August 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm #1143
Drift, if you come over to my building in downtown Vancouver, after they get rid of the pee, it’s mine- to clean up.August 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm #1151
(Points the rostrum toward the chorus)
The thing is, we’ve been treating recreational drug use and abuse as a crime since the Harisson Act of 1914. Because of that, the old addage “crime doesn’t pay” rings hollow.
When it comes to dope it most certainly does pay.
When I write “pay” I’m not just referring to the billion(s) dollar trafficking trade, but also “legitimate” businesses that have jumped on the gravy train commonly abbreviated as the WoD.
Though the Corrections Corporation of America (CXW) stock is down 1.12% as of this writing. I’m thinking something has gone awry when a state(s) has more penal institutions than institutions of higher learning.
It’s been said ‘marijuana’ is the single most drug people seek assistance with with in counseling. Maybe it’s just that the 18 year old kid that got caught with a bag in his pocket would rather do the rehab thing than sit in jail for six months? And she isn’t alone.
Drug testing has gone to extremes; fingernail, hair, blood, saliva samples? Someone is paying for the research going into the various ways to detect drug use. Do you think it could possibly be the very same people being violated in their persons? Maybe it’s the consumer who purchase products from corporations that institute such heinous searches? Regardless, there’s money in it, that’s for sure.
Drug use and abuse should never have been characterized as crimes. What does it hurt if an individual does a line of coke, hit of acid, ‘shrooms, X, whatever a few times a year in celebration of a birthday, New Years, the solstice or just because they felt like it? Nothing. Not a darn thing, that’s what.
What about the “addict?” You know, the scum of the earth? Isn’t that the way we perceive these people? As garbage? If they are garbage it’s because we’ve thrown them away. And what does that make us?
How many crack babies are born because the mother knows if she seeks help with her problem as soon as she learns of the pregnancy she’ll be labeled a criminal and come under the watchful eye of The Authorities?
How many drug related crimes are committed because we, as a society, have made it near impossible for a person struggling with addiction to garner a paycheck?
What effect does a drug conviction have on one’s chances for gainful employment?
There are those that’ll stand high on the hill and rant for every dime bag of coke sold on the street someone down south will die. I’ve got news for that “higher than thou” individual; the fact that the dime bag was illegal, cost the life, not the bag. If coke could legally be purchased the headless bodies and those swinging from bridges would plummet.
Moderate recreational drug use (any) isn’t an issue of any sort or kind.
Drug abuse and/or addiction is a societal/health issue and should be treated as such.
If one takes the blinders off and looks around the world it becomes quite obvious nations that treat drugs as a social problem rather than a judicial one don’t have near the problems associated with doping as we do.
Maybe this country is just a bunch of dopes?August 14, 2015 at 5:23 pm #1160
August 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm
One – Great – Big – Freaking — AMEN!
Let’s say in a more progressive society, all drugs were legalized. What would the proper sales restrictions look like, as well as penalties for the non-compliant? I remember a PBS Frontline panel on this subject, I believe back in the eighties. WF Buckley was on it, and while advocating for absolute drug legalization, his caveat was that anyone who sold to minors (under 21) should be subject to the death penalty. I’ll look for it and post it if I can find it. It was an extensive Frontline, and as I remember, it was several panel sessions discussing the ins and outs/pros and cons of drug legalization. I think Butthead Bennett was on there as well but not sure.
Extreme penalty proposed on Buckley’s part imo. Maybe it was his conservatism causing internal conflict and he felt like he had to balance out his thought driven karma. Who knows. Having said that, what should penalties look like? Age limit? I’ve always thought if we send our kids to war at 18, everything else should be allowed at same age. And if we talk about raising age limits, it should be on those we send into battle.
Drift – You might consider adding your 3:50 response to your blog. It’s damn inspirational.August 14, 2015 at 5:26 pm #1161
@ 3:50 [This reply was modified 1 hour, 32 minutes ago by Drift.]
Fancy! How does one modify?August 14, 2015 at 6:56 pm #1163
I don’t see it on my post options now, nail, but when the 3:50 first went up there was one to edit. I’d spelled “also” asol” and went back and fixed it. As soon as I wing this one off I’ll check for that same option (is it a time thing?). If it’s there I’ll note it.
Truthfully, I haven’t a clue what full legalization would look like. Would one buy their crack cocaine from a pharmacy or a licensed outlet? Would it take some sort of permit to purchase heroin? I don’t know. I suppose that might be worth some discussion, eh?
I’d go with the same laws for alcohol when it comes to the age cut-off. I’m not sure why to be honest. I mean a 17-year-old will procure whatever the heck they care to regardless of age restrictions now.
I remember when I was a kid being raised on the Mexico/Arizona border it was said the drinking age south was however old one needed to be to reach and put money on the bar.
I haven’t a clue if Mexico and a juvenile drinking problem then or now.
The edit option was there.
This was typed after the fact (so to speak).
Too bad I can’t go pull the second ‘d’ out of “addage” in my previous post.
Maybe after a person leaves the page the option expires? I’ll see.August 14, 2015 at 7:03 pm #1170
I think it’s a time thing. When the post came up after the second edit the option was gone.
Oh, and thanks for the kind comment, nails (“inspirational”).August 14, 2015 at 7:56 pm #1173
Let me add a big Ditto to what nailingit said! AMEN Again! And, to include your capndrift.wordpress article. Excellent… so many unconsidered angles! Plus enlightening, instructive, well substantiated, and with enough humor tossed in to keep it relaxed and non-lecturing. Thanks.August 15, 2015 at 11:12 am #1178
The only thing I see is “reply” at the right top of the post. Then after you post “edit” comes upAugust 19, 2015 at 8:30 pm #1242August 19, 2015 at 9:00 pm #1244August 23, 2015 at 10:39 pm #1296August 26, 2015 at 10:39 am #1314September 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm #1386
Hoping your body & bike are healing well.
Remember when a while back I was whining and moaning about the possibility of provisional language in OR’s Measure 91 law discriminating against Washington St med patients? Today I was getting my monthly cannabis supply filled at my favorite Portland dispensary, and the employee I’ve referenced before gave me some bad news. It comes too pass as of January 1st 2016. After Jan 1st, when a Washington State (or any state) resident’s OMMP med card expires – that’s it. The new law states you must be an OR resident for a minimum two years before you can get an OMMP card. Also growers getting on the rec train have to reside two years. That I can almost understand. In a way. Not really. What the hell is a matter with these people. It’s a plant for ****’s sake. Meanwhile, there will be no discrimination for out-of-towners regarding $$$ recreational sales which begin Oct 1.
I went to several dispensaries before finding a place that was suitable to my needs. I mean, I can go back after my card expires, but I’d have to pay rec prices. I was told med would go for $15 – 20 a gram. Currently I pay $220.00 an ozer.
Just when I find the right meds for a reasonable price – it all goes to hell.
Yeah I’m whining damn it.
Do you know the political history of why we don’t have dispensaries in Clark County? City of Vancouver? What would it take to change law to allow them?
Sad in Clarkistan.September 3, 2015 at 10:08 am #1391
The other day I read where Oregon would no longer issue “cards” to nonresidents and thought of your previous post, nails.
The “dispensary” thing is complicated. Some folks are of a mind (regardless of the utility) they were never legal, but loophole type enterprises. I’d have to go back to the “designated provider” provision the legislature tightened up at the same time leaving another door open with “collective gardens.”
It’s boring … and moot.
I believe Rivers’ SB 5052 comes fully into effect next July. At that point “dispensary” will be deleted from the Washington lexicon.September 4, 2015 at 7:02 pm #1398
Well, according to my son the place to go is Tacoma. His favorite place is called Highway 7 – Says they have high quality weed at a much lower price than down here, and their customer service is great – they’ll spend as long as you want explaining the different stuff they sell. He’s especially not a fan of Main Street – Said when he went there it was “Take a number, what do you want, give me your money, and move out”.
This came out of a conversation when he hit me up for a loan against his paycheck this morning – he’s driving up there to see his girlfriend and didn’t want to wait to get paid. An interesting side point is that he says the illegal market here is actually raising their prices a little – I’m guessing they figure that if the two local stores are making so much money, the market can handle it.
And driving around central P’Town, I’m seeing those green crosses springing up everywhere. I still say once Oregon stores start selling, the shops here are going to see a big drop in sales.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.