Police return seized pot

The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, CA) ^ | Jan. 04, 2003 | Patrick S. Pemberton

[MrLeRoy]

I don't think anyone cares about small use done in the privacy of the home.

Then why not revoke the laws against it?

In CA you get at most a ticket for that, but the law is there to reduce use of the drug.

Why is it any more the government's business to coercively reduce use of marijuana than to reduce use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, saturated fats, etc?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

What is the doctor's name?

Its obvious that you did not read the article. Had you done so, you would have found the following information:

A local Superior Court judge had ordered the city to return the marijuana it confiscated from No Runner last summer, ruling the 23-year-old Grover Beach man had a valid doctor's recommendation.

--and--

Once the recommendation was verified, the District Attorney's Office dismissed criminal charges. But police would not return the pot or the pipe.

So, if its that important to you, why don't you go ask the Judge or the District Attorney for the name of the doctor.

[A CA Guy]

Laws against it are a ticketable offense only unless they are dealing. The law is about where it needs to be right now, that is why. We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime.

[tacticalogic]

How come proposition 215 gets followed in CA meanwhile the same people in California passed 187 and the state ignores the measure regarding the funding illegals out of public monies?

Why does Ashcroft bring the full weight of the federal government to bear against CA's medical marijuana laws, but allows their gun registration and confiscation programs to go unchallenged?

[Dane]

So, if its that important to you, why don't you go ask the Judge or the District Attorney for the name of the doctor

Isn't that the newspaper reporter's job?

Oh well Dan, I guess you give all reporters the benefit of the doubt and that you don't think that they have a liberal bias. Uh Uh, no bias at all here.

[ApesForEvolution]

Regarding glaucoma, what, if any, 'relief' does 'medicinal' marijuana bring to inner eye pressure and the damage that results from it?

[MrLeRoy]

Laws against it are a ticketable offense only unless they are dealing. The law is about where it needs to be right now, that is why. We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime.

None of that answers my question: Why is it any more the government's business to coercively reduce use of marijuana than to reduce use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, saturated fats, etc?

[A CA Guy]

It has been established that illegal drugs are financing in part terrorists.
That might be a small reason for the priority.

It is only a ticket in CA unless you have enough in possession to be a dealer. If you do...tough luck! That would be rather stupid to be in possession of a large amount anyway.

Whereas 187 was passed by the people and our borders are supposed to be protected at all times. To give our state treasury away to illegals is a huge crime here in California.

[E Rocc]

We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime.

-Herbert Hoover, 1931.

Actually, one of the signs of a healthy free society is the ability to disapprove of something without neccesarily desiring that it be banned by law.

-Eric

[MrLeRoy]

"In a number of studies of healthy adults and glaucoma patients, IOP [intraocular pressure] was reduced by an average of 25% after smoking a marijuana cigarette that contained approximately 2% THC—a reduction as good as that observed with most other medications available today." - Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine

[AppyPappy]

Why bother with a doctor?

[MrLeRoy]

It has been established that illegal drugs are financing in part terrorists.

Petroleum finances terrorism to at least as great a degree.

[E Rocc]

It has been established that illegal drugs are financing in part terrorists.

Only because they are illegal. That has also been established. Banning something for which there is a demand only pushes it into a black market, where the most ruthless participants dominate the market.

It's not drugs that are "financing terrorism", it's the so-called "War On Drugs".

-Eric

[ApesForEvolution]

What does the reporter have to do with a court's verification for the defendant's legal basis for possessing?

[AppyPappy]

Got that MD's name yet?

[ApesForEvolution]

"a reduction as good as that observed with most other medications available today"

The only other means that I'm aware of to treat IOP are drops. Is this the 'most other medications' to which they refer? Do you have a link for the source(s)? Thanks.

[MrLeRoy]

I've already conceded as much of a point as you have: the prescriber may not be an M.D.

[A CA Guy]

"We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime. -Herbert Hoover, 1931.

The same is said about rape and murder. To disagree with Hoover on this issue would define yourself as lawless and an anarchist.

[ApesForEvolution]

Are medical practitioners deregulated in CA?

[MrLeRoy]

The only other means that I'm aware of to treat IOP are drops. Is this the 'most other medications' to which they refer?

Beats me.

Do you have a link for the source(s)?

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071550/html/index.html