Maybe.
Weed, Dope, Doobies, grass, smoke, MJ, Marijuana. Whatever your favorite pet name may be the people who support it, love it, grow it and ingest it in various forms are making the attempt to go mainstream in America and Clatsop County is right there at the forefront.
In fact, the State of Oregon is now looking to make it's only legal use a cash bonanza during these difficult budget times by bumping up the fee to be issued a medical marijuana card to $200.
When Astoria's first shop specializing in indoor gardening opened it's doors people were winking and nodding then. Now there is a club that has opened it's doors to those with medical marijuana cards in Astoria along with another similar operation in Seaside. It's unclear just what these clubs do that would be legal.
A local advocate who bills herself a activist and journalist is inviting the public to Seaside City Hall on June 25th for what she calls a "Cannabis Conversation". The forum will feature a couple of speakers who are leaders in the effort to legalize pot. Those on the other side of the fence have been invited. Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin, who takes a very dim view of these trends, has declined the invitation telling reporters that marijuana advocates are badly informed, do not know what they are doing and he intends to shut down these operations in the county as illegal.
While you can pay that $200.00 to have a medical marijuana card (that is if you can find a doctor to sign off on the paperwork) It is still illegal to grow it, own it, transport it, deliver it or for that matter be in the same proximity. People say that you can have it in small amounts but unless you have a $200 card it's still illegal and you can be fined. If you have more than an ounce it's a stiff fine card or not. Growers and transporters face prison time and fines up to $300,000. All convictions carry with them the potential for property seizure and your driver's licence goes away.
Cannabis supporters argue that all those controls just make it easier for the drug cartels to make big money. It doesn't stop anyone from getting their hands on the stuff. It never has.
The Oregon Legislature has really messed this up by dipping a toe in the water. If this session's action in seeking more money from medical marijuana users is any indication the state is on a track that has to lead to some legal method of supply but then how do you write the law to exclude the criminal element while still profiting on the popularity of the drug? The answer is that you can't.
"The Chronic", "Ganja" and "The Kill"
ReplyDeleteI plead the 5th.
This would make an interesting contest...
ReplyDeletetf
This will really be interesting. Our Sheriff, Tom Bergin, has written a letter in his capacity as Oregon Sheriff's Association head that marijuana shops will be raided and prosecuted. Yet, we have one in Clatsop County still operating. Will Sheriff Bergin actually make good on his threats or is he a paper tiger? We should soon know.
ReplyDeletelet the people have their medicine. destroy the pharmaceutical industry. go natural. smoke weed.
ReplyDeleteActually, let's let everyone use whatever drugs they want. But, let's not pay the medical costs for problems related to the drugs that are not pharmacutical. So, all the folks that want to use marijuana, heroin, meth or whatever can do what they want. But, if they go to a hospital for a drug related problem and they cannot pay for the treatment out of their pockets, they wander through life with burned out brains or they die. Works for me. Does anyone have a rationale as to why we should pay the medical costs for druggies?
ReplyDeleteThe "war on drugs" has done nothing to end drug use. In fact, it's probably had the opposite effect. We all know that making something taboo usually makes people want to do it more. Especially teens, who are all about "rebelling". (Or what they think is "rebelling", anyway.) --- On the other hand, the "war on drugs" has been very effective at shredding the Constitution. --- btw, can anybody tell me why banning alcohol needed a Constitutional Amendment, but banning drugs doesn't? Other than ignoring the 10th Amendment, that is.
ReplyDeleteActually, Uncle Walt, the war on drugs has had a very positive effect. Simply look at the statistic that there are 51 million alcoholics (alcoholic being a legal drug) and only 14 million illegal drug addicts shows that law enforcement has a positive effect. God forbid that we legalized all drugs. Given the facts of history we would have a majority of the population staggering around trying to get jobs at McDonalds or with Wilkins to serve their addiction. In simple terms, if we legalized drugs who would manage your social security?
ReplyDeleteUm ... No. No, it doesn't show that at all. What was the per capital rate of addiction before it became illegal? Comparing THAT number would show if the "war" was reducing the number of addicts. Your other argument implies there would be over 30 million more users, if it became legal. But that's unproveable. Again, what was the per capital rate of marijuana use before it became illegal?
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be blissfully ignorant of the "facts of history", as they relate to marijuana. Prior to the 1960s, there was little recreational use among youth. A coincidence that's when it was made illegal under federal law? Or just proving my point about teens "rebelling"? ... Main recreational use was among Mexicans (who introduced it as migrant workers) and Blacks. Though even in those groups, it wasn't widely used. >> Fear of Blacks and Mexicans was actually the driving force behind making it illegal. (The federal gov't was content to just tax it, starting in 1937.) And until it was made illegal, it was widely used for medicinal purposes.
ReplyDeleteUncle Walt,
ReplyDeleteregardless of my blissful ignorance, the statistics stand. Making a drug illegal has decreased the abuse of the drug. You might want to read "Hep-Cats, Narcs and Pipe Dreams" by Dr. Jill Jonnes published by the John Hopkins University Press. You might understand then that we are in the third drug epidemic in the US, which has always involved marijuana. You might see that we defeated drug addiction amongst white people for a time, but succumed to it again due to the liberal attitudes of the 60's folks, of which you are obviously one.
As far as the medicinial purposes of marijuana are concerned, every drug has a "medicinal purpose" to its addicts (at least those who can articulate after usage). That is no reason to legalize the drug. Indeed, the medicinal property of marijuana, and other drugs, has been refined into a prescription drug available to those who can get a perscription (as opposed to a recommendation) for them.
Now, if you agree with the person who said legalize all drugs but use no public or insurance money to pay for overdoses, that is another matter. I certainly agree with that proposition, but, then, where do we put all the bodies?
Actually, I am a libertarian. Meaning I believe it is none of the gov'ts business what someone does on/in their own property as long as it doesn't endanger others. EG: you want to smoke pot, that's fine. But don't DUI. >> It's none of the gov'ts business what I'm addicted to. Regardless of whether it's chocolate, Big Macs, herbs, or manufactured drugs. It only becomes their business if I endanger public safety. But that doesn't give them pre-emptive power to assume I'll endanger the public just by choosing to participate in an activity. >> Freedom is a rose garden, and you have to take the thorns with the blossoms.
ReplyDeleteThen, Uncle Walt, I hope you can pay your cost for living, medical, housing and food, from your pocket. If you don't what to live by rules you should be willing to live truly on your own. True freedom is living without depending on anyone or anything but yourself. Considering that you use the internet, I doubt you are truly free. But, I would consider that you are one of those libertarians who want the support of others just because you are you. That is crap, of course, but the feeling of many who don't contribute.
ReplyDeleteUncle Walt said:Freedom is a rose garden, and you have to take the thorns with the blossoms."
ReplyDeleteRight on, but, only after complying with local/state/national codes, ordinances and setbacks do you do mostly what you want with your prpoerty under what is called "Police Powers", relevant to "Property Rights" and your neighbors rights, both urban and rural, I believe.