Inconsistent Application of Standards > Rexroad.com

This post comes with some risk that I will just have to accept because I really think one part of the a current debate is not being explored at all.

Since the day after the NCAA Women's Championship Game we've been hearing about the comments by radio "shock jock" Don Imus. At this point people are just piling on the guy by pulling sponsorships and trying to ban his radio show.

Please note that I am not defending Don Imus at all. I don't like what he said about the Rutgers basketball team at all. What I really don't like is the inconsistent standard applied to what words are appropriate depending upon the person using them.

We all know about Don Imus. He has been on the radio for years offending people almost every day with his words. People that listen to his show expect that. He made a really bad comment on one day. He apologized. Now he is paying a severe price. Fair enough. Sometimes people do need to pay.

Let me point out some other examples.

Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante drops an N-bomb in the middle of a political speech. He apologizes then gets re-elected as Lt. Governor of California. If Republican Matt Rexroad does that same thing the people at the Woodland Democrat Club would be calling for my resignation. Cruz Bustamante got a partial pass on this because he is Latino and because most people would assume that this was a one-time slip.

South Park puts this skit on television that is clearly racist. You can see it here. If you watch Comedy Central you will see many of the same advertisers that have pulled their sponsorship of the Imus Show gladly spending their dollars to reach the Comedy Central audience. I don't recall an apology from the producers of South Park or the people at Comedy Central. If I produce something like that on this site I would end up on national news for all the wrong reasons. South Park gets a pass because some people think it is funny?

The meeting before I became a member of the Board of Supervisors I heard someone suggest rounding up all the people with AIDS for a quarrantine. Nobody challenged the comment at all. If Matt Rexroad would have said that exact same thing the people of Davis would have been bussing to Woodland to picket my office and call me all kinds of names. Some people get a pass for unknown reasons.

We all hear rap music that includes N-bombs and terms degrading to women too numerous to count. Yet that is fine in our society. This is probably some of the music that the Rutgers team uses in pre-game warm ups yet they hold press conferences about how bad Don Imus is. I am still waiting for the first apology from a rap performer for these wrongs. I will hold my breath.

I don't think any of these situations are right. Yet they happen without apology and with little community outrage.

The standard being applied to Don Imus is fine with me. Just set that standard for everyone so we can know where the line is drawn in terms of acceptable speech. The inconsistancies just make the cries to punish Don Imus ring hollow to me.

If it is wrong for Imus then it is wrong for MC "whatever", the people that listen to the music, and the people that advertise on stations that play that music. When I see Rev. Jessie Jackson encourage a boycott of rap artists that drop N-bombs or Comedy Central I will be far more concerned about the "punishment" for Don Imus - the guy that actually publicly admitted he was wrong.

Comments

By Blue @ Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:36 PM

Support you 100 percent on your thoughts

By Rich Rifkin @ Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:37 PM

Matt, I agree with what you are saying here. Clearly, we have different standards for different people based on bogus distinctions. It's indefensible.

However, I have a quibble with one thing you wrote:

"We all know about Don Imus. He has been on the radio for years offending people almost every day with his words. People that listen to his show expect that. He made a really bad comment on one day."

Imus was fired for his "one comment." But he and his cohosts on his radio show had a history of making similarly offensive remarks, and so I think some of the reaction stemmed from the ill-will that he personally had built up over the years.

In case you did not know, Imus referred to journalist Gwen Ifill, who is black, as "a cleaning lady," when she was covering the White House for the New York Times, suggesting she did not look like a reporter. He confirmed to 60 Minutes that the primary reason he employed Bernard McGuirk as his sidekick was to make "n***er jokes." Imus called Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz a "boner-nosed... beanie-wearing Jewboy," which doesn't bother me (I am Jewish), but clearly adds to his history of offenses. His sports-caster sidekick referred to tennis player Venus Williams as an "animal." And Howard Stern has claimed on his show that Imus used to berate black underlings at WNBC, where they were both employed, calling them "dumb n***ers."

Ultimately, I think he got what was coming to him. I tend to think that people who make one mistake, if it is not too egregious, deserve the chance to apologize and get a second chance. However, when a person has a history of offenses, regardless of their racial or political background, they should be held accountable.

By Matt Rexroad @ Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:04 PM

I did not know about those comments. However that just proves my point. Until this most recent incident he was on the air with lots of advertisers and listeners.

This last one was the one that got him fired. I am not sure that it is any worse than the previous ones -- yet many important and respected people kept going on his show.

By duane750 @ Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:17 PM

Al Sharpton and Rosie O’Donell can say anti-Semitic remarks, Sharpton calls Joe Lieberman “Jew Lieberman”, Rosie in full view of day time television makes remarks against the Jewish community and most recently made waves with the Asian community. It is clearly a double standard. Al Sharpton is also on the record as saying “ I am tired of hearing about the Holocaust”. Why do they get a free pass, while Imus is crucified?

I implore each and every one of you that reads this, to email and ask Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Rosie O’Donell, and even New York Congressmen Charlie Rangle (D), to denounce the lyrics of Ludicrous, Snoop Dog, Fifty Cent and Ice Cube. Everyone of these rappers, have used the N-Bomb in their songs, in addition to using the same words used by Don Imus. Do you think these people will denounce this racist behavior? They will not.

America is being divided more and more every day, there will be no more middle America.

Matt, I agree with everything you said!

By Bobby Harris @ Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:21 PM

From what I hear this evening, Don Imus has already been fired by CBS.

Nevertheless, I believe this issue deserves further discussion, along the lines of Matt’s thoughts.

I’ll second Matt’s notion that at some point along the line, Imus will have paid a sufficient price for his flamboyant and thoughtless expressions, which combined racism and sexism into one stupid stew.

I believe it would do more good for everyone to have Imus continue to carry his suffering over this experience upon some broadcast channel or other. That way he has an opportunity to redeem himself, or else fall flat yet again, to find some just course of action that well serves all interests.

As noted in a previous comment, however, this is not really Imus first social transgression. He's behaved like this in the past.

No one died, though, over this particular blunder.

Kurt Vonnegut passed away today (- everyone should read Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse Five -), and he was a tireless opponent of censorship. Vonnegut (bless is soul) would likely keep Imus on the airwaves with a chance for redemptive performances - for various reasons.

In fact, Imus did everybody a political favor by becoming a sudden symbol of this pervasive problem of groundless and pernicious bias, for such intolerance and monkey-like prejudices (an allusion to Vonnegut's 'Welcome to the Monkey Houuse) are below the standards of ethical sociality.

After a certain fashion, perhaps Imus should be congratulated for clearly demonstrating what a fantastic lout and prejudiced clown someone can be.

MSNBC has cut him loose, but I’d say the CBS should keep him on the air, and let him try to earn a living in the face of this debacle. That would be punishment plus accountability. Some people think his ratings will go up and he’ll reap some dividend from this fiasco, but I doubt it.

And I agree with Matt’s estimation of a degree of double-standard-ism within the broad culture and rap music in particular, although some problems with rap music along these lines have been recognized and protested from both right and left wings of the political spectrum. I don’t think rap music has quite been given an entirely ‘free pass,’ but I believe that Matt’s general objection to such cultural hypocrisy has obvious political merit.

Matt’s my kind of Republican. I’m a lifelong Democrat, who recently voted for Arnold. Both Matt and Arnold are critical thinkers, who challenge themselves toward best serving the public interest. Semper Fidelis.

I’ll even add a verse of my own, regarding Matt’s rap on rap music.

Reggae music is pretty hot in my own social circles. But the reggae-music culture has a deep vein of homophobia, as well as misogyny (being disrespectful of women). I fault it for that, while still occasionally enjoying some of the music (especially Peter Tosh ... you probably don’t know who I mean; so, Google him up).

This music preaches freedom and social revolution, and yet has its own skeletons, not only in the closet, but sometimes happily wandering around the countryside, doing mischief.

This prejudicial aspect of reggae culture isn’t generally recognized among the public.

Imus will now be scrutinized at every turn, and that dynamic conflicts with the brash “comedy” persona upon which he depends to be popular. You wouldn’t hear Jay Leno saying things like Imus, especially since he’s not that kind of “comic.” Leno has true class, yet he also knows how to press the social-acceptability envelope at the same time. He and Imus are a good comparison with what’s OK and what’s too far.

We should all remember, of course, that gifted, legendary comics like Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor (from the political left, more or less) actually broke down the initial, artistic barriers of this sort, to allow all of us to use our own judgment and sensibilities to explore our own tolerance and understanding in this area of public discourse.

Eisenhower (for one example), despite his virtues, didn’t open up that key landscape, one that still demands traversing. Republican comics are in seriously short supply, and its not as if there’s a lack of relevant material.

Perhaps, in our era of: Reagan - Bush - Clinton - Bush, authentic political humor has been on a long holiday. Political thought and expression, though never perfect, has further devolved. The Nixon / Agnew / Ford era was more suited to such artistic measures. Today, being funny is much harder to muster.

Imus’ remarks were really over the top for someone of his (corporate) celebrity, although Rush Limbaugh does a pretty close shave on this stuff at times. Rush explores more of the . . . economic aspects . . . of matters which aren’t (yet) so very sore at the political surface or margins. Of course, that may change as time passes.

And I suppose people may have forgotten about Rush’s . . . pill problems, . . . which he actually denied, while blaming so many other persons for this very same general behavior.

I wonder to what extent Limbaugh’s ethical lapses tarnished his luster / grandeur among conservatives?

It’s called self-deception, duplicity and hypocrisy. Hiding behind some convenient, economic drape, . . . and making hay while the sun shines. Many politicians across the entire spectrum are guilty of such behavior.

Underneath politics, as human beings our most precious possessions are language and ethics. We are daily called upon to serve them to our utmost abilities.

I believe Matt would agree with that evaluatation.

And that’s why I believe (as he has said) Matt would like to swing the sword, . . . just short of chopping off Imus’ . . . well, you know, whatever . . . .

By Charlie in Japan @ Friday, April 13, 2007 12:14 AM

duane750 is correct. There is a huge double standard at play here...and its been going on for years!!! If Imus needs to be fired for insensitive comments…then Rosie needs to be show the door for her complete lack social couth. For Mr. Harris...you are way to long winded to even read …and what is all this ‘Sword’ stuff??…(I will not even bring up the medication you might be using)

(In my opinion) Charlie-san

By Bobby Harris @ Friday, April 13, 2007 1:14 AM

Charlie in Japan,

Feel free to bring up the (in your circles, politically incorrect) cannabis subject. Don't feel self-censored.

I'm able to handle / discuss your expressions, . . . lots of experience along these lines.

Superficiality, though, is a deleterious aspect of anti-intellectualism that is all too . . . "american."

Take a few moments to read what someone else has to say, and then give it some serious thought. Really, it only takes a few moments, and you may learn something.

I learn things this way, all the time.

And Charlie, I doubt there is much confusion regarding the figurative "sword" remark, at the conclusion of my comment. All regular interpretations are alright.

C'mon Charlie, let's be buddies (on some level).

BTW - Prop. 215 is not a "can of worms," Charlie, as you uttered elsewhere on this blog. Persons who don't want to accept it as legitimate will resort to vague accusations and misunderstandings of this sort. But I believe you may yet feel the real vibe (in 60s lingo). Give it a chance (please).

By YoloCalVet @ Friday, April 13, 2007 7:45 AM

Bobby,

Did you ever receive any funding from MoveOn.org, or any other George Soros funded PACS? Soros funded the GLSA in High Schools acrossed the nation with the purpose of subverting our institutes of education. How convenient to advocate to a bunch of messed up kids to availability of marajuana as a anti-depressant rather than use a little self control during adolesence. Soros owns Progressive Insurance and with the premiums people pay he uses to undermine our economy, our social values and our laws. Soros is one sick puppy.

(my opinion)
YoloCalVet

By Jim @ Friday, April 13, 2007 1:58 PM

Matt: In response to your post.
Here are several points for consideration.
1. The disgusting remarks by Don Imus were directed toward private citizens and made over a radio station which needs a federal license to operate. Whether Imus violated FCC decency standards is a point of consideration. (CBS should be worried about losing its license.)

2. Rap music, if played over a radio station, may also violate FCC decency standards. The FCC could (and in my opinion, should) take action against such stations. If rap music is played off a CD, or download, that’s another issue. In that case, a private individual is making a private decision to purchase music to which he wants to listen.

3. Public officials making statements (such as the N-word by Cruz Bustamante) happen. It’s deplorable and public officials should be held accountable. We must hold our public officials to a higher standard. I don’t think it matters if a person is Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Communist. You’re right that it’s a double standard, but remember Republicans often portray themselves as the "Party of Decency." We are shocked when Cheney says the F-word. But we all know about Democrats. We expect them to be profane, or at least more so than Republicans.

4. Your reference to South Park is appropriate. However, South Park is designed to be a parody. We all know it’s a parody. It’s your choice whether you watch the show. If you don’t, advertisers will get the message and the show will be gone. In the case of Imus, a lot of the objections were based on his character. He has a history of making snide or irritating comments and trying to weasel his way out of his words. This time he went to far in his remarks, knew it, tried to skate out of his predicament, and couldn’t. End of story. You are right in talking about celebrities who appeared on Imus’ show. If they objected to his style and tone, they simply should have declined to appear. (I call it the Patricia Heaton test. Actress Patricia Heaton walked out of a music awards ceremony a few years back because she didn’t want her kids to hear the language being used. Bravo! Sometimes we need to let our feet do the talking.
jim smith/editor/The Daily Democrat

By cirenio1 @ Friday, April 13, 2007 3:24 PM

I hope that the Imus incident will open a national and local discussion on how to eliminate hateful language and actions in our culture. I have for years read and heard comments , using code words, directed at the Latino pupulation. Currently, politicians are using hard working, taxpaying and productive members of our society, that are in this country without the proper documents, as punching bags. It is time to stop it.
As president Benito Juarez once said, "El Respeto al Derecho Ajeno es la Paz" (respect for the rights of others is peace). We are all human beings and deserve to be respected and treated with dignity and humanity.

By duane750 @ Friday, April 13, 2007 4:31 PM

With all due respect, some of you are still missing the point. Al Sharpton was the one crying foul the loudest, but WHY does the LIBERAL media give him a pass? He has said things far worse than Imus. Rosie O'Donell has done the same thing on TV, but where is the media? The people crying foul the loudest are the one's that are the racist's! Why can't anyone report on Sharptons LONG history of degrading and racist's comments on Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City? What say you Jim?
Why the pass for Rappers, Sharpton, Jackson and O'Donell?

By YoloCalVet @ Friday, April 13, 2007 4:34 PM

Cirenio,

You forgot a Drivers license, right to vote and free health care...Who is Benito Juarez???? Is he related to Carlos Mencia?

By Bobby Harris @ Friday, April 13, 2007 5:24 PM

I'll heartily agree with cireniol about the fact that unfortunately, racism remains a pervasice social reality, that demands whatever remedies may happily arise.

If you look at the Ca. Legislature, you'll easily see that Latino power is pivotal to this state's future. Also, without undocumented Latino workers much of this country would come to a grinding halt.

Ceasar Chavez' cry for justice was, "Si Se Puede," 'yes, it can be done.' It's truly a great slogan.

I believe it's safer for all of us to have drivers licenses for undocumented workers, but YoloCalVet is wrong about them needing or having voting rights or free health care.

I depend on a potentially free clinic for my own health care, and I can assure you that there are very few services unless you're within the MediCal system.

Nobody has free health care, but universal health care is coming in this state within a few years. Even Arnold is in favor of some such plan.

Health care for persons with money or insurance is totally different than what passess for health care among the poorer portion of the population, especially undocumented persons. The law says emergency rooms have to provide some level of care in a crisis, but this doesn't include anything elaborate.

Plus, it's a very good idea to assist the children of undocumented workers, because they are here among us to stay, no plausible level of enforcement will eliminate them or their parents, and the best interests of all Californians requires that we treat them with respect and support.

Like Cireniol says with the quote of Benito Juarez -- "'respect for the rights -- and he means basic, human interesets -- of others is peace."

Hey, peace is pretty important.

Benito Juarez is revered as in many ways being the father of modern Mexico, compared and fairly contemporaneous to Abe .Lincoln or George Washington

Here is a brief description :

Benito Juarez is considered one of Mexico's greatest and most beloved leaders. During his political career he helped to institute a series of liberal reforms that were embodied into the new constitution of 1857. During the French occupation of Mexico, Juarez refused to accept the rule of the Monarchy or any other foreign nation, and helped to establish Mexico as a constitutional democracy. He also promoted equal rights for the Indian population, better access to health care and education, lessening the political and financial power of the Roman Catholic church, and championed the raising of the living standards for the rural poor.

I'm truly surprised / dismayed that YoloCalVet isn't aware of someone of Juarez' massive stature and significance, of such prominent meaning to many Californians.

And YoloCalVet, I'll soon respond to your other questions.

Many thanks to Matt for such a wonderful and valuable blogsite.

By Rich Rifkin @ Friday, April 13, 2007 5:35 PM

Jim Smith wrote: "2. Rap music, if played over a radio station, may also violate FCC decency standards. The FCC could (and in my opinion, should) take action against such stations."

Should? Really? I am aware of the 7 words that the FCC does not allow on broadcast radio or TV. However, you would add to that words like "nappy-headed" and "hos"? I'm surprised that someone who works for a newspaper, who makes his living under the full protection of the 1st Amendment, would want Congress to make laws that abridge the freedom of speech.

I don't like rap music at all. I don't like coarse street language and don't use it. However, I believe that such expression is a god-given right, even on the radio and TV. If you don't care to hear the thoughts or expressions or vulgarity of rap performers, then change the station. Don't go running to the FCC to have a radio station's right to broadcast those thoughts or expressions abridged.

Saying that the airwaves are publicly regulated and therefore the public has a right to control what is said over them is a dangerous ruse. If that were carried to its logical extreme, then any majority could take away the right of any minority to express itself how it chose to on the radio or TV.

The only restriction which has held up to legal challenges has been the use of patent obscenities on the airwaves. But referring to a person, no matter how objectionable and misguided Imus's remarks were, as "a nappy-headed ho" cannot possibly be seen as patently obscene.

Instead of turning to the government to have it heavy-handedly abridge a radio operator's free speech rights, I suggest you do what most people did in the Imus case -- say that they don't like him and that they think his remarks were out of line and that they will not support his show. The result of that pressure, among other factors, caused the companies that employ him to reconsider. I hope it would not be pressure from the FCC that would cause a private company to fire an employee because that employee used language that offended some people.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

By YoloCalVet @ Friday, April 13, 2007 9:22 PM

About all I recall of History in "public school" was "Manifest Destiny" ,1848, Gasden Purchase of 1853, Alamo and Taco Bell. And that the "ump pah pah" influence in the music from Mexico was from Maximillian as told to me by my Hungarian neighbor. Also, Cirenio told me once, that you are not a "real" mexican unless you are growing a cactus on your property somewhere.By God, he's the real deal. He had one.

By Anonymous @ Friday, April 13, 2007 10:44 PM

Jim:

I understand the distinctions you make but don't accept them. If it is wrong for one it is wrong for all. It is a double standard.

If these expressions are racist and sexist -- then they are for the rap artist and the radio "shock jock". The advertisers on Imus need to hold the same standard to support even parody.

The South Park cartoon is a good example of this double standard. I believe that the double standard here is because it is a cartoon. If this had been a SNL skit people would have complained.

Thank you for all your comments. I appreciate people adding their thoughts on this.

Matt Rexroad

By Rich Rifkin @ Friday, April 13, 2007 11:03 PM

<i>"About all I recall of History in "public school" was "Manifest Destiny" ,1848, Gasden Purchase of 1853..."</i>

It was actually the Gadsden Purchase of 1854. (The version of the treaty that was signed in 1853 was not approved. In '54, a different Gadsden Treaty was approved by the Senate and signed by the president.)... One of the things most kids don't learn in school about the Gadsden Purchase was that James Gadsden was a corrupt S.O.B. He had a boatload of money and used that to get himself appointed as the U.S. minister to Mexico, after the Mexican-American War. He wanted that position because he was a major investor in a transcontinental railroad company building a southerly route. Without southern Arizona and New Mexico, Gadsden's railroad could not be built. Once he was appointed, he paid off Jefferson Davis -- same guy who led the South in the Civil War, but was then the U.S. Secretary of War -- who helped him get the job as minister to Mexico. With Jeff Davis's prodding, President Pierce agreed to have Gadsden negotiate the purchase. Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was strapped for cash (and likely corrupt, too), so giving away more territory for $10 million didn't bother him, too much.... The lesson of the Gadsden Purchase -- which ultimately was a very good deal for the U.S. -- is that human nature doesn't change: there were corrupt people in politics in 1854 just like there are some today. The difference, however, is that today it would be harder to get away with what Gadsden got away with. But the U.S. government spends literally hundreds of billions of dollars, and a LOT of that is going to companies and individuals simply because they have helped finance the careers of key politicians.

By YoloCalVet @ Saturday, April 14, 2007 7:03 AM

Rich,

Thanks for the cliff notes, one point is that American History is barely taught any more, much less History of any other country or neighbor.

Apparently the Gasdsen Purchase was made for 33 cents per acre...by 1928-33 prairie land in the Dakotas were selling at fifty cents per acre when my grandfather started buying land. As far as politics in America the more things change the more they remain the same...

By Bobby Harris @ Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:52 PM

I haven't yet looked at where this blog entry has gone since yesterday.

I will do so in a moment.

* First, I'd like to invite everyone to the earlier blog entry about * "new urbanism," * that Matt posted back on April 9.

No one had yet commented on this entry, and I decided to "be the first to do so."

Please review Matt's very wise observations and statements, as well as reading my own comments.

This is a key issue for Woodland's future, and I was truly surprised to find no comments on it.

For heaven's sake, get with the good political leadership that Matt provides.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:44 PM

* I earlier promised to get back with Mr YoloCalVet about his several quesitons :

Bobby,
Did you ever receive any funding from MoveOn.org, or any other George Soros funded PACS? Soros funded the GLSA in High Schools acrossed the nation with the purpose of subverting our institutes of education. How convenient to advocate to a bunch of messed up kids to availability of marajuana as a anti-depressant rather than use a little self control during adolesence. Soros owns Progressive Insurance and with the premiums people pay he uses to undermine our economy, our social values and our laws. Soros is one sick puppy.
(my opinion)
YoloCalVet

Alright.

What's the GLSA, YoloCalVet?

Your statement implies that Prop 215 patients are adolescents, and that "a little self control" would obviate the need for anything of a relevantly medical nature. Both are wholesale nonsense.

And your wholesale reference to "insurance premiums" use to subvert whatever you have in mind, lacks connection and cogency.

Please take a moment and separate your ideas from reality. You must know how to do this, at least on a certain level.

In college, it's called "informal logic" and you can discover inexpensice volumes on this subject at Woodland's bookstore.

Wait a minute, . . . does Woodland still have a bookstore?

Maybe, YoloCalVet, you'll have to travel to - Davis - in order to procure a volume. That's better, since there are many used books on informal logic in the student bookstore. It should only cost you about $20.

And such philosophical endeavors tickle your brain, it'll feel good. Trust me.

At first, your comment on another blog entry had me laughing out loud, with the remark about "there goes the neighborhood, time to 'sell out' and move to Idaho."

Playing real estate consultant.

But now, . . . you're playing doctor ! (as well as a lawyer !)

You, YoloCalVet, are an amazing professional, of several dimensions.

As for MoveOn & Soros:

Neither of these organizations, so to speak, is nealy radical enough for me. To me, they're sort of conservative, and I'd doubt that they'd decide to give me money.

But, . . . if your're willing to ask them, . . . I'll probably accept most of it, and give the rest away to charity.

And many thanks for your concern.

Your blogsite buddy,
and a - Veteran, with some medals - of the Drug War,
Bobby

By YoloCalVet @ Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:39 PM

Teens at California school getting high on medical marijuana

Steven Luke, KNSD-TV, San Diego, California 3/9/2007

SAN DIEGO — Officials at the Grossmont Union High School District have sent letters home to parents, notifying them that a number of students have been caught on campus with medical marijuana cards.

District official Catherine Martin said they are concerned over the growing trend and the "apparent ease" with which teens are able to obtain the cards.

In the letters, parents, students and faculty are reminded that even if the cards are valid, it is against the law to have marijuana on school property.

Recently two East County teenagers were suspended for showing up at school high, with a medical marijuana card as their excuse, NBC 7/39 reported.

During a series of recent undercover sting operations, district attorney investigators identified four or five local doctors who are issuing cards or prescriptions without proper exams or follow up medical care.

Mission Valley is one location where officials said illegal drug trafficking has taken place.

San Diego District Attorney Narcotic Chief Damon Mosler told NBC 7/39 a bogus symptom and some cash is all a teenager needs to obtain a medical marijuana card.

By Charlie in Japan @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 6:39 AM

OK...Mr Harris....

I will be the one to ask the question. Why did you come back to Yolo County? Do you think people have forgotten? You think you a hero because of Prop 215? You think folks look up to people who pose for media photos with their 'Bong' and they somehow are admired? You think folks want neighbors growing pot in the yards next door?

There are a lot of people wondering why. For me...I am a child of the 60's and 70's. I have first hand seen how these recreational drugs ruin lives and communities. I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to Prop 215...it is a 'Pot Garden' scam. I do support the Federal Government passing a very tight Merinol Law were real patients, with real subscriptions, and get precise doses to treat aliments from real druggists. But I am dead set against this 215 scam. I have a very good friend up on charges (and may have to do time and lose his lifelong earn possessions) and he followed 215 to the tee... I am getting weekly emails from folks meeting with members of congress trying to do something to scrap 215 and stop this 'I got sensi for my bong' nonsense. Even Congressman Doolittle has met with folks (who I personally know) to try to understand the need (and he is about as conservative as they come)...but even he stated in the Mountain Democrat, about a week ago, that he understands the need but the Fed Law trumps 215 and 215 is pretty much a ploy for drug users to grow pot (or words to that effect)

So what is your point in coming back now and becoming publicly vocal again....?? Are you delusional??

I realize this response has nothing to do with the blog topic....but you comments are so off base!

(My opinion only) Charlie-san

By Anonymous @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:24 PM

I believe it's necessary to respond serially, and with some specificity to these comments.

Many thanks to YoloCalVet and Charlie for engaging this subject. I'm happy to help inform about it, since it is so controversial, and I am as knowledgeable as anyone you're likely to find, and a Woodlander as well.

This comment is a response to YoloCalVet.

YoloCalVet's text - (with my responses in the paragraphs with * -) :

Teens at California school getting high on medical marijuana
Steven Luke, KNSD-TV, San Diego, California 3/9/2007
SAN DIEGO — Officials at the Grossmont Union High School District have sent letters home to parents, notifying them that a number of students have been caught on campus with medical marijuana cards.

* In other words, no cannabis was actually found, . . . only these 'cards.'

District official Catherine Martin said they are concerned over the growing trend and the "apparent ease" with which teens are able to obtain the cards.

* Of course, these "cards" are being issued by the state (not that this is a particularly good idea, since physicians' recommendations and approvals are legally sufficient.

* Now we see the emerging and invalid argument by P215 opposition, that somehow persons under a certain age will either lawfully or unlawfully obtain access to cannabis, and that because of some notion of a 'threat to our youth' --- no one -- should be able to have medicinal cannabis, despite the fact that voters rejected such arguments in 1996 and made it the law. This argument has bad logic and disregards the law.

* Also, academic studies on this subject have indicated no increase in teenage cannabis use as a result of P215. It should be kept in mind that unlawful cannabis has always been, and remains, available to high school students.

In the letters, parents, students and faculty are reminded that even if the cards are valid, it is against the law to have marijuana on school property.

* If a (licensed) physician actually approves of cannabis as a treatment for an adolescent in school, and there were some medical need to use it at a school, then oral ingestion would be the most appropriate mode of use.

Recently two East County teenagers were suspended for showing up at school high, with a medical marijuana card as their excuse, NBC 7/39 reported.

* "their excuse" . . . for what? This statement is senseless on its face.

During a series of recent undercover sting operations, district attorney investigators identified four or five local doctors who are issuing cards or prescriptions without proper exams or follow up medical care.

* These matters are within the legal purview of the State Medical Board, which oversees the licensing of physicians. Regular DAs,. etc., only have authority to file legal charges for actual violations of law, not over matters simply regarding physician practice. Complaints with the State Medical Board may be filed, and it conducts its own investigations and occasionally initiates various legal, disciplinary actions against physicians. A DA investigation would not be properly capable of coming to the conclusion stated above.

* That some few physicians may not abide by proper practice standards, is not any good argument against P215. Physicians are disciplined for violations of their code of practice, in limited cases; but the slant of this report is that physicians are in general violatimg their practice code in exchange for a few bucks from high school students. Of course, this is nonsense. Medicine (like law) is a fairly conservative profession. The vast majority of physicians are scrupulous about their practice, since it's such an important part of their lives.

* Persons thusly opposed to P215 want 'to throw the baby out with the bathwater,' so to speak, not a proper approach.

* I can assure you, it's often difficult for a regular physician without relevant experience to take medicinal cannabis seriously (despite thousands of years of evidence and recent studies by the National Insitutute of Health). Historically, politics have suppressed the legitimancy of cannabis as medicine. Cannabis became a convenient political target in 1936-37, replacing alcohol as a -- supposed -- huge public health threat. But the truth is that the American Medical Association strongly lobbied Congress at that time to extend an exemption from the prohibition -- for the medicinal use of cannabis.

* Cannabis was entirely legal until 1937, when it suddenly became demonized for political purposes.

Mission Valley is one location where officials said illegal drug trafficking has taken place.

* "Illegal drug trafficking" happens just about everywhere, and one key idea of P215 was to remove medical patients from this sort of environment. Before P215, persons with legitimate medical need for cannabis would have to obtain it from the black-market, the criminal underground. P215 intends that patient access be created to a 'white-market,' which serves individual and public interests in several ways.

San Diego District Attorney Narcotic Chief Damon Mosler told NBC 7/39 a bogus symptom and some cash is all a teenager needs to obtain a medical marijuana card.

* Of course, there is another thing needed here -- the most important factor -- the publicly approved gatekeeper: a licensed physician to recommend / approve, per P215 --- which is now the law.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Next comment (later today) will discuss Charlie's remarks.

###

By Bobby Harris @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:31 PM

For some reason, my prior comment was labeled "anonymous."

Of course, it's by me, Bobby Harris.

Back later with response for Charlie . . .

By host @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 1:24 PM

Sorry about that. There is a 20-30 minute session-life after opening the "Post Comment" page. Your info (ID#) is in the database alongside the comment, but your visible friendly name is drawn from session.

This is pretty standard for most web based entry forms, but it often helps just being aware of it. I have been seeing more of this lately, so I thought an explanation might in order. Hope this helps.

By Rich Rifkin @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 2:02 PM

Charlie writes: "I am a child of the 60's and 70's. I have first hand seen how these recreational drugs ruin lives and communities. I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to Prop 215..."

Charlie,

I hope you're not a Republican. The very reason that I am a member of the GOP is because philosophically, I don't want the government, particularly the federal government acting as a nanny, telling me what I can and cannot do with my money. The Republican Party stands for nothing if it does not stand for free trade, private enterprise, limited regulation of business, freedom of the individual and a strong national defense. While there is a lot of room for leeway on various issues, there shouldn't be on these core issues.

Yet all I here from you is that you want the big, giant nanny state to treat adults like small children, telling them what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. If someone messes up and abuses drugs, that's none of your business. It's no more of your business than if someone invests in a stock comapny that fails to return a profit or someone majors in a subject that you don't like or doesn't result in that person getting a good job. It's their failing, not yours.

Insofar as the sales, production and distribution of drugs have negative third party effects, then the state has a role in regulating their sale, production and distribution (much as we do with other legal drugs and alcohol). But it is utterly unAmerican to say to a person who has cancer or any other condition that that person cannot smoke marijuana or take any other medication that the person wants to pay for and consume. I don't smoke pot or take any other illegal drugs. I don't need them. And I don't have any right to use coercion to stop and other adult from deciding for himself.

It's a free country. Live with it. Quit trying to interfere with everyone else's private lives, simply because you think a small percentage cannot handle freedom.

By Bobby Harris @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 5:32 PM

By Charlie in Japan @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 6:39 AM

OK...Mr Harris....

* Quite an inquisition here, not that it’s unexpected. I fully realize that many fine folks (like Charlie) operate under gross misunderstandings and prejudices in this area, and I hope to help them to overcome that deficiency of knowledge and ethic.

I will be the one to ask the question.
Why did you come back to Yolo County?

* I’m returning because Yolo County was my precious -- home -- for 16 years, prior to my civil rights being egregiously violated and being unlawfully, economically executed by a local governmental apparatus which was greatly threatened (both politically and economically) by the prospect of being held to account for those civil rights violations.

* The U. S. Supreme Court ruled less than a year after I was unlawfully forced homeless and destitute, that legal processes used against me were unconstitutional (Austin v US, 509 US 602 - and ensuing cases). And in 1992, I played a leading role as an advocate in the Legislature’s repeal of the this unconstitutional state forfeiture law.

* But you see, the government had already stolen all of my resources, and civil rights are usually only available to persons who can afford to pay for them, hire attorneys, etc.. Your civil rights are about the size of your wallet. Tragic, but accurate. Law is generally a commodity in this culture, and one must pay to play.

* Here’s a - very interesting story - that makes this brutal point:
Remember when Judge Jim Stevens inappropriately fired his court reporter in 1993, for having the audacity to cooperate with a Ca. Judicial Council investigation of him? Judge Stevens called this court reporter into his chambers and handed her a large, rotten zucchini squash, while saying to her that, “Your services are no longer desired,” etc.. Well, this court reporter hired an attorney and sued Yolo County for sexual harassment on the part of Judge Stevens. The County stalled on the case, until the very day before the trial was to have begun -- then the County settled the case by awarding this court reporter -- $700,000.00 -- that the county had to pay. In my situation, my very homes and real property were effectively stolen, yet when I called this very same attorney to find legal help with such serious violations of my own civil rights, this attorney said, “I can’t help you unless you have thousands of dollars to pay me.” Is this a fair system of justice? No, of course not. But it’s the one we have.

* Civil rights must be purchased in this society, and the convenient thing about the old, unconstitutional, state forfeiture law was that, once the government took your money / property, without even showing probable cause for its actions, you were effectively prevented from even challenging it over civil rights violations. Now, that doesn’t seem very American, . . . does it? But because of prejudices that are equatable with racism or sexism, there is an -- inconsistent application of (legal) standards -- in this area, which is the topic of this blog entry.

Do you think people have forgotten?

* I hope not, and “people” should consider the entire situation now at hand.

You think you a hero because of Prop 215?

* I was named the hero of its implementation by the 3rd largest newspaper in California, the Orange County Register, which editorialized in favor of Prop 215 during its adoption on the ballot in 1996.

You think folks look up to people who pose for media photos with their 'Bong' and they somehow are admired?

* In point of fact, the journalists who created this story (posted elsewhere on this blog) actually found it necessary to request that I pose with the bong. During 5 hours of interviews in preparation for this story, there was no bong present. In the end, they requested me to pose with a bong, because of their perceived need to sensationalize affairs in our culture, as is the case with many journalists’ perspectives. I agreed, because that’s the price one must ‘pay to play,’ allowing oneself to be slightly sensationalized, and I didn’t have any good reason to feel guilty about so helping them with the story.

You think folks want neighbors growing pot in the yards next door?

* Prop. 215 made lawful relevant cultivation / possession (and more). Do persons (neighbors or whomever) have some special ability to abridge those legal rights, because they disagree with them, and don’t like what’s happening, don’t “want” it? Again, Charlie, this sure doesn’t seem very “American.” In point of fact, as well, much medicinal cannabis is grown indoors, where several advantage exist in comparison with outdoor cultivation.

There are a lot of people wondering why. For me...I am a child of the 60's and 70's. I have first hand seen how these recreational drugs ruin lives and communities.

* Let’s keep to the substance at hand, cannabis. Several years ago, I was on a radio program with a police chief of a large city. He frankly admitted on the air that during his experience in law enforcement, he’d seen many families destroyed because of alcohol, but none over cannabis. This view is mostly accurate, cannabis is not the sort of demonizable substance that some persons believe. The essential problem with acceptance of cannabis is purely political -- not scientific. In the modern context, this stems from the fact that the U. S. cultural / political revolution which occurred during the Vietnam War (the peaceniks and hippies, more or less) was public in its cannabis use. This cannabis use was then stigmatized and demonized, by certain interests, . . . for political purposes.

I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to Prop 215...it is a 'Pot Garden' scam.

* Well, I believe you’re misinformed, and are basing your opinions upon that lack of understanding. But you are demonstrating the sort of fearful and narrow-minded attutude which exists in certain political quarters. Happily, the voters of California considered and rejected such views, when they approved Prop. 215.

* So, Charlie, what legal influence should your personal attitude really entail, within a democracy? Do you actually have respect for the civil rights of other citizens, or do your prejudices have authority? Would you defend the civil rights of others, or attempt to trample them underneath prejudice and misunderstanding?

I do support the Federal Government passing a very tight Merinol Law were real patients, with real subscriptions, and get precise doses to treat aliments from real druggists. But I am dead set against this 215 scam.

* Marinol was the subject of a recent medical study which confirmed that it is entirely inadequate as medicine, while the study established medical efficacy for cannabis (a federally approved and supervised study by Dr Abrams in SF). Why do you even seem to demonize even Marinol (“very tight Merinol [sic] Law,” etc.)? Marinol is not any form of useful substitute for cannabis, and I know from personal experience. Economically, though, pharmaceutical corporations fear a loss in their revenues in some areas, as a result of the legitimization of cannabis. This is why these corporations and the liquor industry (cannabis can be a substitute for alcohol, and is an effective treatment for alcoholism) are large supporters of cannabis prohibition in general.

I have a very good friend up on charges (and may have to do time and lose his lifelong earn possessions) and he followed 215 to the tee...

* I’d like to learn the details, since the law is on the side of your “very good friend.” Maybe I can help. I’m willing to try, since I know how these things are, unjustly losing “lifelong possessions.”

I am getting weekly emails from folks meeting with members of congress trying to do something to scrap 215 and stop this 'I got sensi for my bong' nonsense.

* There is absolutely nothing that Congress can do to void Prop. 215. If it could have, it would have already done so, but that’s not the way our bifurcated legal system works. Plus, Charlie, you keep ladling on these intensely pejorative statements, that are simply emotive and have no other (authentic) meaning.

Even Congressman Doolittle has met with folks (who I personally know) to try to understand the need (and he is about as conservative as they come)...but even he stated in the Mountain Democrat, about a week ago, that he understands the need but the Fed Law trumps 215 and 215 is pretty much a ploy for drug users to grow pot (or words to that effect)

* Talk (of understanding this) is very cheap, on the part of Doolittle. This statement that, “Fed Law trumps 215,” is wholesale, legal nonsense, but it is continually spouted by opponents as if it were some -- magical mantra -- that will somehow evaporate Prop. 215. Well, a decade after the voter approved it, public support for Prop 215 is above 75% and the federal government is essentially powerless to stop it. That’s the simple truth.

* Within a few years, I believe that the new trends in Congress will revisit this topic and, at the least, deny funding for law enforcement in this policy area.

So what is your point in coming back now and becoming publicly vocal again....?? Are you delusional??

* As I wrote above, Woodland / Yolo County is my true home. I have friends there that I miss a lot, as well as the country. I’m interested about how its morality and compassion may have progressed, since my former life there was so devastated by unlawful and immoral events. Importantly, I want to resume my planned life, career and friendships, as I’ve written about within the press release (found elsewhere on this blogsite). Don’t those seem, Charlie, to be very good reasons to return?

* Also, as (likely) the leading expert on the topic of Prop. 215 (I’ve had to correct the legal views of several leading advocates and proponents of this initiative), I’m very capable of helping my home, Yolo County, to succeed with its implementation. It’s working pretty well in Arcata, and it’ll work just as well in Woodland, if such prejudices and misundertandings as you have expressed are finally layed aside, and local affairs proceed in a responsible way.

I realize this response has nothing to do with the blog topic....but you comments are so off base!

* I certainly respect (and would cheerfully defend) your legal right to form and express such opinions, Charlie. Please respect my legal rights in return.

*And hey, let’s go fishin’ sometime, alright?

(My opinion only) Charlie-san

By Charlie in Japan @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 5:57 PM

So…Mr. Harris….You do think you are a public hero and have come back to Yolo County to act as a ‘poster child’ for Prop 215 and medical pot gardens (at least that seems to be essence what I read above).

You also seem to think the folks of Yolo County will (and should) welcome you and your initiatives with open arms (?).

Well, Thanks for clearing that up…Now at least all the counties residents can know the truth!!!

I am glad I asked the question.

(again, my opinion only) Charlie-san

By duane750 @ Sunday, April 15, 2007 11:46 PM

Charlie this one is for you my friend.

Our good friends over at the DEA will help explain this to Yolo County’s newest citizen. Mr. Harris, I want to personally welcome you back to Yolo County, my name is Duane and I am against prop 215 and fully support the mission of the United States Department of Justice in eradication of marijuana in California. I am also huge supporter of CAMP, Campaign Against Marijuana Planting a multi agency task force under the direction of the California Department of Justice. The following is a reminder for you that we care about you and your safety while living in Yolo County and violation of federal law is taking seriously in Yolo County. Welcome Home!!

The Drug Enforcement Administration has taken an official position that Proposition 200 in Arizona and Proposition 215 in California were in conflict with public safety and the physical well-being of innocent citizens.

1. We have attempted to educate the public about our serious concerns with the implications of liberalizing state drug laws to allow the use of marijuana, and in the case of Arizona, heroin, LSD and PCP-like substances (which produce violent behavior in users), in addition to marijuana, for medicinal purposes.

2.The passage of these propositions in no way alters the DEA's fundamental mission: to enforce the federal drug laws of the United States. The DEA intends to continue targeting the most significant drug traffickers at home and abroad.

3. Marijuana is the most widely available and abused illicit drug in California. Large quantities of low-grade marijuana are smuggled into the state from Mexico. Highly potent Canadian marijuana, known as "BC bud" is also transported into the state. Potent domestic marijuana is also cultivated in sophisticated indoor, hydroponic gardens throughout the state. Statewide, cultivation has increased since California's voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, removing state legal sanctions for marijuana used to alleviate specific medical conditions with a doctor's recommendation. Cannabis "clubs" or "cooperatives" have established themselves as illegal distributors under the guise of "caregivers." Marijuana, both domestic and imported, is widely available in the San Diego area of responsibility, and continues to be the most prevalent drug smuggled into San Diego and Imperial Counties from Mexico. During this quarter, Mexican federal police elements seized multi-ton quantities of the drug in Baja California, Mexico. Enforcement Group 2 reports that marijuana, alcohol and methamphetamine are used interchangeably by chemically dependent individuals.

California Medical Marijuana Information:

The assertion that all medical marijuana is headed for seriously ill patients is misleading. Statistics from the California Branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) shows that a survey of Californians reports the top three reported uses of medicinal marijuana:

40% Chronic Pain
22% AIDS-Related
15% Mood Disorders
(23% All other categories)

In California there is no state regulation or standard of the cultivation and/or distribution medical marijuana. California leaves the establishment of any guidelines to local jurisdictions, which can widely vary. For example, Marin County allows up to six mature plants, and/or a half-pound dried marijuana. It's neighbor, Sonoma County permits possession of three pounds of marijuana, and allows cultivation up to 99 plants, and physicians may recommend more for "exceptional patients."

Local and state law enforcement counterparts cannot distinguish between illegal marijuana grows and grows that qualify as medical exemptions. Many self-designated medical marijuana growers are, in fact, growing marijuana for illegal, "recreational" use.

Elected law enforcement officials, i.e. Sheriffs and District Attorneys in California have been targeted by the "marijuana lobby." Political action by groups such as NORML have endorsed and supported candidates favorable to medical marijuana. NORML tracks local elections and takes credit for the defeats of anti-marijuana candidates. Last year the DEA arrested a major marijuana trafficker in Humboldt County who was an undeclared candidate for sheriff.

The DEA and its local and state counterparts routinely report that large-scale drug traffickers hide behind and invoke Proposition 215, even when there is no evidence of any medical claim. In fact, many large-scale marijuana cultivators and traffickers escape state prosecution because of bogus medical marijuana claims. Prosecutors are reluctant to charge these individuals because of the state of confusion that exists in California. Therefore, high-level traffickers posing as "care givers" are able to sell illegal drugs with impunity.

The California NORML website lists federal defendants for the largest indoor marijuana cultivation operation in the U.S., which occurred in Northern California, as "green prisoners." While unscrupulously claiming to be "medical marijuana" defendants, in fact these two individuals were dangerous, armed fugitives believed to be responsible for drug-related murders and other violence.

DEA's San Francisco Field Division coordinates the statewide Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP). The number of plants eradicated and assets seized represent the largest totals in California history.

If any Yolo County citizens suspects pot growers in their neighborhood, please call the number below, you can remain anonymous.

San Francisco Division of the DEA (415) 436-7900

By Bobby Harris @ Monday, April 16, 2007 5:37 PM

Mr duane750,

It looks as if you were up pretty late last night, . . . cutting and pasting into this blog some various drug-war propaganda.

Simlar to my responses to comments by YoloCalVet and Charlie (whom I hope to meet in the near future), I'm going to upack the massive, layer-cake of nonsense you've spilled onto this blog, line by line, misunderstanding by prejudice.

So prepare yourself, . . . I'm coming to get you, . . . with such a new blog comment, and real soon.

But before this duty, though, the few more hours of sunny daylight must be used to finish hand-washing my laundry, a task I've shouldered since 1992, when I had to leave my washing-machine behind and lost the ability to pay the contraptions.

It's one of the happy perks of being a drug-war hero, sort of a silver star of suds.

By The Realist @ Monday, April 16, 2007 9:24 PM

Bobby, just out of curiosity what is your medical reason for using marijuana?

By Bobby Harris @ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:50 AM

The Realist,

Thanks so much for asking a regular question, without adding an attack.

It’s usually the case that a desire for confidentiality would preclude such disclosure.

But when you’re in the forefront of the politics of these difficult matters, it’s hard to avoid the discussion. You’ll see within the text of that North Coast Journal Article (nearby on this blogsite) that one of my “serious” illnesses is alcoholism.

It’s a scourge on my father’s side of the family, genetic in origin as you may know, and I’m significantly afflicted by it.

I also have several other medically related reasons for using cannabis, noted briefly further below.

My dad drank a fifth of whiskey a day, for most of his life, which was considerably shortened and seriously influenced by this. But he was very successful at work, what is called a “working alcoholic.” I’m a lot the same way. Don’t play enough, work too much -- over-worked and under played -- especially for the last 17 years. So, even more a person tries to find a psychological balance through such situations.

When my cannabis use became lawful through Prop 215, I was so encouraged that I stopped drinking altogether for 17 months. I haven’t consumed any liquor or wine since 1999, only beer generally with meals. This approach is known as a “harm reduction” strategy, to use cannabis as a more healthful substitute for alcohol (which it surely is - I can speak from 40 years of experience with both).

One may assume that smoking cannabis is harmful. It may be so, to a limited extent - based on amount of consumption (for example, note that higher quality cannabis may be less used for the same results) - but is nowhere near as harmful as smoking tobacco. I know this from 40 years of experience.

Importantly, I orally ingest (eat) 1/4 to 1/2 ounce of cannabis per day, direct plant material, leaves and flowers, not cooked or prepared. Oral ingeston is actually the historically preferred mode of use, but the fact that a lot of Prop 215 patients with AIDS have digestive problems has caused more of a media / PR focus on smoking (alongside the conventional, historical culture in this area, of course).

Oral ingestion requires roughly 4 to 6 times as much cannabis as smoking, though, and it has a more constant and systemic result. Of course, the greatly elevated cost of cannabis often precludes this form of use. Patients must grow or be connected to a coopetative cultivation to obtain enough cannabis to be able to afford to it use orally.

So, more cannabis access means generally healthier patient use.

Importantly, government regulation can set a ceiling-price for lawful cannabis, and help to create a proper, “white-market,” with more affordable access to patients.

Another of my medical afflictions is PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), which you’ve probably heard of, related to war casualties, but which is otherwise a pervasive and “serious” illness originating from a variety of causes / sources. I won’t go into those details, though, if you don’t mind.

Also, I have some (genetically based) digestive problems which are greatly helped by cannabis use. Cannabis is a healthy part of my diet cycle.

Analgesic properties are also possessed by cannabis, as well as its ability to provide relief from conditions of stress and anxiety. Cannabis is also useful as a sleep aid.

I use cannabis for all of the above reasons, reflecting a variety of “serious” medical conditions.

Medically speaking, “serious” means something that substantially interferes with or affects normal life, etc., it doesn’t mean a person has to be terminally ill, etc., to warrant access per Prop 215.

As you may expect from my testimony here, the pharmaceutical corporations fear significant losses of revenue from medicinal cannabis availability, and for this reason they and the alcohol industry fund a lot of the anti-cannabis propaganda efforts.

By The Realist @ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:49 PM

Fair enough. I know a ton of people who smoke it, none of whom have medical conditions. It probably is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. I actually would not mind it legalized nationally, not for medicinal purposes, but for the economic value. We would save billions of dollars fighting the war on this drug, jails would save room, local police could focus on real issues and so on and so on. There would be less border problems, because there would be no reason to smuggle it in, the value would actually drop tremendously because anyone could grow it. A tax on it would be nice to help pay for other nice things.
If it were legal, I would still not use it. I have a hard enough time using my mind without it being altered.

By cirenio1 @ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:34 PM

I hope that we never find ourselves facing medical conditions that will require the use marijauna or any other legal drug. I wish you all a good bill of health. However, there are those individuals that the use of marijauna seems to be an effective medicine. The federal government should leagalize the medical use as they do other more potent and dangerous drugs.

The DEA, Camp, and local authorities should spend our hard earned taxpayers money in the pursuit of the big corporate drug pushers. It seems that every dollar they spend pursuing and prosecuting individuals that are ill, they allow the big boys and girls to infest our communities and corrupt our youth. Lets fight the big cats. We have limited resources and the authorities should pursue those that destroy the fabric of our society not those that are trying to live a painfree existence.

By Charlie in Japan @ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:48 PM

cirenio1...I agree with you to some extent. As stated earlier, I have a very good friend that really needs the stuff...(server pain do to several real medical conditions from trauma that he is trying to live out his life with). However, from what I read above, seems to me that Mr. Harris has no real reason to use pot...or alcohol for that matter. Rather, I read that he as a self imposed chemical dependency caused by his choice to use both alcohol and marijuana for pleasure and it became an addiction. I now view Mr. Harris to be a 100% fraud... and I am glad the people of Yolo County will now read that too. I’ll also point out that he, while serving as an elected representative of the people of Woodland, illegally grew marijuana prior Prop 215 both violating the law and the trust of the people which he represented.

We need real laws that help people with real medical needs. 215 is not that law....215 is a scam! Mr. Harris' own statements above help to point that out.

It also points out that Yolo-Net and our law enforcement officials are both very good at what they do and the ‘real hero’s’ in the above matter.

In my opinion, Charlie-san

By duane750 @ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:19 PM

BTW, how did we get so side tracked on this post? While we are talking about dope and dope user's, Mr.Harris, do you plan on opening a dope shop in Woodland upon your return? Just asking.

You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here