Reason.tv: Pot Wars–Battleground California
by Nick GillespieOver the past couple of years, the medical marijuana industry in Los Angeles has exploded. Estimates vary, but there may be as many as 800 dispensaries currently open for business in the city of angels. An ordinance recently passed by the LA city council, however, is about to change all that.
The new ordinance will force hundreds of dispensaries to close and all but a few to relocate. The goal was to bring clarity to the medical marijuana industry, but the only thing that’s clear is that the transition process will be difficult.
Especially now that the DEA has begun raiding dispensaries again, despite the promises made by the Obama administration to respect state laws legalizing medical marijuana.
While federal, state and local governments struggle to make sense of medical marijuana laws, an increasing number of Californians support a completely different approach: marijuana legalization. Nothing more than a pipe dream? Maybe. But consider this: 56 percent of Californians currently support pot legalization, the same proportion of Californians who voted for the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized medical marijuana, back in 1996.
Produced by Paul Feine. Shot and edited by Alex Manning. Graphics by Hawk Jensen.
Approximately 9 minutes. Go to Reason.tv for iPd, HD, and audio versions of all videos. Subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel and receive automatic notification when new materials go live.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
173 Comments
Let people legalize pot … only so long as we dismantle that social apparatus that sees my tax dollars subsidizing those who let their addiction derail their lives. If they use and lose their jobs and their lives (it happens), then I shouldn't have to support them just like it shouldn;t be my business to support alcoholics who similarly destroy their lives through abuse.
Funny how they still charge the sick "street prices" of hundreds of dollars an ounce.
How do you make sense of laws that are unnatural. These laws strive to outlaw…….a plant. It is sick that human corruption and greed have kept these laws in place as long as they have, but they seem doomed to become anachronisms like chastity belts.
Cigarettes bad, marijuana good, everyone is on drugs and the liberals are going to make it a perfect world.
People think they weren’t meant to suffer.
OK
God made pot, man made beer…Who do you trust?
I'm a fan for giving terminally ill patients what ever drugs they want, to ease the pain and make their ends days more comfortable. But I am not for advocating a stoner society. We have enough stupid people that DON"T smoke pot now. If we "de-criminalize" it, we are gonna need more immigrant workers to do those jobs that Americans choose not to, because their gonna be stoned all the time, and forget to come to work…
Granted, I have never heard of a pot head robbing a bank, or committing any sort of horrid crime in general. That doesn't make it okay for everyone to get stoned on their lunch breaks, because they have a "prescription" for it. Besides, in this economy, who can afford a sack of the good greens besides those working for the Feds anyway???
Puff, puff pass dude…!
If only I lived in California…
I would qualify and definitely benefit from the use of marijuana for relief from severe chronic pain. It should be legalized! A tax revenue stream for the government, yet we should make sure it doesn't turn into another subsidized program, and I agree with aharris that we shouldn't be using tax dollars to support those who abuse.
It's about time! Too bad it takes a state spiraling into bankruptcy before politicians ever consider legalization.
Let the libertarian vs. social conservative Battle Royale begin!
In all seriousness, as a libertarian I support the legalization of marijuana for personal use; I no longer smoke but did plenty of weed in my younger days, and see no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to indulge if they so choose. In other words, treat pot like alcohol (and tobacco).
I do not extend my belief in pot legalization to hard drugs like meth, cocaine, and smack, whose highly destructive effects should be known to all. My opposition to legalizing all narcotics is one of the issues on which I differ with the Libertarian Party, whose faith in the ability of all people to always make the right decision is greater than mine. Allowing people unrestricted access to crack and speed will not lead to people avoiding those substances; it will create more socially-destructive addicts.
Pot, on the other hand gets people in less trouble than does legally-available alcohol; the worst thing pot does (based on first and second hand experience) is make one lazy and un-focused. Alcohol does worse things to people, and makes them do worse things, than does pot.
"If we "de-criminalize" it, we are gonna need more immigrant workers to do those jobs that Americans choose not to, because their gonna be stoned all the time, and forget to come to work…"
That's the most insane thing I've ever heard.
"Granted, I have never heard of a pot head robbing a bank, or committing any sort of horrid crime in general. That doesn't make it okay for everyone to get stoned on their lunch breaks, because they have a "prescription" for it."
Why not let businesses deal with that? If it becomes a problem, and their workers perform badly, there is nothing preventing them replacing that person with a different employee. Sounds pretty natural to me. I don't see many of my fellow employees stumbling into work shitfaced drunk after a lunch break.
"Besides, in this economy, who can afford a sack of the good greens besides those working for the Feds anyway??? "
Get a better connect!
We agree on something. Yay.
I am no saint, not by a long shot, but medical weed is a cop out. If weed were to be legal the number of people with afflictions that can be "cured" by weed will sky rocket.
If you want to get stoned, get involved, get into local gov't, make those changes, vote for people who will further your view. or get voted into office and then YOU get to propose changes THIS is the American way…if more people vote FOR pot than against it…they WIN.
look at liquor prohibition…didn't work. if weed were to be regulated like booze, and taxed like booze, I think the liquor industry would be go out of business.
how gracious of Dear Leader to allow us the medical weed. Thank you great one…
lol right
"get a better connect"
god this thread is great!!!
One of the few sensible articles I've seen on this site.
I think you'll find more support than you would expect on the right for decriminalization of marijuana. It's not that we care about drugs, but that we want the government out of our lives.
{"If we "de-criminalize" it, we are gonna need more immigrant workers to do those jobs that Americans choose not to, because their gonna be stoned all the time, and forget to come to work…"
That's the most insane thing I've ever heard. }
It's called sarcasm, look it up in the dictionary if you're not familiar with the term.
Keep puffin your brain cells away buddy…It's your choice!
That depends on the grade. For some decent mex/stress/regular it will go for $40 to $50 for an ounce. But like you said, you can get that price on the street or in a shop. Most of the shops get their product from former outlaw growers who now have a medical marijuana card.
What's next then? Government run cookie and pizza stores?
Was the subsequent paragraph sarcasm? Because I inferred from its tone, and the similarly ridiculous conclusions, that the first was serious. Excuse me.
Care explaining how "greed" is keeping pot illegal?
It seems to me like "greed" could be defined as "the motivation behind things you don't like".
"the worst thing pot does (based on first and second hand experience) is make one lazy and un-focused."
Lazy and un-focused, hmm, does that mean it would be hard for them to hold down a job?….I wouldn't hire
someone like that…First accident, and they'd sue the living daylights out of you…..Did you ever see a person
smoking a joint, and sipping beer…talk about a combo…They really get nuts….I do think they should have
medical marijuana that can be gotten by a prescription, but I'm a little leery about social pot by the things I
saw…(I never smoked it, or even had the urge..), but I have a nephew who was a nurse at at Meth clinic and
he said a lot of the hardcore dopers started with pot…You, and a lot others may be strong, and a joint didn't
lead to anything stronger, but there are a lot of weak minded people out there that want a bigger and better
high..and on and on….
It's like trying to outlaw the sunshine, or regulating the air. Oh wait, we do have people regulating the air here in Califonia.
My sentiments exactly.
"Was the subsequent paragraph sarcasm?"
That is up for the reader to decide. You obviously don't think so, and that's fine.
However…Would you mind explaining how you can determine tone in written word? Just curious, as that's an ability I have yet to be able to understand. With out voice infliction, or facial expression, how can one determine tone. Unless I typed it in all CAPS, I would perhaps understand, but your brilliance in determining tone in the written word is befuddling to me…!
Get the Gov out of the way when it comes to which plants we can grow in our own homes. If someone wants to puff on a joint on a Friday night in the privacy of their own home who are we to deny him that right? Aspirin, alcohol, even pop rocks have all killed more people than weed.
I smoke a bowl and sip a beer after work, but I don't get(sic) nuts.
It's not the job of government to help "weak minded people" limit their options. A lot of hardcore "dopers" started with alcohol, too. Who cares?
-1? Noooooooooooooooooooooo!
I wouldn't mind decriminalizing heroin, cocaine, and the like – one at a time, in order of increasing effect.
I feel quite certain that we would be better off if addicts got their fix from Walgreens over-the-counter, and it was made by Merck and Pfizer instead of supporting a criminal underculture. If you're dumb enough to get yourself hooked on heroin or cocaine, then it being illegal isn't going to stop you.
Even so, I realize it is a major societal change, and hedging against my being incorrect seems wise.
Meth isn't a drug, it is a poison. If you want to make it and take it, go for it. Sell it as a drug, and it should be no different than if you sold someone arsenic as a steak seasoning.
Ultimately, I want government out of my life – they have no business telling me what I can put in my body.
If pot was legal, then legally you could grow your own super cheap. Right? Or is it going to be like alcohol where government controls all of it to levy enormous taxation? Can't wait to see the next seed catalogs or the next planter that hangs from the ceiling.(/s)
de facto legalization has already occurred…
It's called 'decriminalization'. Happening everywhere, pretty much. Parking ticket offense for small quantities.
Seems fair.
Legalization, however, carries the impramatur of the state; and encourages use. That seems a problem.
Therefore, the 'don't ask don't tell' of decriminalization is the proper way to engage the issue.
For now.
You can easily determine tone in sentences and paragraphs. Confusion abounds, certainly, on the interwebs, but read more, you'll pick up on it. What really matters is whether or not the person you're reading is conscious of their own tone …!
Guys get drunk and fight. The same guys get stoned and order pizza.
Any questions?
If you wouldn't hire someone like that, that is your own affair. No one's telling you that you must hire that pot smoker.
On the other hand, whether an individual decides to smoke in his spare time is HIS own affair. He gets to do the cost-benefit analysis; you can't do it for him.
Face it. The justifications for disallowing pot-smoking are pretty similar to, though even less sound than, the justifications for excessive environmental regulation. Someone else thinks they can make better decisions than you can about personal virtue.
I'll answer this question, but I'm not going to be answering anymore…I
don't sit here and argue with people…'Who cares"…I for one care….In my
opinion, that's all that matters…Just like your opinion only matters to you
NOT ME!!!………
Slightly off topic here but I will make an observation here.
Bush's former AG has forever tarnished his legacy of public service to the American people over his involvement in the Tommy Chong fiasco, 'Operation Pipe Dream'.
When I was a young longhaired card carrying member of the 'Space Rangers'.
I was certain that my generation, when it came into power would at the very least legalize marijuana. Little did I know how wrong I could be.
The War on Drugs is another justification for Big Government, already two hundred billion dollars in with no end in site…
I reiterate…I won't sit here and argue with you…You are
a lucky one that can handle it than…..I've seen a few
that got "nuts"………bye now!!
So what you're saying is that if the state does not punish pot smokers in some way, they are advocating marijuana use?
So anything that's legal is advocated. Sharing explicitly racist and/or violent opinions is not simply LEGAL, but those opinions are tacitly endorsed by the state since you're not fined or imprisoned for them. Same with communism. So the solution is to offer at the very least "small fines" for everything immoral so the state does not tacitly endorse the activity?
Perhaps you can, but then again the way you have deftly explained it, it's all clear as mud now…!
How's the tone in that one, Derek?
Yeah, OK, guy. Great debate!
never said that…
Just that legalization is a minefield they don't want to go down. By treating it as a nuisance, and not a crime, they are finding a balance that seems to work- for now.
But legalization, with the requisite taxation and commercial implementation would encourage use.
Make sense?
As my name attests, I am a libertarian. I think the stuff should be legalized, people should indulge as they choose. Besides, my generation is apathetic enough as is and enough people smoke it anyway, so why not just legalize it and stop making people jump through hoops to acquire it.
However, I still maintain a hardline position against hard stuff like cocaine, heroin, meth, etc because you can smoke pot and still be a productive member of society, but with the hard stuff, your addiction becomes dangerous to people around you.
Take away the entitlements that send my tax dollars to support addicts, in any way, and I'll take a new look at legalization. What you do to yourself is your own business; except in today's social safety net world, what you do to yourself becomes my business all too often, and if we pass universal health care, that problem only gets worse.
What is on the pizza?
"Why not let businesses deal with that? If it becomes a problem, and their workers perform badly, there is nothing preventing them replacing that person with a different employee."
Good as far as that goes, unless the employee in question happens to be Union … then you can't fire him most of the time. He just comes back to work when he feels like it.
Also, if you do manage to fire the employee, what's stop him from claiming unemployment or even welfare? Then he's still a drain on my back pocket.
Let the addicts subsidize themselves entirely without any aid and we can talk.
Again, my faith in individuals always making the right decision is less than yours…
My problem with legalizing hard drugs is that I believe people will still abuse them, and become nuisances at best, and menaces at worst, to society in general. Take a stroll through the "needle parks" in Switzerland, where heroin was essentially de-criminalized, and you will see what I mean. I am a firm believer in individual freedom, but not when those individual freedoms, such as the choice to become a heroin addict, infringe on other people's rights.
An adult sitting at home smoking a joint is no threat to me or mine. A whacked-out heroin addict or crackhead unable to hold down a job and thus needing either welfare dollars or criminal activity to buy their next fix is a real threat to others, regardless of whether the substance to which they enslaved themselves was purchased from a street dealer or a Walgreens.
Or they could, um, stop spending … just sayin'
"Meth isn't a drug, it is a poison. If you want to make it and take it, go for it. Sell it as a drug, and it should be no different than if you sold someone arsenic as a steak seasoning."
I agree that meth is a poison, but I find the implication that cocaine, especially in crack form, and heroin, are not "poisons", and hence not subject to regulation or prohibition, both arbitrary and questionable.
i give you a thumbs up
You do realize that if, with the current FDA structure, those hard rugs were legalized, they would have to be regulated and meet minimum standards. The effect would almost certainly be that you would wind up with a drug so watered down from its predecessors that you wouldn't recognize it. In order to avoid the kinds of litigation that would be inevitable if profitable companies manufactered hard drugs, they would have to decrease the potency by many orders of magnitude to try to avoid killing their customers (both FDA regs and wrongful death lawsuits would prompt this). Heck, big pharma would likely be just as welcome in American life and the courtrooms as big tobacco is now.
In short, I would expect that the black market trade in "real" hard rugs would mostly remain untouched and could even be bolstered by the numbers seeking a stronger high than what "legal" hard drugs will give them.
two thumbs up
Ahhh…Sarcasm, just another service I offer…
Still want to discuss tone? Or do you want to get back to insinuating that I'm insane, and actually provide some substance for a rebuttal?
Your call, I'll be here all day. =)
Consider:
Lives ruined by the criminal justice system throwing kids in jail for a roach.
Incarcerating young people with hard core criminals.
An underground economy in this product that corrupts all in the justice chain.
End support for the Mexican drug lords.
Quality monitoring and sales outlets based on liquor stores.
A crop that can be grown on marginal lands.
Hemp after the flowering tops are removed can have amazing commercial uses.
The only issue that I can think of in opposition to legalization would be that there is no method for quickly checking the level of impairment on the road or on the job. Perhaps there is something out there am I am just not aware of?
True, indeed.
Alcohol and cigarettes are often what a youngster tries… way before they try pot or shrooms or lsd or coke or whatever.
Dhass I couldn't agree with you more as long as the plant is kosher…
"The War on Drugs is another justification for Big Government"
I could not agree more. Well put.
pepperoni, peppers, onions and extra cheese?
"How do you make sense of laws that are unnatural?" Dhasselhoff : We do not live in an unfettered state of nature driven by our senses and unsatisfied desires. We live in a highly advance political state. Where laws are passed by the various legislatures to protect the individual as well as society from acts destructive to both. Having said that I support the use of medical marijuana BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE through the election process made it legal( I live in Michigan where we very recently legalized the use of medical marijuana) –albeit, it's use is restricted. I also am a victim of chronic pain and until you have to endue unrelenting pain you can not truly understand the pitiable struggle millions of Americans undergo day and night every day of their lives. Medical marijuana is one attempt to assist those suffering people -no I do not use marijuana- The will of the people as it regards the use of medical marijuana or until such time as We The People decide to repeal the legal use of medical marijuana.
My redeemer!
Wow… the libertarians are out in full force today.. i love it!
kinda beats hell outta the argument that legalizing would take away the profit huh
lol nice.
I did a piss poor job of editing I will blame on my pain and meds: " The will of the people as it regards the use of medical marijuana MUST be honored by the federal government …" Sorry.
Right on bro
Reference the comment that says meth addicts start off using pot, I beg to differ. Where the first illegal drug they use is pot, what starts them on the road to addiction first is ALCOHOL. A Bud of a different color, the Silver Bullet, a small shot of Jose.
Alcohol is the primary gateway drug, not pot.
Drug Recognition Experts. It is not easy, not quick, but it is effective. Eyelid flutters, pinking of the eyes, lack of convergence… all indicators possible in cannabis impairment. The clinical effects of marijuana last around three hours after use though the THC stays in the blood for much longer.
thank you! well stated and i wholeheartedly agree.
To explain a little, DREs are officers who have completed a very stringent set of requirements and training to recognize drug impaired people. They conduct a physical exam with blood pressure, pupil measurements, and other tests you would see in the doctors office and combine it with notation of the persons ability to follow conversation and direction, and field sobriety test.
Agree
I've been saying since Obama got elected that he would get pot legalized, if nothing else! But, unfortunately, he'll do a lot more evil things to us than that!
That must be why our Savior in Scripture made so much wine at the wedding that he went to, right?
I disagree with the notion that meth addicts start by using pot. They don't, pot is simply the first illegal drug they use. What starts them on the pathway to addiction is alcohol. Talk to those same meth addicts and they will tell you that they drank alcohol first. Not just a can or two a day, but alcoholic status amounts.
A high is a high, from alcohol to pot. They medical considerations are the same as are the impairment concerns behind the wheel of a car. Officers are trained to recognize alcohol and pot so the enforcement is the same. I just don't get why it is still so penalized.
Anyway, pot isn't the gateway drug people shout about, just another rung on the ladder of addiction.
No, it doesn't. Why should it be treated as a nuisance? What is wrong with simply letting people pursue their own ends? You say legalization "encourages use," and "is a minefield they don't want to go down," but I don't understand why. Even assuming marijuana is extremely harmful, it is less harmful than the penalty imposed by the government right now–and the people using it are only harming themselves.
You're making two assumptions here–that "legalization encourages use" and that it's an activity that's worth discouraging at all. I agree with neither. People use it regardless of whether it is legal or not, and it's not particularly destructive (even if it is, it's just destructive to the individual, unless you embrace "social responsibility" or somesuch.
I see your point about taxation, but that's hard to avoid in the "mixed economy" we have. Too bad. Being capitalist, I'd expect most people here to rally against taxation of all kinds of goods. But even then, I don't see how any of it is endorsement, relative to the other taxed goods.
Me too, I would definitely qualify for this natural medication instead of being prescribed expensive narcotics that only benefit the huge companies that create them. I'm tired of being in pain just b/c the "all knowing, well intentioned gov't" says its evil while they line their pockets from the money of the big medicine/drug companies. Its ridiculous that something natural is outlawed, just one more freedom they can keep from us and use it to control the minds of the populace. LEGALIZE IT!!!!
[...] the rest here: » Reason.tv: Pot Wars–Battleground California – Big Government Posted in California | Tags: California, [...]
Easy as D…E…A. Maybe you like big government, though.
Well, history would argue with you, friend. While Prohibition did not work- alcohol was already legal- when it was overturned there was a flood of alcohol related problems society had to deal with.
By legalizing it, you remove the social stigma. Now, children can say 'man, I can't wait until I'm 18 to buy pot legally' and the earlier use by children would most likely accelerate. So, you see, the law of unintended consequences weighs heavy here.
It is why, as a conservative- and not a libertarian- society does have a duty to protect the young.
Marijuana use by youngsters is harmful, THC is fat soluble and strores itself in the fatty tissue of the brain. It has motor function effects as well, and driving would become necessarily more dangerous.
You have to think this stuff through- not just for your own selfish self interest.
Laws protecting people from themselves? In some ways I can understand that – sort of in that "if I was dictator everything would be fixed" sort of way but it isn't the POV advanced openly by any "right" party…is it? I will leave it to others to say. But I do recall the Rusho-types being apoplectic about regulating trans-fats and high-calorie things as well as cigarettes.
God made pot, man made beer…Who do you trust?
That's funny!
But I am not for advocating a stoner society.
Ask a cop who is more of a problem – particularly with violence – people under the influence of marijuana or alcohol. Look up the data of which causes more deaths.
Good luck with that. The ACLU will have that tied up in court until we are all dead and buried.
'Talk about a totalitarianist dream.
Why don't you just read the last paragraph of my first post…!?
Because the government is your daddy and you need daddies permission for doing everything.
That wouldn't be the "right" since it is the "right" that hates Ron Paul and that is his position. The right loves big government (Patriot Act, war, redistributing wealth to Israel.)
I rent a couple of movies also and maybe a short trip to Coldstone Creamery…
When's a War on Anything worked? Just a good excuse to suck my taxpayer money up to pay for more government.
Agree about the no-tax thing. It irritates people who say to tax it – usually these are people who say they are against taxes to begin with.
Driving under the influence is still illegal. You have to be stoned to think that people can't tell when your impaired from smoking pot…especially a cop that is investigating the accident you just had.
Kind of like the war on terrorism!
Alcohol makes sense. It's legal and easy to get.
It isn't a matter of "getting stoned" it is a matter of rapacious police departments with EXTRA-JUDICIAL authority to confiscate property.
That or clean water was reallly hard to come by in his time. Also wine back then was not the same as wine today, not by a long shot.
Get the govt out of our lives and allow the states to govern in the manner allowed by the Constitution. There are no constitutional provisions that grant the fed govt the power to tell you what you can or can not smoke, drink, or rub on your knee caps. If a state wants to allow marijuana usage or anything else the fed should have no power to stop them. If you don't like the way in which a state runs it's business, you can always move to a state that better suits you.
I agree w/ you re: the "subsidizing" part, but you need to realize that marijuana isn't physically addictive. Marijuana can, & IS used responsibly by those of us who smoke it, & if we are going to live in a free country, we should have to face losing out homes, jobs, children, or FREEDOM for simply posessing or smoking it. Irresponsible use (driving under the influence, selling to minors, etc.) is one thing, & the STATES should punish those actions…but using marijuana responsibly should be no one else's business.
I know some folks that run shops and they are not making a lot of money. The shops do keep regular people form having to deal with dealers (i.e. gangs or one-step away from gangs), and they actually have choices in product (yes, certain weed gives you a different feeling, many of which are not the feeling you see depicted on TV/Movies, etc.). The City of LA is really messing things up, although I sure the ganstas on the corner will be happy to be making money again. CA should legalize and tax. One can smoke and be a very productive member of society–lawyers, other professionals, and regular folks do smoke pot (you just can't do it at work, etc.). It should be treated just like alcohol (although it is a lot safer). By the way, using a shop to purchase eliminates the "gateway to other drugs" argument, as the shops only sell weed, but the street dealer can get you coke, crystal, herioin, or whatever you'll pay for.
You are correct. And as a professional who has a medical card, users do have to admit that pot does make one somewhat lazy (I hate it when supporters say it does not lower motivation). However, there are many other things that cause one to lack motivation (such as my drafting of comments here, when I should be working). Ok, got to go.
Chastity belts are out of date?
With a medical card, you can grow a limited number at your house. The problem is it is not super cheap to grow indoors (need skills, vents, etc.), and growing outdoors sometimes invites the neighborhood kids to consider jumping your fence, thus causing one to determine whether or not to then exercise one's 2nd Amendment rights. With that said, I'll put a few plants in the yard in late March to save money.
I've never done anything violent while high on pot. Can't say the same for being drunk in my youth.
You must be logged in to post a comment.