Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Closing in Los Angeles

Wish I had more time tonight to study this story: The Los Angeles City Council has voted to close its medical marijuana dispensaries.

There are 762 dispensaries, making them more abundant than Starbucks. One councilman said they are twice as many dispensaries as Starbucks. Now, if there are that many, I'd say all that marijuana is not ending up in the hands of just those needing it medically.

What is most interesting about all this is the reason the dispensaries are being closed: too much crime, whatwith all the burglaries, murders and more occuring in the neighborhoods where the marijuana is being sold.

This is most interesting, given those who oppose prohibition say it only leads to an increase in crime.

Well, it would be useful to know more about the crimes they are having near the dispensaries. Are they being committed by those on marijuana? Are people going to their neighborhood dispensary, using the stuff, and then committing the crimes?

Or, are the crimes being committed by those still running from the law? Marijuana remain illegal, albeit it is legal for medical purposes, and, in addition, it remains a federal crime even when used medicinally. So, are the crimes being committed in conjunction with the act of evading law authorities? That would support the theory criminalization only leads to an increase in crime.

I'd guess that isn't what is happening. I'm guessing people are marching over to their neighborhood dispensary, getting high, and then going out and committing crimes.

As someone posted on Facebook, does this mean California's experiment with legalizing marijuana has failed?

If so, this is not a small story coming out of Los Angeles.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0725-pot-ban-20120725,0,3171935.story

http://obrag.org/?p=63655

The Rodney King riots are being revisited in Anaheim.

Well, not exactly, as what is going on down there is not on the same level. But, what is happening down there is still significant.

 Police shot and killed two men, outraging many. The police union has said both were known gang members. Now, obviously, whether you are a gang member or drug pusher or not, you still should not be shot and killed. The police union has said in one of the two instances, the man was thought to have been pulling a gun from his waistband. No gun was found, but if a man is suspected of being a gang member, it is understandable to see a move to the waistband as being a move for a weapon.

Police arrested 24 protesters Tuesday night, with many not doing much to warrant getting arrested. Police fired bean bags and pepper balls indiscriminately into the crowd.

 

So, there are two questions: Were the shootings justified, and were the arrests and bean bag and pepper ball shootings justified? America being a land of free speech, should police have allowed them freedom to protest as long as they were peaceful?

Knowing no more specifics, I wonder but what they shouldn't have allowed the protests, without the arrests. Respond against the breaking of windows and the burning of trash cans, if you can catch them, but don't shoot pepper balls into an innocent crowd of peaceful protesters.

 

Sin has become a Freedom

I grew up in a day when sin was not considered a freedom, and have lived long enough to witness it becoming a basic right.

The freedom to gamble, to prostitute, to view pornography, to take drugs, to drink before driving, to view pornography, to marry someone of the same sex, to produce and play violent video games -- these are the freedoms of our day.

And should they, then, indeed, be freedoms? That is not to say we are condoning these things, but only to say we are allowing people the liberty to make such choices as they will.

I do have mixed feelings.

If you remember my past blogs, you know I have wondered if alcohol deserves more restrictions. Is it all or none? To be consistent, must I then condemn them all? Or, if we believe one of the items deserves to be a freedom, to be consistent, must we make freedoms of them all?

I think it not wrong to consider them individually, but can also see the argument for sweeping them all into one box and deciding them all together.

Make Becoming a Doctor a Little Easier

Nothing requires more education and training than a medical degree. And, interestingly, nowhere in our economy do we have such out-of-line prices as in the medical profession.

Requiring such a long and expensive process does have its effects. It limits the number of people who choose to become doctors.

This is not to say the time and money it takes to become a doctor is the sole reason health care is so expensive. It probably isn't even the main reason. But, it is one.

So, yes, we should consider making it less arduous to become a doctor. We need not throw away all our education requirements, but we do need to make them both less time consuming, and less expensive.

To Make Medicine Affordable, Allow Competition

Another question given to candidates by the Utah League of Women Voters:

"Given the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act, what do you think the legislature needs to do next to ensure adequate health care for all Utahns?"

If we can see some reasons why health care has became so expensive, why not work on correcting those problems? And, I say, I do wonder but what we should be able to clearly see some of the causes.

One of them, is the restrictions we have placed on competition.

We reduce competition in many ways. We license extensively. We limit the insurance choices at the workplace. We require doctors to be part of our network before we can see them. We limit the number of medical schools in the state. We have patent rights limiting who can produce drugs and medical devices.

I suppose, if I thought awhile, I could come up with other examples.

Some of these restrictions might be good, even necessary, but we should look at each one, and ask if it should not at least be loosened. Most of us agree that a free market is vital to keeping prices in line. Why, then, at a time we are crying so loudly for affordable care, do we not consider this approach? Why not look at each situation where we are restricting competition and seek to allow more?

This being America -- of all nations the nation that champions the free market -- shouldn't this be the first place we look to correct this problem? Yet, rare it is that this solution is even mentioned, even considered.

We cannot legislate affordable health care without practicing the principles that will make it happen.

Does Portugal Move Drug Users from One Mess to Another?

So, those favoring legalization of drugs point to Portugal, noting that since many penalties were lifted, drug use is down.

I confess I drove to work today thinking, Well, if decriminalization brought such clear success in Portugal in the war against drugs, then perhaps one of our states should, indeed, try it.

Then I came home and found a Wikipedia article that made me wonder if all the claims are not an oversimplication of what is going on in Portugal. In 2006, Portugal authorities confiscated a record amount of cocaine. A regular increase in cannabis resin seized has also been witnessed in recent years, although it has declined for the years 2008 and 2009.

Furthermore, Portugal has a substitution treatment program, which gets people onto such things as methadone. Moving the populace from "hard drugs" to those you don't consider "hard" deserves some scrutiny before concluding the program is a success. There are some legal drugs in the U.S. that have many harmful effects. Do we say a program is a success simply because it moves people from one mess to another?
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Doing Business by the Voice of the People

Do you think public opinion should affect public policy?

I have a scripture -- a Mormon scripture -- that often affects my opinions. This scripture simply calls for honoring public opinion. I wonder if I cited it a couple months ago when the nation was discussing same-sex marriages. The nation is getting close to 50-50 on that topic, if I remember correctly. In addition to the near split, those who are same-sexed are very adamant, very convinced they are right. So indignant are they that, yes, I weigh this into my opinion. I do not want to oppress other people, nor even allow them to think we are oppressing them. (There is a scripture on avoiding the appearance of evil that plays into this.)

The scripture (the first one I referred to) also affects my opinion on a complete prohibition of alcohol.

But, what of marijuana? I continue to oppose the legalization of marijuana. The chorus against it has not risen high enough, yet, but probably will. Should the day come (when the day comes) that the people demand it, then so be it.

Mosiah 29:26-27

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law -- to do your business by the voice of the people.

"And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you."

There are some issues I am not so quick to let go of, regardless of public opinion, though. Abortion being the one that comes to mind. Nor would I give up the fight to make more immigration legal. Both of those issues involve what I see as injustices against a portion of our people. I'm not so quick to take what I perceive as wrongs being committed against a people, and rights being deprived, and say I can go along with them.