Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Local Medical Marijuana Advocates Lament Los Angeles Decision (banning dispensaries)
kcoy. ^ | By Keith Carls

Posted on 07/26/2012 5:26:05 AM PDT by dennisw

Los Angeles has become the latest big city in California to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. Now concern is mounting that those who need medical cannabis to treat legitimate ailments will be forced back to the black market and the danger that goes with it.

Medical marijuana advocates on the Central Coast are warning of the law of unintended consequences in the ongoing crackdown of dispensaries in California.

They say the proposed benefit law enforcement is advocating in shutting down the pot shops will ultimately do more harm than good to our communities.

At the Santa Barbara offices of Canamed, which evaluates patients with a variety of ailments and prescribes medical marijuana as part of a treatment, the decision by the L.A. City Council to ban pot dispensaries is being called troubling.

Now that the L.A. City Council has voted to shut dispensaries within its city limits, concerned medical practitioners like Dr. Bernard Smyle say his patients will have to resort to the more dangerous black market.

"Unfortunately driving the whole trade underground", Dr. Smyle says, "making patients with legitimate needs seeking potentially unsavory sources to get treatment that really helps them."

I'm told all of the medical marijuana dispensaries in Santa Barbara were closed earlier this year under threat of federal property forfeiture laws related to illegal marijuana search and seizures.

With more and more dispensaries closing, Central Coast News has learned there are several well known and popular delivery services that link local medical marijuana patients with dispensaries either in the L.A.-area or elsewhere that operate legally with little or no additional fee.

(Excerpt) Read more at kcoy.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cannabis; drugs; drugwar; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; medpot; potheads; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd

1 posted on 07/26/2012 5:26:09 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw

OH NO! People in Los Angeles won’t be able to get Marijuana anymore!


2 posted on 07/26/2012 5:27:15 AM PDT by MuttTheHoople (Obama does not have the work ethic to be Anti-Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Ever see this guy with pigtails on TV??.....  all the time. He is a medical marijuana advocate plus owns a dispensary I think. Laughing all the way to the bank

3 posted on 07/26/2012 5:29:27 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
alt
Champion of medical marijauna

steve-deangelo-weed-wars

4 posted on 07/26/2012 5:32:48 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Los Angeles has become the latest big city in California to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. Now concern is mounting that those who need medical cannabis to treat legitimate ailments will be forced back to the black market and the danger that goes with it.

Why is this news? If not already done, just extract the active ingredient in the weed, and take the pills. That would be much safer than ingesting and exposing to others all of the tars and carcinogens in the smoke.

Why do the legislators pushing for "medical marijuana" not know this?

5 posted on 07/26/2012 5:41:37 AM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Los Angeles is closing the only growing business inside its city limits. Not a coincidence.

Re-legalize drugs. Return our liberties to our bodies back to us. Drug prohibition is the ultimate in totalitarianism, as the rulers claim sovereignty over our brain waves, bloodstream and moods.

Drug prohibition is just another liberal, utopian, failed project. It's just been around so long that conservatives feel (not think) they must defend it.

6 posted on 07/26/2012 5:55:35 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Don’t use it myself. But a lot of jobs down the tubes. And unemployment spiked by, “What was your last job?” Rents on storefronts gone. Just what LA needs.

And all this because marijuana growth is too difficault for the government to control. Come on, folks. These are democrats we’re talking about.


7 posted on 07/26/2012 7:39:37 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

“Drug prohibition is the ultimate in totalitarianism, as the rulers claim sovereignty over our brain waves, bloodstream and moods. “

That’s cause your screwed up brain waves, bloodstreams and moods make you very likely to indulge in anti-social behavior. And I don’t mean “being rude.” I mean once you have made yourself irrational, paranoid, aggressive, stupid, and/or comatose - you are way, way more likely to harm me and mine.

Yes, I know, once you harm me, then in the Libertarian utopia, you can be charged! So comforting, after I’m dead, raped, or robbed.


8 posted on 07/26/2012 8:41:19 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: olezip
If not already done, just extract the active ingredient in the weed, and take the pills.

Pills are slow-onset, so it's difficult to adjust the dose to the minimum required at the time (aka titration), and are hard for nausea patients to keep down.

That would be much safer than ingesting and exposing to others all of the tars and carcinogens in the smoke.

Using a vaporizer would avoid the harms due to smoke.

Aren't these matters that should be decided by a doctor and patient, and not by the government?

9 posted on 07/26/2012 10:02:32 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
That’s cause your screwed up brain waves, bloodstreams and moods make you very likely to indulge in anti-social behavior. And I don’t mean “being rude.” I mean once you have made yourself irrational, paranoid, aggressive, stupid, and/or comatose - you are way, way more likely to harm me and mine.

Yes, I know, once you harm me, then in the Libertarian utopia, you can be charged! So comforting, after I’m dead, raped, or robbed.

So you advocate a return to Prohibition of the irrational-aggressive-and-stupid-making drug alcohol, right?

10 posted on 07/26/2012 10:04:36 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“So you advocate a return to Prohibition of the irrational-aggressive-and-stupid-making drug alcohol, right?”

Oh yes, that’s a logical leap.

Prohibition made ALL alcohol consumption illegal (except sacramental, I think).

I oppose legal GETTING HIGH. Because you don’t have a right to mess up your head and then wander around with sober people, being crazy, irrational, aggressive, with your inhibitions lowered and your avarice artificially increased. If you were alone on an island? I wouldn’t care. But you aren’t.

Drink if you like. Don’t get drunk. There are laws against public drunkenness. I support them.


11 posted on 07/26/2012 11:00:27 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Prohibition made ALL alcohol consumption illegal (except sacramental, I think).

And current drug laws make ALL consumption of banned drugs illegal. Do you support that? If so, why would you oppose a return to Prohibition?

I oppose legal GETTING HIGH. [...]

Drink if you like. Don’t get drunk. There are laws against public drunkenness. I support them.

So do I. Should private drunkenness remain legal? If so, why not private high-ness?

12 posted on 07/26/2012 11:43:20 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“And current drug laws make ALL consumption of banned drugs illegal. Do you support that?”

Yes, I do. You don’t have a right to make yourself nuts, whether a little nuts or a lot nuts.

Private consumption can theoretically work, but there you are again, trusting someone who has screwed up their brain to keep some sort of rules.


13 posted on 07/26/2012 3:21:17 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Wow, you really slapped me down. Just one question, how do you justify keeping alcohol legal based on your cogent and irrefutable argument?

Keep in mind, that alcohol is THE drug associated with THE most violent, reckless and criminal behavior.

Also, I don't care why people cause violence etc., that's already against the law. So, bust them for their illegal actions. I oppose prior restraint, as does our Constitution.

I await your response with tingles down my leg.

14 posted on 07/26/2012 3:22:51 PM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

So, then, you are also against stupid people, people with lower IQ scores, etc. and subscribe to Eugenics?


15 posted on 07/26/2012 3:25:42 PM PDT by CodeToad (History says our end is near.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

The problem the prohibitionists create, is that once you put the government in charge of individual behavior, where is liberty? By persevero’s criteria, I’d like to know, what could NOT be banned?


16 posted on 07/26/2012 4:25:32 PM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MuttTheHoople
People in Los Angeles won’t be able to get Marijuana anymore

They can buy it on the streets like they used to. Isn't that a much better scenario? /sarc

17 posted on 07/26/2012 4:32:45 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
The MM movement is a ruse to make pot available to anyone who wants to buy it. Probably 90% or more of the people who have medical marijuana cards don't use or need it for medicinal purposes.

So let's drop this charade and remove marijuana from the Class 1 list of substances (or whatever it is) and let the people who want to use it do so legally, all the while bring tax revenue into cities that approve of it.

18 posted on 07/26/2012 4:43:20 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


19 posted on 07/26/2012 4:52:54 PM PDT by CodeToad (History says our end is near.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

“The MM movement is a ruse to make pot available to anyone who wants to buy it. “

I certainly agree with you there, the “pot clubs” are a joke and they are not what the citizens voted for.


20 posted on 07/26/2012 10:41:13 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Prohibition made ALL alcohol consumption illegal (except sacramental, I think).

And current drug laws make ALL consumption of banned drugs illegal. Do you support that?

Yes, I do. You don’t have a right to make yourself nuts, whether a little nuts or a lot nuts.

So why would you oppose a return to Prohibition (I ask again)?

I oppose legal GETTING HIGH. [...]

Drink if you like. Don’t get drunk. There are laws against public drunkenness. I support them.

So do I. Should private drunkenness remain legal? If so, why not private high-ness?

Private consumption can theoretically work, but there you are again, trusting someone who has screwed up their brain to keep some sort of rules.

So should private drunkenness remain legal (I ask again)?

21 posted on 07/27/2012 7:17:07 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“So should private drunkenness remain legal (I ask again)? “

That depends on what you mean by “private.”

If you are sitting at home getting sloshed all by yourself, it’s not really possible to arrest you for it. There’d be no probable cause. So I’d say, that could be legal. As far as I know, it is. I don’t hear of anyone being arrested for private drunkenness.

But if you have a dependent in the home, no.


22 posted on 07/27/2012 8:26:05 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Private consumption can theoretically work, but there you are again, trusting someone who has screwed up their brain to keep some sort of rules.

So should private drunkenness remain legal (I ask again)?

If you are sitting at home getting sloshed all by yourself, it’s not really possible to arrest you for it. There’d be no probable cause. So I’d say, that could be legal. As far as I know, it is.

So why shouldn't private consumption of other drugs also be legal?

23 posted on 07/27/2012 8:57:20 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“So why shouldn’t private consumption of other drugs also be legal? “

No. Even if you really only use them in private, they in some cases with one use (a high enough dose of acid) or with a few weeks’ use (meth) or with prolonged use (pot) make you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent.

You may believe it is your right to make yourself that way. I don’t.

Are you a threat to me if you sit in your apartment and smoke PCP? Yes you are. Because it makes you so nuts, you do crazy, violent, dangerous things. And I don’t want to wait for you to actually jump off the roof onto my head, set my car on fire, eat my face off or rape me before you are put away.

Will everyone who uses drugs do that? No. But they are far more likely to, almost completely more likely to, than a sober person.

Even Mr. Joker had to take his vicodin before he could do his mass murder. Inhibitions need to be lowered. The crazy needs to be fed, before most people can do their thing.

And before you ask, yes, I am against prescription drug abuse, too, and like to see it prosecuted as well. I am aware that prescription drugs can be abused, but not willing to ban them all together, because I think they do more good than harm.


24 posted on 07/27/2012 9:05:46 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
So should private drunkenness remain legal (I ask again)?

If you are sitting at home getting sloshed all by yourself, it’s not really possible to arrest you for it. There’d be no probable cause. So I’d say, that could be legal. As far as I know, it is.

So why shouldn't private consumption of other drugs also be legal?

Even if you really only use them in private, they in some cases with one use (a high enough dose of acid) or with a few weeks’ use (meth) or with prolonged use (pot) make you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent.

One use of a high enough dose of the drug alcohol can make you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent - and yet you say that drug should nonetheless remain legal. Why?

25 posted on 07/27/2012 10:54:17 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“One use of a high enough dose of the drug alcohol can make you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent - and yet you say that drug should nonetheless remain legal. Why? “

I say that public drunkenness with that drug (alcohol) should remain illegal.

Private use in the home, since it can’t very well be regulated without cops knocking on every other door, is not practical.

Be honest with yourself.

Scenario: You have a two year old and need a babysitter. Who do you hire?

1. Your cousin, the meth addict.

2. Your neighbor, who smokes a bowl every morning and every night.

3. Your old volleyball coach, who likes to party on crack.

4. Your friend, who has a glass of wine every night with dinner.

If you are a decent person and being honest, you’d say, there is no way 1-3 would be a candidate, whereas #4 is no problem. Why? ‘Cause a glass of wine with dinner does not impact her sanity. It may actually improve it!

Now, your friend probably buys that wine by the box. Am I advocating that neighborhood watch knock on her door nightly to make sure she isn’t drinking the whole box in one night? I am not. The negatives of having nightly sobriety checks outweigh any benefits.

However, I am advocating the total abolition, illegality, whatever you like to call it, of pot, crack, coke, LSD, speed, ‘shrooms, you name it, there is no benefit to these mind altering concoctions and there is harm in even small doses, so there.

Leave your kid with the neighborhood crackhead if you think it’s all the same difference.


26 posted on 07/27/2012 11:15:49 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
You have a two year old and need a babysitter.

Utterly irrelevant to the question of what should be legal for adults who are not caring for minors.

2. Your neighbor, who smokes a bowl every morning and every night. [...]

4. Your friend, who has a glass of wine every night with dinner.

I notice you had to cook the books there. My friend who drinks every morning won't get my 2 year old either.

I am advocating the total abolition, illegality, whatever you like to call it, of pot, crack, coke, LSD, speed, ‘shrooms, you name it, there is no benefit to these mind altering concoctions

In a free society the burden is not on adults to prove that their activities are "beneficial." I see no benefit to the WWF or wearing one's cap backward, but I don't call for banning them.

and there is harm in even small doses

Evidence?

And why are you moving the goal posts from "making you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent" (which you admitted only prolonged use of pot does) to "harm"?

27 posted on 07/27/2012 11:51:20 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I am pointing out that there is a serious deficit in the behavior of those who use drugs. You can pretend there is not if you like. But you are living in a fantasy land.

I am not moving any goalposts.

You are trying to make drinking a couple of whiskey sours equivalent to dropping acid. It is beyond ridiculous. Case in point, you’d leave a kid with Uncle Ben if he has a couple of whiskey sours. You wouldn’t if he dropped acid.

At least I hope you wouldn’t. Because you know the two drugs are not in the least bit equivalent.


28 posted on 07/27/2012 8:39:19 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
I am pointing out that there is a serious deficit in the behavior of those who use drugs.

There is a serious deficit in the behavior of many of those who use drugs - including the legal drug alcohol. You can pretend there is not if you like. But you are living in a fantasy land.

And why are you moving the goal posts from "making you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent" (which you admitted only prolonged use of pot does) to "harm"?

I am not moving any goalposts.

Of course you were - your distinctly different criteria, which I quoted above, speak for themselves.

You are trying to make drinking a couple of whiskey sours equivalent to dropping acid.

No, I never said nor implied that. Your argument against legal drugs was, "You don’t have a right to make yourself nuts, whether a little nuts or a lot nuts." A couple of whiskey sours is enough to make many people a little nuts.

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior"
- "Psychoactive Substances and Violence", Department of Justice National Criminal Justice Reference Service

29 posted on 07/28/2012 11:40:37 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Hey, alcohol = nicotine = crack = speed = psilocybin.

Just use it all, see how you turn out in ten years. Leave your kids with users. Have Grandma stay home with one. Do business with one, drive next to one, have one for a neighbor.

Have fun.


30 posted on 07/28/2012 1:24:27 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Hey, alcohol = nicotine = crack = speed = psilocybin.

That's all you've got - ignore everything I say and impute to me an argument I explicitly disavowed?

Have fun with your lies and intellectual cowardice.

31 posted on 07/28/2012 2:22:32 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Oh, and if my mom had a glass of wine with breakfast AND with dinner, I’d still have her babysit my kid. No problem. You know why? Because alcohol can be used in moderation without screwing up your head

1. Drinking in the morning is not moderation.
2. You posted this in the wrong thread ... what's screwing up your head?

What does the time of day have to do with it if it is a small quantity?

A friend of mine is from Italy. When she was a kid they drank wine instead of milk because milk was so expensive.

Moving the goalposts again - from your mom to Italian children.

The Hills Treatment Center
Alcoholism Quiz
4. Do you drink in the morning?

32 posted on 07/28/2012 6:22:13 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“A friend of mine is from Italy. When she was a kid they drank wine instead of milk because milk was so expensive.

Moving the goalposts again - from your mom to Italian children.

The Hills Treatment Center
Alcoholism Quiz
4. Do you drink in the morning? “

I didn’t post this. Nothing is “screwing up my head.” Please respond to the appropriate person.


33 posted on 07/28/2012 11:06:47 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson