I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

Actually, I can't speak for ECH but I am skeptical of your story about your source, because if that was the case why would you not have said so before being backed into a corner about it? Also, you do have a pretty established history of being slippery and playing fast and loose with your story, as well as making assertions about "sources" that never materialize... which makes them hearsay, and diminishes your credibility. I have more than once wondered if this whole persona is just a really, really good troll.

But I do know that marijuana grown with a medical license here in Oregon does get diverted and sold to/shared with people who don't have a license, so I agree with you on that point, though. I don't think it's a terribly widespread/pervasive issue, given that everybody and his dog seems to have a card these days... All it takes is $100 and a doctor willing to sign the form, which isn't hard to find. My doctor asked me if I would consider smoking pot in lieu of much more addictive and dangerous prescription drugs, and at times I wish I'd taken him up on it.

My bad, and I am a bit pre-occupied with work.  I assumed when I said things like "from what I'm hearing" that it was clear that the sources were people. I have some big projects on my plate right now so my thoughts are a bit scattered. 

[AFK]

Regarding why the crackdown is happening now when public opinion does seem to be shifting in favor of some sort of decriminalization/legalization, I wonder if part of it is simple bureaucracy.  I might not be reading this report right:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf

but if I am, it looks like the annual budget for marijuana enforcement related activities is roughly $250 million.  From my experience, once there's a line item for something in your budget, the tendency is to want to maintain and defend that item, as that money might just disappear from your department altogether if the reason for it is gone.

Not saying this is the whole reason, or even a major part of the reason, but that is a significant amount of money, and cracking down on medical marijuana distributors might help pad out the annual statistics in order to justify that money to Congress.

That is certainly possible. 

[Jenne]

I will also add that there is a certain position in the state that will be opening for which I will likely be putting in my name.

If that happens, this account will be going dark.  This may happen very soon. 

???  You're having to leave PD for work purposes?  Aw, that bites. 

[AFK]

Maybe.  If the job opens up and if I apply for it.  Someone is retiring and the job is coming out but I don't know if they will open the position up to the public or keep it strictly in house.  If I don't apply I will stick around. 

[Jenne]

  Aw.  Well...be sure to warn us before you do (and proxy in from home??? ).

Dude, I still totally admire you for your work, and I always will.  I know what you meant by DEA guys you deal with etc. because I deal with the same watchdog groups here in San Diego.  The Safety and Wellness Commission (SWACC) here in northern San Diego county is very active spying on and helping the police shut DOWN the mmj dispensaries in SD.  I have sat in on their meetings, learning their methodologies. 

And I've heard power point presentations from park rangers who work with DEA to crack down on pot smuggler who act as coyotes leaving migrant farm workers to take over pot ad hoc farming in the national forest, which incidentally degrades the preserves because of the shit they do to the land.  That there alone makes me a proponent for decriminalization and legalization since there wouldn't be THAT shit going down if it happened full scale...

But I digress...I don't see the need to perpetually harp on RWHN (tho this was his can o' worms in the OP this time around) for what he does.  That's b.s.  I think his assertions were what they were--and you have to realize, I think, in discussing this shit with him, that he's GONNA come from a CERTAIN viewpoint, ALL the fucking time.  Period.

Meh.

[East Coast Hustle]

No, because you are now conflating two issues.  One is my perception as to why the Obama administration is changing course and the other is about people selling their medical marijuana.

And I have no interest, nor time, to get steeped into another one of these pointless pissing matches.

I've got a drug collection to coordinate. 

translation: I prefer if you just take my word for it rather than making me back up my ridiculous claims with anything approaching facts or science.

I mean, really. You're starting to sound like a taped collection of urban legends stuck on repeat. I hope to god that you're actually trolling and that you don't actually believe the crap you're spewing here because if you do, I weep for the at-risk youth of Maine. Because the fact is, you're so utterly wrongheaded and full of shit about the field that you WORK in, FFS, that it's almost comical.

Almost.

Uh, no, I'm like voicing my opinion from my perspective man.  I mean, this is a discussion board right?  We're here to discuss, share opinions, right?  I'm not sure I said anywhere that I expected everyone to take my opinion as fact.  And you may have noticed that Jenne and I had a healthy, but friendly sort-of disagreement on the issue.  But, it's why I've made it very clear by using words like suspect.  I don't work for the Obama administration nor do I have any direct ties to them, so I have no way to know why they are doing this.  But I have a hunch, a gut feeling (therefore not based on facts), and so I shared it.  I could be wrong, I may very well be wrong.  Does that make you happy?

Let me make this clear, I am not out there actively advocating against medical marijuana.  Its' not part of my job.  Hell, it CAN'T be a part of my job.  I can't advocate for anything because of my funding.  My day to day job hardly involves marijuana at all.  My main focus is on alcohol, Rx drug abuse, inhalants, and now bath salts.  But, as an individual, I do have opinions on the matter.  I think there is probably a better model for medical marijuana and hope that someone out there is working on that. 

But I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how aggressive you are being.  I mean, I've not done anything or said anything personal against you or anyone else.  I'm just voicing my opinion based upon my perspective.  I don't understand the aggression.  Especially given how long I've been a part of this community.  But hopefully it is helping you vent whatever it is you've got going on there. 

I'll cop to being a little over-aggressive, but it's a subject of some personal import to me given that my father lasted 20 months after being given 6 months to live and all but the last 3 months or so was "good" time, almost entirely due to the fact that smoking pot allowed him to maintain an appetite and to find some relief from his pain without having to gobble down amounts of morphine that would have robbed him of his mind and personality. And given that I have a fiancee with celiac's disease who is only able to stay healthy and eat properly because smoking pot allows her to maintain an appetite and deal with the constant low-grade discomfort without resorting to much stronger prescription drugs (that would probably fuck her up worse anyway since most pills aren't gluten-free). So I am heavily personally invested in the subject of medical marijuana. I could give less than a fuck about it being legalized recreationally, but when someone who works in the field of drug prevention and presents themselves as an expert (and is likely taken as an expert by less knowledgeable people) goes around spewing all sorts of misinformation and passing that misinformation along to voters who rely on "experts" to help them make informed choices, I feel very strongly that I have a duty to lay the fucking smack down. If the LePage administration ever repeals the medical marijuana law in Maine, or if a citizen initiative aiming to do that is ever passed, you and anyone else who has contributed to the amount of misinformation and obfuscation in a public-servant capacity will be responsible. It's nothing personal and doesn't change my opinion of you or make me think any less of your intelligence outside of this very limited context, but within this context you can expect me to keep bulldogging you as long as you insist on bringing the topic up and then using it to disseminate what I see as a very dangerous and ignorant view of the situation.

If that makes me an asshole or a bad guy, so be it.

[East Coast Hustle]

And you DID bring the topic up. I don't know what else you expected. Everyone else here seems to have realized that this is a toxic line of conversation here, hence my supposition that you might just be trolling.

Whether or not that's the case, it's a masterful troll and I shall add it to my repertoire.

[Whatever]

[Jenne]

  INSTANT CLASSIC

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The reason that comparing marijuana to alcohol, nicotine, cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, as well as prescription drugs is relevant and has important consequences, has to do with my ability to choose the most suitable course of action in the course of any psychological intervention. As an adult, I'm responsible for my choices, and that includes the course of my treatment for psychological conditions. It is only honorable to uphold your status of the medical community by representing truth over rhetoric—science over politics.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think Obama is just cracking down on the hippies so they'll stop occupying Political Donation Street.

As for the endless debate on pot...

I think I'm going to hold myself to one comment:

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another. After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."

Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

(Position paper #23 from the Guns and Dope Party)

[East Coast Hustle]

I think Obama is just cracking down on the hippies so they'll stop occupying Political Donation Street.

Can't believe I missed that angle. It must have been too obvious.

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another. After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."

Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

Only argument about this entire subject that REALLY matters.

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

This could potentially have a wider effect however.  By removing drug dealers from the corners that changes the atmosphere of an area and could reduce violent crime that tends to gravitate to illegal drug dealing.

[East Coast Hustle]

Indeed, those countless multitudes of streetcorner pot dealers are notoriously violent.

[BabylonHoruv]

I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring.  Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other.  But that is not the case.  A good example is the recent banning of bath salts.  It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs.  It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people.  (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)

The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal.  So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause? 

And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children.  There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal.  I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP. 

The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.

So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.

It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.

I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.

I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime.  Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.

It's also stupidly easy to make at home.  Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot.  There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.