Eureka!!!!

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by inteller

if they drop the "importance" of pot enforcement then I have a laundry list of other things that should recieve a drop in priority....starting with prostitution, moving on to speeding, and ending with software piracy.  because geeks should be able to speed down the BA with their whore downloading MP3s without fear of being caught by the law....and of course its less dangerous than alchohol.

Why?

Using the above logic, let's look back at the  repeal of the archaic liquor by the drink law from over 25 years ago... why stop there?... how 'bout this laundry list?  After passage of liquor by the drink, we could've started with prostitution, changing the speed limit on the Will Rogers Turnpike from 55 mph to 75 mph, and ended it with the repeal of illegal copying of sheet music, LP's and illegal duplication of videos on betamax... because preppies should be able to speed down I-44 with their whore making Air Supply mix tapes on cassette without fear of being caught by the law....and of course its less dangerous than alcohol.

As for alcohol, is thumbody gettin' a little defensive over their legal entitlement to imbibe brewskis, cosmos and long islands?

BTW, I'm pretty much a beer-only guy myself... I could probably count the number of times I've "taken a hit" of pot on one hand... the last time was close to a decade ago... and the only way I'd support outright legalization of pot is if Oklahoma found a way to restrict its manufacture to 3.2 marijuana... []

Very hillarious reply, 3.2 pot, now there's an idea. [}:)]

[Conan71]

I think this is getting blown pretty far out of proportion.  I don't recall that they were going to legalize it, just lower it on the priority of offenses.  If some sleepy little 'burg out in the Ozarks wants to make it less of a law enforcement priority- so be it.  The main industry in the area is tourism, not high-tech or government contracts.  If a gallery owner wants to get stoned, who really cares?

I've heard this "gateway drug" argument about pot for a very long time, and it's a tired one.  A lot of drug addicts also smoke, so why not assume that nicotine is their gateway drug?  I've known people for whom crank, cocaine, pain killers, or alcohol were their "gateway" drug, or was their only drug of choice.

For the most part, the people I've known that were regular weed smokers stuck to weed and might experiment with hallucinogenics (sp?) from tim-to-time.  They never wanted to pick fights, felt too lazy to get in the car to go steal something, and managed to show up at work on time every day without lingering after-effects.  

Usually those people wanted a relaxing effect, not a manic effect like cocaine or meth.  So as far as pot leading to harder stimulant type drugs- it's not the norm.

[RecycleMichael]

Speaking of gateway drugs...I have never known an alcoholic who didn't start out with milk.

Got milk? Get help.

[aoxamaxoa]

Marijuana-like compound may fight Alzheimer's

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061018/ts_nm/marijuana_alzheimers_dc_2

Now that is "beyond the pale".

The irony is killing me....

[mspivey]

Eureka Springs is a tourist town that depends heavily on Biker revenue. They just don't want to run off the Bikers. Making more of an issue that that is missing the point.

[aoxamaxoa]

War on Drugs Roundup

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2656/War_on_Drugs_Roundup

'Marijuana ballot initiatives spread across the U.S., Golden Triangle opium production down, no probation drug tests
Marijuana on the Ballot"

[aoxamaxoa]

SF Supes Set To Vote on Softening Pot Enforcement
By: Charlie Goodyear
San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/11/13/BAGBEMC1IP8.DTL

(11-13) 15:23 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco's Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday on legislation that would set nearly all crimes involving marijuana as the lowest law enforcement priority for city police.

The legislation, sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, was approved today by a board committee with the blessing of police officials and over the complaints of some residents.

"This measure, which would legalize the unlimited growth and sales (of marijuana) on private property, will make public spitting and (leaving chewing) gum ... on the sidewalk higher priorities," said Kim Stryker, voicing opposition before the supervisors' City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee.

Ammiano introduced the legislation in August at the behest of groups pushing for the national decriminalization of marijuana. He defended the policy move, saying it is consistent with Proposition W, a measure passed in 1976 by city voters calling for an end to marijuana arrests and prosecutions, and state Proposition 215, which provides for medical use of cannabis.

"There are many better ways that we can be using our tax dollars and empowering our law enforcement than wasting money and police resources on marijuana offenses," Ammiano said. "This ordinance would allow San Francisco to join other forward-thinking cities. It will not result in San Francisco becoming Amsterdam West."

Under the proposed legislation, city police would be directed to essentially ignore most marijuana crimes unless they involve minors or acts of violence, driving under the influence or the sale or distribution of pot on public property or within view from public property.

San Francisco Police Capt. Tim Hedrick, head of the department's narcotics squad, said Ammiano's legislation is consistent with police policy on marijuana crimes. "It does not tie our hands enforcing the law," he told the committee.

But a number of residents protested the legislation, saying it will encourage crime and the use of harder drugs such as cocaine or heroin.

"It will undermine the efforts of people who live in marginal neighborhoods to make their neighborhoods safe, clean and peaceful," said Arthur Evans, a Haight-Ashbury resident. "This measure is an attack on the well-being of our neighborhoods. You should not throw obstacles in our way. You should help us to make San Francisco more safe and livable."

Supervisor Fiona Ma, a member of the committee hearing Ammiano's legislation, also spoke out against it, saying she believed it "establishes a new policy that has not been presented to the voters." Ma broke with Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, the committee's chairman, and Ammiano in voting against the legislation today.

Although the city doesn't track marijuana arrests and prosecutions, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) has said more than 1,000 people were arrested in cases involving the drug in 2004.

Dale Gieringer of the California chapter of NORML said cities that have adopted a lax policy toward marijuana have not seen it contribute to crime -- which is an argument activists make for legalization of marijuana under federal law.

"We have to start somewhere and we have to act locally," he added.

E-mail Charlie Goodyear at cgoodyear@sfchronicle.com.

[aoxamaxoa]

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html

>>>Marijuana is not a "gateway" drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study. Moreover, the study's findings call into question the long-held belief that has shaped prevention efforts and governmental policy for six decades and caused many a parent to panic upon discovering a bag of pot in their child's bedroom.


UNFORTUNATELY the powers that be don't listen.

[unknown]

There are far worse addicting legal drugs than pot... pot itself isn't that harmful, but anything can be abused. I think Federal Government makes too much money off of it to ever legalize it.

Anybody ever heard of Salvia?? it is legal and produces a intensely short lived trip... same effects of acid or mushrooms, but pot is the bad???

[patric]

Dearborn lets cop quit without a drug charge in marijuana brownie case
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75185
BY JENNIFER DIXON, DET. FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Dearborn police declined to pursue criminal charges against an officer last year, even after the cop admitted to taking marijuana from criminal suspects and, with his wife, cooking it up in brownies.

Then-Cpl. Edward Sanchez was allowed to resign from the department, but he was not charged with a crime. He declined to comment Wednesday.

His wife, Stacy Sanchez, admitted to police investigators that on another occasion she removed cocaine from her husband's police cruiser - drugs purportedly earmarked to train police dogs - and used it during a three-week binge. She, too, has not been charged criminally. Dearborn Police Cmdr. Jeff Geisinger left a phone message with Free Press reporting partner WDIV-TV Local 4 saying Sanchez resigned during an internal investigation. Geisinger did not return subsequent calls asking why Sanchez was not prosecuted.

The decision not to charge Sanchez upset Dearborn Councilman Doug Thomas, who said the department's inaction sends the wrong message to the public.

"If you're a cop and you're arresting people and you're confiscating the marijuana and keeping it yourself, that's bad. That's real bad. That's like apprehending a bank robber and keeping some of the money for yourself."

He promised to investigate.

"It doesn't add up here," Thomas said. "If he was allowed to resign with no action, he can apply for another police position. There's all kinds of ramifications."

The department's investigation began with a bizarre 911 call from Sanchez's home in Dearborn Heights. On the night of April 21, 2006, a panicky Sanchez told an emergency dispatcher he thought he and his wife were overdosing on marijuana.

"I think we're dying," he said in the 5-minute tape, obtained under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.

"We made brownies and I think we're dead, I really do," Sanchez continued.

He told the dispatcher he had never made marijuana brownies before, but had previously used marijuana.

Then, he asked the score of the Red Wings game on television that night, explaining, "I just want to make sure this isn't some type of, like, hallucination that I'm having."

When later questioned by police investigators, Sanchez said his wife took the marijuana out of his police vehicle while he was sleeping, and she told investigators she tricked him into eating a pot-laced brownie.

"Cpl. Sanchez was insistent that he would never ingest marijuana or any narcotics intentionally," an investigator wrote.

But in a subsequent interview, Sanchez acknowledged he fetched the marijuana from his car, put it in the brownie batter, and ate the brownies.

Sanchez also said he took the marijuana "off the street from unknown persons," investigators wrote.

"I questioned him in detail about how many times and what types of narcotics he seized without arrest," the report said. "He was adamant that he only seized marijuana, and it was on a few occasions. Cpl. Sanchez stated that it had been over a year since he seized this marijuana and that the marijuana was taken to train his K-9," or drug-sniffing dog.

Wayne State University criminal law professor David A. Moran said Sanchez's behavior was problematic - as was the Police Department's decision not to charge him.

"An officer has a duty to enforce the law and if an officer finds someone in possession of illegal narcotics, he has a duty to seize the narcotics, arrest the persons ... and properly dispose of the contraband if no charges end up being filed," Moran said.

Moran said it is a criminal offense in Michigan for officers to fail to perform their duties.

"It is not as unusual as it should be for the police to look the other way when an officer commits an infraction, but this is a lot worse than the average police officer speeding a little bit," Moran said.




"Many people are questioning why a police officer and his wife can steal marijuana and consume it to the point they believe they are overdosing, without any legal consequences."  (includes 911 tape of call)
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may182007/cop_brownies_51807.php

[patric]

FORT COLLINS - A couple arrested last summer after police found marijuana in their home will get their property back, a judge ruled Monday afternoon.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=81730

"I'm very satisfied," said James Masters, who looked a bit dazed following the decision. "I don't even know where to begin."

On August 2, 2006, the Larimer County Drug Task Force removed 39 plants from the home of James and Lisa Masters. The plants were seen while officers accompanied child welfare workers to the home.

The couple told police the marijuana was medicinal and was grown for their use as well as the use of other patients for whom they acted as caregivers.

The criminal charges were dropped in June after Chief District Court Judge James Hiatt concluded the affidavit for a search warrant was drafted based on an illegal search.

Defense attorney Brian Vicente argued Monday that he'd presented "real, tangible and significant evidence" that the couple was committed to the well-being of their patients and that they were caregivers for their clients, even if they hadn't been formally designated as such.

Hiatt agreed, ruling that the couple was entitled to get back their property, including the seized plants.

"It's pretty clear to this court he (James Masters) took this role (as caregiver) very seriously," Hiatt said.

Prosecutor Michael Pierson had argued that providing medical marijuana and the occasional ride to a doctor's appointment did not constitute being a primary caregiver.

Pierson also argued the property – which he called contraband – should not be returned because the Masters had not followed the provisions of the amendment by not having medical marijuana certificates and not being designated as caregivers on their patients' certificates.

This could have been a fatal flaw had the hearing been part of a criminal proceeding, but was not in the request for return of property, Hiatt said.

Pierson did not comment after the hearing.

The case is not yet over.

The couple will likely retrieve their property – paraphernalia and growing equipment – later this week, but the fate of the plants is not yet known for sure.

Neither Vicente nor Pierson knew definitively where the plants are or if they had been destroyed.

Lt. Craig Dodd, who heads the drug task force, was not in the office Monday but has previously said they do not have the resources or space to maintain marijuana plants seized in potential medical marijuana cases.

If the plants have been destroyed, Vicente said they'll seek financial compensation for the plants, which could be in excess of $100,000.