reefer madness….
by problembear
those zany missoulians are at it again with their fist fight over whether the police and sheriff’s departments are ignoring a citizen’s initiative to make prosecution of small pot possession a low priority. i don’t actually have a selfish reason to join in the fray. i contracted whooping cough and bronchitis as a kid and can’t stand to smoke anything. all my sin is poured into my bear jaws in liquid form. while attending university of oregon in the seventies i was always the only one in the house who refused the puff at the party and endured my share of funny looks and paranoid stares from people who were sure i was the narc….and when i hit the scene here in missoula i always felt welcome at jim crumley’s parties but i often got the impression that some of his guests would have felt better if i had indulged in some killer weed once in awhile…but i digress…
i do however have a dog in this fight as a full fledged member of the “americans who believe it is none of your god-damned busy body business what i do as long as i don’t hurt anyone else.” (adults only please) i guess this zeal to stop reefer madness is the last remnant of reagan’s dream of america which has vaporized in a cloud of greed gone wrong. maybe this isn’t scientific or anything but i have never met anyone who is in favor of maintaining archaic laws keeping small amounts of pot smoked by adults as felonious illegal possession. seems kind of ridiculous for our public servants to waste time money and jail space on this.
and as for allowing medical use for a pain and stress relieving drug to folks who could be helped by this there is absolutely no room to argue against this by any sane person. legalization for pot for any adult who wants it is the onlyanswer. none for me please…
-
1
Pingback on Jun 10th, 2013 at 5:20 pm
[…] “Just get me some more reefers… NOW!”[4&20 blackbirds] […]
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
April 18, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Fred Gardner @ counterpunch has a very interesting assessment of the new administration’s duplicitousness in regards to using federal resources for shutting down medicinal dispensaries.
hemp and cannabis are too big a threat to corporate interests, which is why they launched their media campaign half a century ago, scaring white america with horror stories of sweaty, sex crazed blacks and mexicans hopped up on the reefer and lusting after sweet, innocent suzy and all her virginal friends.
of course cops are still busting folks for possession. why would they change? because a majority of voters passed a toothless decree to make marijuana a low priority? i would have to pop a few oxycotins and pound a few beers to believe that would work.
April 19, 2009 at 2:29 pm
It’s idiotic that a dollar of taxpayer money is spent on anything to do with cannabis. It should be legal and growers and users PAY taxes.
April 20, 2009 at 8:00 am
It’s nice to see non-users like problembear supporting the legalization movement. What’s unfortunate is that the same conversation occurs every year, and little in the way of change actually happens. The same pro arguments are always made (potential tax revenue, less damaging than cigarettes or alcohol, would reduce federal spending trying to stop it and would reduce overcrowding in jails) as are the same con arguments (“gateway drug,” laziness? I’m sure there are better ones out there). And yet I think a lot of people assumed that when the users from the 60’s and 70’s came into power in this country (presumably now) that this would no longer be an issue, but clearly that hasn’t happened. I would love to know what it would take for a real, national legalization movement to gain the momentum necessary to generate some honest discussion in Washington.
April 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I would love to know what it would take for a real, national legalization movement to gain the momentum necessary to generate some honest discussion in Washington.
so would i. prisons are bursting at the seams, people use old growth to wipe their asses, sick people manage pain with extremely addictive pills, and federal money is being spent during an extreme global economic crisis to…bust dispensaries in California?
this stupid, costly prohibition against hemp and cannabis is more than just a casualty of the culture wars, or a target of corporate suppression; keeping pot illegal keeps it’s potential (and dare i say, stimulating) revenue stream flowing to the black market, which sustains a beneficial degree of violence in key locales, and creates opportunities to exploit that violence, or tap into that illicit revenue stream for clandestine operations.
seizing cash and property straight up with militarized SWAT teams is just a way to make sure all the important orifices are lovingly tended to.
happy 4-20 everyone!!
April 20, 2009 at 10:04 am
maybe when the baby-boomers are all cranky and in nursing homes boycotting the food and rioting in their wheelchairs… they will be so annoying and bothersome that the government will just give in out of sheer frustration…
i pity the health care workers and the dieticians who will have to take care of the baby-boomer generation.
fortunately old problembears will just wander off into the woods with a half gallon of jack daniels when their time has come and disappear quietly.
nothing quiet or shy about baby-boomers when it comes to their comfort and their drugs….as mr “t” says…
” i pity the fool….”
April 20, 2009 at 10:32 am
This de-prioritization issue got me really irked when the report came out a bit ago from the state commissioner of political practices, alleging that Missoula’s Forum for Children and Youth, and the Montana Meth Project’s Nick Dimitrovich were illegally coordinating opposition to the low-priority initiative.
Missoularedtape has a good run down on it, and links to the commissioner’s findings. They are irking.
http://missoularedtape.com/?p=1254
It’s not the groups’ position I don’t like, it’s their using public dollars and tax-free resources to oppose something that the majority of Missoulians voted on.
April 20, 2009 at 10:34 am
change my ass. here is Fred Gardner’s quick follow up to his piece last week @ counterpunch:
this might not seem important to a lot of folks, but when you see friends and family suffer through cancer get denied a substance that could offer a little relief, it’s hard not to be upset by these developments.
Obama is a liar.
April 20, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Read the findings of fact from the COPP Bootsy. I looked at an email for a coworker, with no knowledge that people were going to go out and distribute copies of the text. You could also go to the county elections office and see that my signature was on the petition to put Init. 2 on the ballot.
I don’t deny that the finding found me civilly liable (although I disagree with their finding), but I do completely deny everything you claim in your second paragraph. Again, if you read the opinion, the COPP did not find what you claim occurred. Get your facts straight.
April 20, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Nick, all do respect & everything, but I had a gander at the Commissioner’s ruling, and I don’t see your point…
Did you not help edit and revise printed materials used for illegal political activity?
Were those materials not purchased with tax free or federal dollars?
Did the Commissioner not find you a guilty party in this?
And if you deny everything Bootsy said, then why were you named in the ruling in the first place?
Maybe I missed something. Or maybe Bootsy was making apoint I did not quite comprendo.
April 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Sorry, I don’t get where you’re coming off either Nick. I claimed that:
“It’s not the groups’ position I don’t like, it’s their using public dollars and tax-free resources to oppose something that the majority of Missoulians voted on.”
If I’m wrong that the materials used in that opposition campaign were tied to grant-funds or non-taxable funds, please let me know. If that’s the case then why would the commissioner on political practices have standing to rule in this case?
And if you were using equipment, time, or other resources paid for by the Montana Meth Project, aren’t those the same types of funds? Between privately raised money, state funds, and federal funds, am I missing something?
I’m not trying to allege anything personal here, it’s more the organizations involved that I had a problem with. That’s just not how the public expects either the forum for children and youth or the Meth project to be behaving. Having their staff help oppose major voter initiatives, regardless of any issue disagreement they may have, isn’t what people expect. Tax dollars go to those groups, so they shouldn’t be undermining citizen-led initiatives. There’s room for disagreement here, that’s just where I’m coming from. Nothing personal.
You are not a bad person.
April 20, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Kudos, all around: to PBear the reasoning non-puffer for asking that tax-dollars not fight the will of the voting public; to Bootsy for putting Mr. Dimitrovich’s taxpayer-funded boots a wee bit closer to the fire; and yes even to Mr D for posting with his real name and defending his behavior. Good stuff. However, Bootsy’s points hit right at the heart of this and it’ll be interesting to see how Mr D responds.
Nick? You still there? Ready to publicly claim that NOT ONE SINGLE taxpayer-funded bit of Meth Project equipment was employed during said violation?
We wait with (pbear)-baited breath…
April 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Like I said, read the opinion people.
— The opinion did not find that any tax dollars or public time was spent on the activities.
— The opinion found that organizing happened without a filing as a campaign committee.
— I know absolutely that no Meth Project funds were used on this. I looked at an email for about 5 minutes one day after work (extent of my involvement), and never saw my coworker spend any office time working on Init. 2 stuff. (We were a two person office)
To Umm: no guilty parties were “found.” Several individuals were found to be “civilly liable,” meaning the county attorney or OPP could bring a civil suit against us.
To Bootsy: the reason I responded harshly is that you are making a serious criminal allegation tied to my name. An allegation that’s not found anywhere in the finding by the COPP. Doing that sort of thing without a decent foundation of fact is borderline defamation. Not only does that offend my reputation, but it offends me philosophically because I generally support the efforts of Citizens for Responsible Crime Policy. I urge you to read the complaint again. There was NO finding of MUSAP time or MMP time spend on the flyer.
A little context for everyone: I never personally even saw a flier, and I don’t think most people named ever did. Someone took an email that was being discussed, privately made copies and distributed them. That person was never identified. Making mountains out of molehills here people. I’d encourage anyone else making allegations of criminal wrongdoing to use their real names.
April 21, 2009 at 7:27 am
Making criminals out of pot smokers does more harm than the pot smoking itself. That’s the bottom line.
April 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I see what you’re saying Nick, and I’m going to quit the grilling because it’s not personal, and I’m not trying to allege anything criminal. I feel like your response is just splitting hairs, and leaves the door open for employees of these organizations to participate in political activity against the will of voters and then split technical hairs later about time, equipment, and resources. It’s how people Erik Iverson can go to work for MMP and do partisan motivated activity under the front of public interest work.
But because we’re anonymous–and wouldn’t want our organizations linked to attacking you and yours–I’ll give you the due respect of letting the issue drop at that. Ummm might see it differently, but I just consider it splitting hairs.
April 21, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I’d love to have a conversation in a less public venue Bootsy. I think you’d find we have a lot more in common than you might think. I’m curious about your perspective, and would be interested clarifying my own. if you want, I’m at ndomitrovich(at)gmail(dot)com.
April 23, 2009 at 11:16 am
The reason the commissioner reported nothing about the amounts of money spent on an illegal campaign that never registered its existence, as required by law, is that all of the people involved have STILL failed to report anything about what they actually did or spent nor who provided either the cash or in-kind resources they used! These campaign laws exist so that the voting public can know who is behind various activities — and the public still knows too little about what the opponents to I-2 actually did..