerged from his bedroom trying to act in self-defense.  Unfortunately, he couldn't see very well, due to a recent cataract operation.

===================

Early on the morning of October 2, 1992, 31 officers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, National Guard and Park Service entered the Scott's 200-acre (0.81 km2) ranch. [3] They planned to arrest Scott for allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation.[1] When deputies broke down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she screamed, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me."[4] That brought Scott staggering out of the bedroom, blurry-eyed from a cataract operation—holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head.[5] When he emerged at the top of the stairs, holding his gun over his head, the officers told him to lower the gun. As he did, they shot him to death. According to the official report, the gun was pointed at the officers when they shot him.[1]

Later, the lead agent in the case, sheriff's deputy Gary Spencer and his partner John Cater posed for photographs smiling arm-in-arm outside Scott's cabin.[5]

Despite a subsequent search of Scott's ranch using helicopters, dogs, searchers on foot, and a high-tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory device for detecting trace amounts of sinsemilla, no marijuana—or any other illegal drug—was found.[6]

Aftermath

Scott's widow, the former Frances Plante, along with four of Scott's children from previous marriages, subsequently filed a $100 million wrongful death suit against the county and federal government. For eight years the case dragged on, requiring the services of 15 attorneys and some 30 volume binders to hold all the court documents. In January 2000, attorneys for Los Angeles County and the federal government agreed to settle with Scott's heirs and estate for $5 million, even though the sheriff's department still maintained its deputies had done nothing wrong.[6]

Michael D. Bradbury, the District Attorney of Ventura County conducted an investigation into the raid and the aftermath, issuing a report on the events leading up to and on October 2, 1992.[1] He concluded that asset forfeiture was a motive for the raid.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department issued their own report in response, clearing everyone involved of wrongdoing while California Attorney General Dan Lungren criticized District Attorney Bradbury. Sheriff Spencer sued D.A. Bradbury for defamation in response to the report.[5] The court ruled in favor of Michael Bradbury and ordered Sheriff Spencer to pay $50,000 in Bradbury's legal bills.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, I read that. I still think he was an idiot.

You're welcome to think that, of course -- I feel a bit more charitable towards him than that.  Just how well would you react to home invaders in the early hours of the morning? There's a strong likelihood he didn't know it was a police raid.  But the "law enforcement" activity in question was highly questionable.  They did it so they could confiscate his property, which was the conclusion of the District Attorney.  Naturally, the "internal investigation" concluded they had done nothing wrong.  Which was bat puckey.  And it was all about a supposed marijuana grow that didn't exist.  

Well, whatever.  Not much point in rehashing it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...