Cannot think of a name
20-04-2007, 06:34
Really? The California State Senate Bill 420 (http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm) is actually about marijuana.
For the coming holiday I thought I'd do something a little more heady (see what I did there?) than the usual Spekoli-esque antics...I mean aside from marveling at it being Senate Bill 420...
Instead I'm going to talk about prop 215 that was passed in California in 1996 to allow for medical marijuana. I voted for it, but not for increased access to weed. I didn't have a problem finding weed before, and I didn't after.
I had friends and ran into smokers who had gotten illicit scrips and memberships to clubs but I refused. I didn't want to be the example people used to shut down the clubs and making access to medicinal marijuana to the people who really needed it.
Well, to a degree my prediction has come true.
Supervisor Janet Nguyen was the lone vote against the plan, saying it was "prudent" to wait for the outcome of a lawsuit filed by San Diego County, which sued the state because it doesn't want to implement the ID card program.
Rackauckas testified against the cards, saying people who want to "escape from the realities of life and get high for a while" will have an official license.
"It's going to increase the demand for marijuana in our county substantially. So where are they going to get it?" Rackauckas said. "Are we going to be supporting drug cartels by increasing the demand for marijuana in Orange County?"
James Kapko, a Yorba Linda man who suffers from multiple sclerosis, testified from his wheelchair that the state's medical marijuana program has many safeguards.
"They don't just hand out marijuana by the bucketful," he said. "It's not going to just be a wild free-for-all."
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_1660834.php
I couldn't find what I was looking for, but the sheriff was on NPR talking about how an undercover agent was able to buy weed for his dog at a dispensery, and 'blatant' usage and gross profit sales to people with less than legitimate medical claims has lead to San Diego closing all of its dispenseries and law enforcement ticketing even if someone has a card.
In fact, recreational abuses have lead to restricting access from serious medical patients who need relief but want to go about it legitimately and legally.
Of course I'll say that it should be legal regardless of medical benefit, and I'll fight that fight. But the bottom line is that is some distance off, and ten years ago we managed to score a victory for people where marijuana could do some real good, and to fuck that up for them when weed hasn't been that hard to get in the first place strikes me as ridiculously selfish and short sighted.
I knew people where going to do it, but it was important that I wasn't one of them.*
What are your thoughts on that? Are things like 215 really a shady front to legalize the weed and false scrips the real spirit, or is taking advantage of 215 essentially taking medical marijuana from those who really need it.
* Does it count as footnote if it's for something at the end? I don't know, but it allows me to switch subjects-so if you want to respond to the main topic you don't have to read any further. I never liked the excuse that "Someone's gonna, so I might as well," because to me all that means is that your the someone and you're really just excusing your opportunistic asshatery on some theoretical 'someone' who never had a chance to be that or not because you chose to be the one. So I opperate on the "what if I don't" philosophy...I miss some come ups, but I don't have to blame my shortcomings on some fictional scoundrel who is really me.
For the coming holiday I thought I'd do something a little more heady (see what I did there?) than the usual Spekoli-esque antics...I mean aside from marveling at it being Senate Bill 420...
Instead I'm going to talk about prop 215 that was passed in California in 1996 to allow for medical marijuana. I voted for it, but not for increased access to weed. I didn't have a problem finding weed before, and I didn't after.
I had friends and ran into smokers who had gotten illicit scrips and memberships to clubs but I refused. I didn't want to be the example people used to shut down the clubs and making access to medicinal marijuana to the people who really needed it.
Well, to a degree my prediction has come true.
Supervisor Janet Nguyen was the lone vote against the plan, saying it was "prudent" to wait for the outcome of a lawsuit filed by San Diego County, which sued the state because it doesn't want to implement the ID card program.
Rackauckas testified against the cards, saying people who want to "escape from the realities of life and get high for a while" will have an official license.
"It's going to increase the demand for marijuana in our county substantially. So where are they going to get it?" Rackauckas said. "Are we going to be supporting drug cartels by increasing the demand for marijuana in Orange County?"
James Kapko, a Yorba Linda man who suffers from multiple sclerosis, testified from his wheelchair that the state's medical marijuana program has many safeguards.
"They don't just hand out marijuana by the bucketful," he said. "It's not going to just be a wild free-for-all."
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_1660834.php
I couldn't find what I was looking for, but the sheriff was on NPR talking about how an undercover agent was able to buy weed for his dog at a dispensery, and 'blatant' usage and gross profit sales to people with less than legitimate medical claims has lead to San Diego closing all of its dispenseries and law enforcement ticketing even if someone has a card.
In fact, recreational abuses have lead to restricting access from serious medical patients who need relief but want to go about it legitimately and legally.
Of course I'll say that it should be legal regardless of medical benefit, and I'll fight that fight. But the bottom line is that is some distance off, and ten years ago we managed to score a victory for people where marijuana could do some real good, and to fuck that up for them when weed hasn't been that hard to get in the first place strikes me as ridiculously selfish and short sighted.
I knew people where going to do it, but it was important that I wasn't one of them.*
What are your thoughts on that? Are things like 215 really a shady front to legalize the weed and false scrips the real spirit, or is taking advantage of 215 essentially taking medical marijuana from those who really need it.
* Does it count as footnote if it's for something at the end? I don't know, but it allows me to switch subjects-so if you want to respond to the main topic you don't have to read any further. I never liked the excuse that "Someone's gonna, so I might as well," because to me all that means is that your the someone and you're really just excusing your opportunistic asshatery on some theoretical 'someone' who never had a chance to be that or not because you chose to be the one. So I opperate on the "what if I don't" philosophy...I miss some come ups, but I don't have to blame my shortcomings on some fictional scoundrel who is really me.