I'll just leave this here....

[Verbal Mike]

RWHN, do you have any indication that there's a supply problem, such that diverting medical weed to the black market is actually an issue? It's my understanding that weed is a commodity with which only illegality tends to limit supply, so I'd assume that if a lot of diversion is going on but the dispensary has ways of legally getting its hands on more weed, there won't actually be any problem caused by the diversion. Of course, I could be wrong about this.

About the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded. Instead, the interesting question seems to be how much marijuana is used under prohibition vs. legal dispensation, and whether there is a correlation between (de)criminalization and violent crime and/or prostitution.

Another thought: the broken window effect may be relevant not in that the second a dispensary is closed it makes the area feel deserted, but rather in that an open dispensary supports the impression that things are being done in a legal, upright manner, and that impression may have a downward effect on crime levels. In other words, it could be the unusualness of legal marijuana in the cultural context that drives crime down, rather than the closing of dispensaries that drives it up. Maybe.

[AFK]

RWHN, do you have any indication that there's a supply problem, such that diverting medical weed to the black market is actually an issue? It's my understanding that weed is a commodity with which only illegality tends to limit supply, so I'd assume that if a lot of diversion is going on but the dispensary has ways of legally getting its hands on more weed, there won't actually be any problem caused by the diversion. Of course, I could be wrong about this.

About the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded. Instead, the interesting question seems to be how much marijuana is used under prohibition vs. legal dispensation, and whether there is a correlation between (de)criminalization and violent crime and/or prostitution.

Another thought: the broken window effect may be relevant not in that the second a dispensary is closed it makes the area feel deserted, but rather in that an open dispensary supports the impression that things are being done in a legal, upright manner, and that impression may have a downward effect on crime levels. In other words, it could be the unusualness of legal marijuana in the cultural context that drives crime down, rather than the closing of dispensaries that drives it up. Maybe.

First let me be clear that I'm using a very technical definition of black market.  Technically, a soccer mom with a medical marijuana script who then turns around and sells it to some other soccer moms in her social circle would constitute a "black market" operation.  So I'm not necessarily talking about your stereotypical black market drug dealer.  It's the same thing that is happening with prescription opiates and benzos.  People can get a pretty penny when they turn around and sell their excess drugs. 

The other thing, and this may just be happening in Maine, is that the potency of the Medical Marijuana seems to be particularly high.  This can be attractive particularly to youth, which of course is the focus of my work.  This may be different in other more urban states where medical marijuana is legal.  And again, I want to be very clear that I'm not arguing or asserting on what level this is happening, just that I know it is happening. 

[Placid Dingo]

If you have an issue with the methodology in the study I linked, go ahead and try to make your case, otherwise you're starting to move into the realm of rhetoric by trying to say this is only a "claim".

'Claim' was not intended as a pejorative. All I'm saying is I don't think the implication in the study (stores legally selling pot dramatically reduce crime) is convincing enough. The data itself, or the methodology of collecting it, I don't see a reason to contradict. The explanation of this data, I do question.

You think a nearly 60% increase in crime in the immediate vicinity is typical for the closure of any business?

I don't know if it's typical. I'm not even sure if it matters that it's typical. I'm just trying to propose that there may be an explanation of crime increasing following the closure of a pot shop, other than the idea that the surprisingly positive influence of pot stores is suddenly taken away, leaving crime to take hold.

My attempted explanation may not be great, but that doesn't mean the explanation in the article is.

About the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded.

I was interested in this; If Pot Shops DO reduce crime, by their very nature, we should see generally lower crime rates outside areas with pot shops, compared to other businesses. I may not have articulated this clearly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you have an issue with the methodology in the study I linked, go ahead and try to make your case, otherwise you're starting to move into the realm of rhetoric by trying to say this is only a "claim".

'Claim' was not intended as a pejorative. All I'm saying is I don't think the implication in the study (stores legally selling pot dramatically reduce crime) is convincing enough. The data itself, or the methodology of collecting it, I don't see a reason to contradict. The explanation of this data, I do question.

You think a nearly 60% increase in crime in the immediate vicinity is typical for the closure of any business?

I don't know if it's typical. I'm not even sure if it matters that it's typical. I'm just trying to propose that there may be an explanation of crime increasing following the closure of a pot shop, other than the idea that the surprisingly positive influence of pot stores is suddenly taken away, leaving crime to take hold.

My attempted explanation may not be great, but that doesn't mean the explanation in the article is.

About the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded.

I was interested in this; If Pot Shops DO reduce crime, by their very nature, we should see generally lower crime rates outside areas with pot shops, compared to other businesses. I may not have articulated this clearly.

Pot shops reduce a very specific kind of crime; the crime of people with medical need illegally purchasing marijuana. That would have no effect on other types of crime in the area. It's not like pot shops magically reduce music piracy or car break-ins.

If you make a common activity no longer criminal, then crime is reduced.

[Jenne]

It's odd, though, that the Obama administration is apparently reversing course on this.  It must be the election year or something.  I mean, CA was going through growing pains with this medical marijuana legalization issue--a lot of counties with their ordinances on where head shops were allowed to operate and under what guidelines has been in the news constantly...the state of CA was weak in some areas in enforcement, strong in others.

The fed crackdown has always been used as a backup for the stronger areas--local county DAs would call in the DEA when they wanted a sting operation on what they perceived as illegal practices in some head/legal med mj shops...and then lately they've just been issued writs telling them they need to shut down/move because they're too near a school, etc.

I thought I remembered that the O-Admin was going to NOT pursue this to the strength of its might, though?  They even had PTA (national AND CA state) taking a neutral stance on its legalization for medical purposes.  THAT is a big fucking deal, btw.  Because most PTA lobbyists would probably posit that ANYthing having to do with legalization of drugs would go down as a definite NO WAY UH-UH FOGEDDABOUDIT.  And instead, they took a position that basically said, as long as the government keeps it out of the hands of kids and states a legal age, then PTA is going to remain neutral.

SO...this reversal is telling me this is the politix of the thing, stupid...just like gays in the military 2 years ago, just like fucking Gitmo not closing...but I've no doubt that the O-admin totally knows that like DA, DT...this is a time-ticking issue, and the US as a PEOPLE are much more tolerant of legalized mj than they EVER were about gay marraige rights or DA, DT...it's just a matter of time before this is a moot point.

In fact, if you could wipe out the Mexican et al drug cartels, I'd posit that most Americans in general would just say, legalize the fucker and have done with it.

Because right now, the O-admin looks amazingly like Volstead et al.

[AFK]

I don't know the exact argument on this from the administration.  If it were me, my argument would be about countering the message that medical marijuana is (even if unintentionally) sending to our young people.

Well, actually, it is sending two messages, from my perspective.

1) Marijuana is ok.  A Dr. is prescribing it now, so that means it is ok. 
2) You need drugs/chemicals to combat pain. 

America is becoming an increasingly more medicated nation.  The average number of scripts per person keeps going up and up.  Part of this is because of regulations and insurance companies that make it difficult to impossible for someone to seek treatment modalities that don't involve medication.  If you have money you can afford alternative, more holistic approaches to pain.  If you don't, pop some pills

The other piece is social and cultural.  It has become a cultural norm that if you have pain the solution is to pop a pill.  We've become a people who have become very intolerable and inpatient to pain and discomfort.  Obviously, there are people who are in some very severe pain who need intervention in the form of medicines.  But I think there are also many instances where there are different ways to manage pain and discomfort that doesn't have to be in pill form.  But we're impatient and need immediate gratification. 

We need Facebook Pharma. 

[Jenne]

RWHN, I'll posit to you that this has EVER and THUS been the way of things--humans didn't JUST THIS CENTURY promote getting rid of the realities of body and mind with ingestibles.

Just saying.

There's just a different brand of flavah now.  It's called Rx.  Rx has for the last what? 150 years or so? been legit because DUH A DOCTOR TOLD ME IT WAS.

But medicating your pain?  Reducing it with something you drink/eat/smoke?

Oh that goes back for eons.

Humans don't like feeling icky.  And mind over matter is a 1) personality trait and/or 2) something you have to learn over time to do successfully.

To pretend we haven't ALWAYS sought an escape for things mentally or physically disturbing is to well...be disingenuous about the essentials in human nature.

Youths know that pain relief is ok when it comes from Tylenol and Advil...so that one's done.  Bullet = out of gun.

What they are learning NOW is that when government reverses itself, things that used to not be ok are now ok...and that's just...politics.  What I'd like to see more of, and here's my bailiwick to pound as usual for me, is more education on side effects of long-term usage.  That's more mainstream and less conjured up, and that's relevant and scary at the same time.

Prison is scary.  AIDS is scary.

Longterm pot usage?  Just dorky.  And few pot smokers who start at 13 have a longview of where they're going to be at 40.  That would be a lesson to observe and take note of for the future.

[AFK]

I'm not really arguing that humans haven't always needed and wanted to treat pain.  I guess my argument is the threshold for pain has fallen considerably.  And the roles are all fucked up now.  It used to be you went to the Doctor, told him what was wrong, and he told you what to take or what to do to alleviate the pain.

NOW, a glowing butterfly on TV tells you to tell your doctor that you need that exact pill so you can sleep better.  Nevermind that it might actually be something else, like plain 'ol normal stress, that is causing you to lose sleep.  I mean, it may very well be that Lunesta is what you need to sleep.  But the conversation shouldn't start with the patient telling the doctor what they need. 

And that is why the average scripts per person is going up.  Because if you tell the doc you need the butterfly to make you sleep better, and the doc says, "Nah, just try some rigorous exercise and you'll be fine", and then it doesn't work.  You sue the Doc.  Doc's prescribe so much shit because if they don't someone will have their ass in a sling. 

[Telarus]

Pot shops reduce a very specific kind of crime; the crime of people with medical need illegally purchasing marijuana. That would have no effect on other types of crime in the area. It's not like pot shops magically reduce music piracy or car break-ins.

If you make a common activity no longer criminal, then crime is reduced.

Maybe not the music piracy, but the article was pretty clear that this does apply to theft and assault in the area.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/21/local/la-me-0928-marijuana-dispensaries-20110921

The report looks at such crimes as assaults and thefts, but not "disorder," nuisances such as loitering, double parking, loud noises and graffiti that sparked anger among neighborhood activists. Whitmore said those complaints are often what causes officials to act.

Not that it matters, as the study's been retracted:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot-study-20111012,0,1809597.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rand-pot-study-20111025,0,2844501.story

[Jenne]

I'm not really arguing that humans haven't always needed and wanted to treat pain.  I guess my argument is the threshold for pain has fallen considerably.  And the roles are all fucked up now.  It used to be you went to the Doctor, told him what was wrong, and he told you what to take or what to do to alleviate the pain.

NOW, a glowing butterfly on TV tells you to tell your doctor that you need that exact pill so you can sleep better.  Nevermind that it might actually be something else, like plain 'ol normal stress, that is causing you to lose sleep.  I mean, it may very well be that Lunesta is what you need to sleep.  But the conversation shouldn't start with the patient telling the doctor what they need. 

And that is why the average scripts per person is going up.  Because if you tell the doc you need the butterfly to make you sleep better, and the doc says, "Nah, just try some rigorous exercise and you'll be fine", and then it doesn't work.  You sue the Doc.  Doc's prescribe so much shit because if they don't someone will have their ass in a sling. 

THIS all falls under the category of what my dear husband, the doc of the house, calls "the problems of the well fed."  Trouble is, even those in Afghanistan are being treated for depression--are we going to argue that the sleeplessness/stress/PTSD of the average American life is not worth the Rx but those in Afghanistan deserve it more due to generations of ongiong warfare?

I certainly don't want to make that call.  I mean peoples' problems are, by and large, peoples' problems.  Just because they have a SAFER existence than would have if they'd been born in another time and place, does that mean we don't allow them mitigation of those things that trouble them?  I mean, I'm betting suicide is just as high as it ever was, given certain factors held equal.  So if we have lightening-fast, easier ways to cope with pain through ingested material...does that mean we're defective morally, or does that mean we see a need through invention that's met and can improve overall health and enjoyment of life?

What's the endgame here is what I'm asking?  I'm not just talking in terms of keeping a populace safe from [fill in the blank here]...I'm talking about what is the optimal result?  Only use drugs sparingly and when totally and 100% called for?  Only mitigate life-threatening anything?  Only only only?

Problem is, who holds the "only" in their hands?  And the corrpution between the govermment/powersthatbe and drug companies aside...would we rather not have that power to use and abuse instead of holding the small and weak to a load of suffering because of potential harm that may never arise (like overdose, addiction, etc.).

My own perspective tends to be a middle ground one, as you can probably tell--protection of the young and weak, moderation all around, except when elsewise is called for.  And withholding judgement unless you've sorta been there.  We're a many-hydra'd society that often tries to shoehorn itself into one all-encompassing philosophy, just to cut corners and for simplicity's sake.

But I hold this problem calls for a many-hydra'd analysis and implementation once an endgoal is proposed...which is why for once I really held the more or less organic propping up of the legalized medical mj shops as a good thing--it sprung out of the majority's need to implement what it wanted and needed...it moved aside big pharma and brought to bear the onward motion of what could be a groupthought idea but in the end I think will become a complicated yearning for something that was banned without any notion of what it was to begin with (and with not a little corruption into the bargain).

Time will tell how quickly the public will turn the tide in favor of total legalization--I think we're well on our way.  Education is the only out I see for ANY substance abuse--whether it's alcohol, tobacco, mj, or what they now like to call "other drugs."

[AFK]

I just think there are people who are simply over-medicated.  I think the system has evolved to a point where it just isn't viable for patients to seek alternative treatments or to even know they exist.  Docs can't recommend them because insurance companies won't cover it.  But insurance will (sorta) cover pills.  So more often than not, a solution is going to be a pill, even if there are non-chemical solutions to an ailment. 

But I'm not advocating playing God and telling people who can have pills and who can't.  I do advocate for changes in the system to allow patients greater access to alternative treatments and for Docs to have more freedom to recommend those treatments.  This is a big Blue Whale of a problem, as I see it.  But, at best, all we have is a little dingy to slightly nudge the whale on a different course. 

As for Medical Marijuana, I would rather see us to continue to research it and to develop alternatives that are less likely to be abused and diverted.  It's happening with prescription opiates where researchers are trying to come up with pills that are less addictive.  I think there is great promise for pill based medicines and would like to see further development in that area.  Would it still be diverted?  Sure, but it wouldn't be diverted as much.  And in substance abuse prevention, reduction is the name of the game. 

[Jenne]

Well all of that above I see as pretty damned reasonable, though I doubt pot will be predominantly in pill form by the time my kids are my age.

[AFK]

I honestly think Marijuana is going to get buried and set aside for the next few years.  If this bath salts thing keeps growing the way it is, that is going to be in the top 3 substances.  For the longest time it was Alcohol, Marijuana, and Cocaine.  Then it became Alcohol, Rx drugs, Marijuana.  Alcohol will always be top of the list but this bath salts stuff is just downright scary. 

[Jenne]

I've been hearing about it--it is very scary.  Again, because FOLKS DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT DOES.

EDUMACAYSHUN, PEOPLE!!

[Kai]

RWHN, can you provide a summary of the arguments as to Cannabis being an illegal substance as opposed to alchohol or tobacco?

I'd like a run down so I can use it in my own conversations. I trust your input because you're an educated expert, and so much which is discussed concerning these topics is personal anecdote, ad hoc, or red herring.