Making the Case for Medical Marijuana

[patric]

Well-known medical marijuana advocates complaining to a Pittsburgh County judge that their car full of weed was improperly searched on a pretext is not likely to get a favorable outcome.

I believe the whole point of "justice for all" is not picking who has civil rights and who doesnt.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I believe the whole point of "justice for all" is not picking who has civil rights and who doesnt.

Well, obviously, you don't really understand.  Justice for all who can afford it...

[TeeDub]

I believe the whole point of "justice for all" is not picking who has civil rights and who doesn't.

Many people would believe that she got justice.   Perhaps carrying and using marijuana in a state that doesn't believe it to be legal was a mistake. 

"That was a targeted stop, so everything that happened after that really doesn't matter," Nelson said. "This is too common in Oklahoma. I've traveled here to see my family for years. I've heard too many stories from people being damaged by this.

STILL not smart enough to leave the illegal substances at home?   Or at least left them in her suitcase until she got to her destination.

[Conan71]

Many people would believe that she got justice.   Perhaps carrying and using marijuana in a state that doesn't believe it to be legal was a mistake. 

"That was a targeted stop, so everything that happened after that really doesn't matter," Nelson said. "This is too common in Oklahoma. I've traveled here to see my family for years. I've heard too many stories from people being damaged by this.

STILL not smart enough to leave the illegal substances at home?   Or at least left them in her suitcase until she got to her destination.

What she did is not much different than an Oklahoman walking into Madison Square Garden or Staples Center while open carrying.  Advocate all you like, but at least observe the laws of other states while doing so.  If she actually had sparked up while driving, regardless of the state, it makes advocates of MMJ look bad and gives the legislature more ammo in trying to fight MJ initiatives in Oklahoma.

[TeeDub]

What she did is not much different than an Oklahoman walking into Madison Square Garden or Staples Center while open carrying.  Advocate all you like, but at least observe the laws of other states while doing so.  If she actually had sparked up while driving, regardless of the state, it makes advocates of MMJ look bad and gives the legislature more ammo in trying to fight MJ initiatives in Oklahoma.

The article doesn't mention her smoking, but they had some in the cabin as well as some in the luggage.   But this sounds like more than personal use.

A trooper said he found a bag between Laufenberg's feet that contained 11 green and black plastic containers with a "green leafy substance, a white container with oil capsules, herbal hand cream and peanut butter edible."
.....
The traffic stop eventually led to the discovery of three large, vacuum-sealed bags containing "a green leafy substance," as well as digital scales and baggies, the affidavit states.

[patric]

The article doesn't mention her smoking, but they had some in the cabin as well as some in the luggage.   But this sounds like more than personal use.

"Browning, according to the affidavit, took ownership of the large bags of marijuana, saying he does not sell it but does share freely to anyone who asks."

Yes pretty much covered by the article. 
Her idea of philanthropy doesnt really help her cause.  Now a life sentence for that?  The laws need to change regardless.

[patric]

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to cops but "Indian Nations Turnpike" clicked with me.

Five years ago, my wife and I were headed to a mountain bike race in ATX and I had to make business stops in Hugo and Paris, Tx.  We were just south of the north toll gate on the Indian Nations when we got pulled over by OHP, ostensibly because he could not see our car tag with the bicycles on the tray rack behind the car.  He muttered something about needing to add a supplemental tag to our rack when bikes are on so they can identify us better.  This happened during the morning hours.  Written or verbal warning and free to go.

That suddenly makes sense that he figured mountain bikes might mean dope, instead he got a couple of clean cut 40-somethings and no weed or alcohol odor.  I can't tell you how many times I've had another cop behind me either in the city or highway who didn't light me up for a mountain bike open-carry.

When did bicyclists become viewed as such a big police issue?

http://newsok.com/little-discipline-for-okc-officer-who-said-cyclist-wielded-license-as-weapon/article/5581899

[Townsend]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the "horrible OK legislature" thread:

Lawmakers Move Forward on Medical Marijuana Regulations Before Oklahoma Vote

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/lawmakers-move-forward-medical-marijuana-regulations-oklahoma-vote

Oklahomans haven't yet voted on a medical marijuana initiative, but the legislature is already moving to regulate it.

Sen. Ervin Yen proposes limiting use to terminally ill patients and those with neuropathic pain, muscle spasms from multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, nausea or vomiting because of chemotherapy, or loss of weight or appetite from AIDS or cancer.

People with persistent pain other treatments aren't resolving would not qualify for a medical marijuana card.

"I'm just afraid that's too difficult for a physician to figure out if a patient who just wants to get high says, 'I've tried five different opioids and I've tried five different non-drug interventions, and none of them are working. Can you put me on some medical marijuana?'" Yen said.

Oklahomans will vote whether to legalize medical marijuana in June. Sen. Adam Pugh said that gives lawmakers enough time to tackle regulations next year.

"And here we are telling the people of Oklahoma, once again, 'We don't care what you think. We don't care what you stand for. We're just going to do what we think is best. Trust us. Trust the government,'" Pugh said.

Senate Bill 1120 addresses not only who may use medical marijuana and how much they may have, but also who may distribute it. The measure initially limits the state to 20 dispensing sites and lets the State Board of Health set prices.

Oklahomans for Health got the medical marijuana initiative on the June ballot. Chairman Chip Paul said those conditions are strict.

"I don't think I would be investing much, you know, in an Oklahoma business based on those conditions," Paul said.

SB1120 also lets the governor terminate all dispensary licenses if advised there is a risk to public health or safety. The bill made it out of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Oklahomans for Health is more hopeful about a House bill set for a Wednesday committee hearing.

[patric]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the "horrible OK legislature" thread:

Lawmakers Move Forward on Medical Marijuana Regulations Before Oklahoma Vote

Its the legislature usurping the will of the people (initiative petition).  Politicians saying "my no vote counts more than your yes vote" just like they did with criminal justice reform when they said the voters dont know what they are doing.

It ignores the part where only a physician can decide who gets prescribed, and tries to preserve the status-quo corruption we have now.
Only question is which union drafted it.

[Conan71]

When did bicyclists become viewed as such a big police issue?

http://newsok.com/little-discipline-for-okc-officer-who-said-cyclist-wielded-license-as-weapon/article/5581899

First off, neighborhoods have gotten to be a bit spring-loaded about people with backpacks apparently.  When I lived in Lortondale, every now and then someone would post on that page or the Hoover neighborhood page about a black kid with a back pack or someone riding a bike slowly and looking suspicious.

I think it is great the internet has given neighborhoods the ability to be more vigilant about prowlers but it also can lead to situations like this, if someone had even called in about a female in a black top on a bike with a back pack.  The cop here is just being a bully, I'm pretty surprised his body camera wasn't found to be "defective".

I have heard some anecdotal stories from cycling friends getting into arguments with LEOs about traffic laws regarding cyclists.  I think even Ed W mentioned something one time about an encounter like that with a cop while on his bike.

[cannon_fodder]

The marijuana advocate deserved to be arrested.  Sorry, i wish our laws were very different - but she knew she was coming into a state whose police still view marijuana as the Devils Weed and are none to shy about pretextual stops.   She knew that she was on a mission to advocate for Marijuana and drove here from Colorado. She knew the police knew that.  That doesn't mean she "deserved" to be stopped or that the police conducted the stop illegally (I don't know)... but you would think a person in her position would just assume she would be stopped and searched at some point. Legally or otherwise, you're not helping the cause here by getting arrested.
- - - -

The police officer who stopped the cyclist is a strange affair.  It isn't clear why he stopped her in the first place, something vague about "matching a description," which I assume means someone called the police to say they saw someone suspicious.  That's a real low bar for a stop and doesn't explain why the officer seemed to started off hostile.  (Also sad that in OKC someone cyclist to work is apparently suspicious?)

The lady certainly was brisk with the officer, but she was apparently stopped by the police on her way to work simply because someone wanted her to be, so I understand her frustration.  I question the need to stop her at all, to search her without consent, to do an ID check, to run a warrant search on her, or to handcuff her and put her in the back of the car. Sure, you can say that's all standard - but then the government could stop anyone they wanted, say someone else pointed the person out, and then search them, ID them, warrant check, handcuff them.  And the "ID as a weapon" line was total BS.  The entire thing should have been handled different.  This isn't the end of the world and I agree it is not a fire-able offense, but having the government stop and search random citizens does touch on our fundamental freedoms.

So the department blowing it off like "why's everyone so upset" is very bad PR and/or reflects a lack of understanding on their part.  If there is more to the story and someone matching the description had broken into a vehicle or threatened someone, then out with it.
- - - -

The proposed marijuana regulations are just another attempt to hamper legalization.  1 distribution site for every 200,000 people in the state?  1 for every 3500 square miles? 1 for every 4 counties? I'm trying to think of any other business or places to buy a particular product with that few access points.  By all means, let towns set reasonable standards or ban them entirely if they want.  But I'd like to know the scientific or logical way they decided "20" was the right number.

SB1120 also lets the governor terminate all dispensary licenses if advised there is a risk to public health or safety.

In 1933 the Nazis pushed the Enabling Act through Germany's legislature.  Germany had a Constitution, laws, and rules reflecting and protecting the will and rights of the people, that was really annoying to the Nazis.  So they tacked on a new law that says "then none of that really matters, we do what we want and you like it."   

In Oklahoma, the government wouldn't allow any form of legal marijuana.  They tried really hard to stop a vote of the people on the issue.  They are preparing to make the rules and regulations on the same difficult, assuming it will pass. But just in case none of that works, lets give the leader the power to just override everything by proclamation.

I know Nazi comparisons are cliche and I'm not trying to go full hyperbole.  But a provision giving power to the leader to just undue laws at will is seldom seen in Republics with wise governments.

[patric]

The marijuana advocate deserved to be arrested.  Sorry, i wish our laws were very different - but she knew she was coming into a state whose police still view marijuana as the Devils Weed and are none to shy about pretextual stops.   She knew that she was on a mission to advocate for Marijuana and drove here from Colorado. She knew the police knew that.  That doesn't mean she "deserved" to be stopped or that the police conducted the stop illegally (I don't know)... but you would think a person in her position would just assume she would be stopped and searched at some point. Legally or otherwise, you're not helping the cause here by getting arrested.
- - - -

The police officer who stopped the cyclist is a strange affair.  It isn't clear why he stopped her in the first place, something vague about "matching a description," which I assume means someone called the police to say they saw someone suspicious.  That's a real low bar for a stop and doesn't explain why the officer seemed to started off hostile.  (Also sad that in OKC someone cyclist to work is apparently suspicious?)

The lady certainly was brisk with the officer, but she was apparently stopped by the police on her way to work simply because someone wanted her to be, so I understand her frustration.  I question the need to stop her at all, to search her without consent, to do an ID check, to run a warrant search on her, or to handcuff her and put her in the back of the car. Sure, you can say that's all standard - but then the government could stop anyone they wanted, say someone else pointed the person out, and then search them, ID them, warrant check, handcuff them.  And the "ID as a weapon" line was total BS.  The entire thing should have been handled different.  This isn't the end of the world and I agree it is not a fire-able offense, but having the government stop and search random citizens does touch on our fundamental freedoms.

So the department blowing it off like "why's everyone so upset" is very bad PR and/or reflects a lack of understanding on their part.  If there is more to the story and someone matching the description had broken into a vehicle or threatened someone, then out with it.
- - - -

The proposed marijuana regulations are just another attempt to hamper legalization.  1 distribution site for every 200,000 people in the state?  1 for every 3500 square miles? 1 for every 4 counties? I'm trying to think of any other business or places to buy a particular product with that few access points.  By all means, let towns set reasonable standards or ban them entirely if they want.  But I'd like to know the scientific or logical way they decided "20" was the right number.

In 1933 the Nazis pushed the Enabling Act through Germany's legislature.  Germany had a Constitution, laws, and rules reflecting and protecting the will and rights of the people, that was really annoying to the Nazis.  So they tacked on a new law that says "then none of that really matters, we do what we want and you like it."   

In Oklahoma, the government wouldn't allow any form of legal marijuana.  They tried really hard to stop a vote of the people on the issue.  They are preparing to make the rules and regulations on the same difficult, assuming it will pass. But just in case none of that works, lets give the leader the power to just override everything by proclamation.

I know Nazi comparisons are cliche and I'm not trying to go full hyperbole.  But a provision giving power to the leader to just undue laws at will is seldom seen in Republics with wise governments.

An excellent summary; I agree with all but one point:

Lying on police reports can destroy lives. 
It should be a prosecutable crime and at the very least should result in firing, but the unions keep either of those from happening.  As for the motivation, it looked an awful lot like she was being sized up for an assault.

[cannon_fodder]

I agree that a substantive lie on a police report is a huge deal.  But in this instance, it did not end up being substantive. The officer made it dramatic, he exaggerated, or he straight up made stuff up - but it did not change the outcome of the interaction and did not have long term consequences.  Perhaps the officer was considering worse behavior, but that didn't happen and we don't punish people for considering bad behavior.   It isn't a "nothing" and we don't want it to be a norm, but I also don't think we want to open on a lane to scrutinizing reports/logs for reasons to fire officers.

By that I mean looking at each instance and trying to figure out if any wording constitutes a lie.  At the end of many police interactions there is a person unhappy with the officer, even when they are entirely professional and just.  Each one of those people would look for something they can point to in order to cause significant problems, even if the error, omission, or exaggeration wasn't substantive.  But I which I mean significantly changed the nature of the interaction or the outcome.

It's all about balance, IMHO.

[Ed W]

First off, neighborhoods have gotten to be a bit spring-loaded about people with backpacks apparently....

I have heard some anecdotal stories from cycling friends getting into arguments with LEOs about traffic laws regarding cyclists.  I think even Ed W mentioned something one time about an encounter like that with a cop while on his bike.

I read NextDoor for news and information about my neighborhood and there are occasional threads about suspicious salespeople, pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, photographers, and more. If you want to find out how many of your neighbors are mouth breathers incapable of carrying a coherent thought from one end of a paragraph to the other end, I highly recommend reading NextDoor.

One nearly universal component is a disdain for actual law in favor of stepped up enforcement of imaginary ones. While this is comical when it comes from some old biddy down the street, it's decidedly less so when the POTUS says to take someone's guns and worry about due process later. If he's willing to ignore rights in this instance, there's no doubt whatsoever he'd do the same in other situations. What's truly frightening is that his base would cheer.

[Conan71]

I read NextDoor for news and information about my neighborhood and there are occasional threads about suspicious salespeople, pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, photographers, and more. If you want to find out how many of your neighbors are mouth breathers incapable of carrying a coherent thought from one end of a paragraph to the other end, I highly recommend reading NextDoor.

One nearly universal component is a disdain for actual law in favor of stepped up enforcement of imaginary ones. While this is comical when it comes from some old biddy down the street, it's decidedly less so when the POTUS says to take someone's guns and worry about due process later. If he's willing to ignore rights in this instance, there's no doubt whatsoever he'd do the same in other situations. What's truly frightening is that his base would cheer.

I always got a kick out of porch piracy complaints on Next Door and how we needed more manpower patrolling the streets to lock up these miscreants stealing cat food and diapers from porches.  A far simpler solution is getting a mail drop like we had or having valuable shipments sent to the office.  Reading Next Door is much like reading the public comments on media sites, good for a laugh until you realize these people procreate and vote.