L.A.’s Pot Revolution

How Los Angeles became the “wild West” of medical marijuana—and lived to tell the tale.

Brian Doherty from the May 2010 issue

(Page 3 of 5)

According to dispensary critic Michael Larsen, Los Angeles was “a national laughingstock” because of the proliferating pot shops. Based on a combination of hysterical hearsay and applications for exemptions that never turned into functioning storefronts, politicians, journalists, and perturbed neighbors were regularly claiming the city had something like 1,000 dispensaries—more than the number of Starbucks locations.

The L.A. Weekly—an alternative paper that might have been expected to side with the dispensaries, especially given how many of their ads fill the paper—helped lead the negative coverage, as part of a general crusade against what it sees as the city government’s fecklessness. The paper in November tried to get an accurate count of the dispensaries and found that 540 or so were operating when the council began reconsidering the issue. To a politician who didn’t have to worry about where he could obtain a medicine that helped make his life livable, that must have seemed like an awful lot.

Even though the city council had been considering the issue, on and off, for nearly five years, the ordinance it produced after a contentious back and forth between the council and the city attorney’s office seemed half-baked in many respects. It imposed draconian restrictions with little thought to how they might affect patients who had come to rely on marijuana to relieve their symptoms.

Some of the provisions are mild and largely supported by the medical pot community, which was begging for bearable regulations that would legitimize the dispensaries. The relatively uncontroversial requirements include demands for twice-daily bank runs, no plants visible from the street, and unarmed security guards patrolling a two-block radius around each dispensary.

Other provisions seem difficult to enforce and/or comply with, such as the rule that each patient can be a member of no more than one collective (meaning he can obtain marijuana from just one location), a demand that all the pot distributed go through “an independent and certified laboratory” to be checked for pesticides (dispensary operators insist that no such lab exists in Los Angeles), and a requirement that dispensaries store what could amount to tens of thousands of pieces of paper with patient and transaction information in fireproof vaults on site. Most ominously for the future of the medical marijuana business in L.A., the ordinance creates 1,000-foot “buffers” between the dispensaries and a list of “sensitive uses”: schools, churches, libraries, parks, youth centers, substance abuse centers, and other pot dispensaries. A last-minute addition to the bill also bans dispensaries from land “abutting” residential property and specifies that “no collective shall be located on a lot…across the street or alley from…a residentially zoned lot or a lot improved with residential use.”

If the ordinance survives legal challenges and goes into effect, that last provision will force nearly all of the existing dispensaries to move, and they will have few places to go. Almost all of L.A.’s standard commercial space is separated from homes or apartments merely by an alley behind them. In the weeks after the ordinance passed, various sources in the medical marijuana community told me landlords lucky enough to have space that complies with the new rules have tripled their rents and started demanding five-figure “signing fees” from dispensaries scrambling to find new locations.

Pot Civil War

The regulatory debate divided the medical marijuana community, pitting older dispensaries against new competitors, those seeking legitimacy against the open outlaws, those happy with the medical-use status quo against those who want complete legalization. Pot sellers who were in business before the 2007 moratorium—which a state court overturned on technical legal grounds in October—believe, probably correctly, that the industry could have continued to thrive under the media and political radar if not for the hundreds of Johnny-come-latelies. “Pre-ICO” and “post-ICO” dispensaries are the Sharks and Jets of the L.A. pot world.

Bill Leahy is general manager of a three- location chain of dispensaries known as the Farmacy, which began operating in West Hollywood in 2004. He meets me at the West Hollywood branch, which features cheery attendants, warm wood, mystical art, and one of the metropolitan area’s widest arrays of cannabis-enhanced tinctures, sprays, drinks, packaged foods, and gelatos. Leahy, a 63-year-old former print shop operator with the air of a steel-hard but gallant Western sheriff, is understandably proud of his comfortable shopping environment with doors open wide to the cool, sunny L.A. winter.

The Farmacy does not have the unsettling mantrap quality of many dispensaries, where you are locked into enclosed space after enclosed space between you and whoever hands you the goods (after examining and confirming your doctor’s recommendation and asking you to fill out forms to join the collective, assuming the dispensary is trying to be legit). Leahy makes sure I notice a rival shop across Santa Monica Boulevard, which opened in 2005. He gently chides its garish signage and unfriendly layout, which includes one of those off-putting enclosed entry areas.

Leahy is on the steering committee of the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance, a trade association dominated by the pre-ICO shops. Don Duncan, a prominent activist in the association, represents Americans for Safe Access as well as his own West Hollywood dispensary. An overwrought November L.A. Weekly story painted Duncan as the drug kingpin guiding council members such as Dennis Zine and Ed Reyes to let legalized pot dealing ruin their city, describing Duncan as “the most important man in City Hall regarding medical marijuana policy” with “tremendous influence.” The article suggestively noted that Duncan “wasn’t vetted to determine whether his pot sources and profits are illicit or legitimate,” though it presented no evidence that he fails to comply with state law.

Since March 2009, Dan Halbert has run the Rainforest Collective, a pot shop on Venice Boulevard in West Los Angeles with a bright and airy front room, floors covered in Astroturf, and walls painted with murals that suggest you are sitting in a vaguely Greek temple situated in a jungle. Halbert is president of the Green Alliance of Patients and Providers (GAPP), a trade group representing post-ICO dispensaries. The organization raised the ire of the city council gadfly John Walsh, a perpetually angry, perpetually arm-pumping shouter who was the most consistent and loudest anti-dispensary voice at city council meetings. At a January city council meeting, an appalled Walsh pointed the council’s attention to a line in a GAPP pamphlet that said the dispensaries wanted to craft and pass, via city referendum, regulations “for the industry by the industry.” Walsh bridled at the word industry. Wasn’t medical marijuana supposed to be about medicine and compassion?

Halbert understands that the pre-ICO pot entrepreneurs paved the way for people like him, braving the risk of federal arrests. An entrepreneur from Arizona, he says he did not feel safe moving into the market until he believed the Obama administration wouldn’t come after him. He can see how old hands such as Leahy and Duncan would resent the new competition. Still, Halbert says, “We brought the prices down. When there were only 186 [dispensaries], things were expensive, and [the shops] were making a lot of money, which is against the whole intent of this.”

Halbert’s jab at the profits of his older competitors seems somewhat at odds with his group’s description of medical marijuana distribution as an “industry.” But it fits with the anti-commercial mentality reflected in the attorney general’s guidelines, which say collectives should not turn a profit (although they are not required to incorporate as nonprofit organizations). That same attitude led to the half-baked wage controls in the new ordinance, which bans bonuses and says operators and workers must receive “compensation commensurate with reasonable wages and benefits paid to employees of IRS-qualified non-profit organizations” with similar qualifications and duties.

‘That Other Thing’

Page: < 1 23 4 5 >

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Kiwi Dave|4.12.10 @ 12:13PM|#

Brilliant Onion video about DEA raids (quite subversive, I think):
http://www.theonion.com/video/.....son,17224/

Art-P.O.G.|4.12.10 @ 1:15PM|#

Excellent work as usual by "The Onion."

Kiwi Dave|4.12.10 @ 3:04PM|#

In all seriousness, I wonder if the drug warriors' minds would change if their own kin were facing a long spell in prison for possessing weed.

|4.12.10 @ 3:48PM|#

Their kin get busted all the time. They get rehab. Other people's kids get jail.

Live Raw Sewage|4.12.10 @ 1:19PM|#

Sweet!

Jeffersonian|4.12.10 @ 1:26PM|#

Who says we're losing the drug war?

|4.12.10 @ 2:05PM|#

Haha, yeah I saw this the other day. Reminded me of being 16 again.

|4.12.10 @ 12:31PM|#

dude.....

Paul|4.12.10 @ 12:53PM|#

Larsen tells me about the healthy-looking young men who sometimes congregate in parking lots or on streets near dispensaries, smoking pot or blasting music. He points out one such young man entering AEC, a dispensary on Colorado Boulevard, while we are in its parking lot.

I have no love for Larsen, but his point here might just serve as a cautionary tale. When we decided to 'medicalize' marijuana, we're undoubtely going to find that there are a lot of 'healthy' young people who have a sudden, inexplicable need for "medicine".

At some point, someone's going to investigate this and find shenanigans. And because Pot is "medicine" an inevitable crack-down will occur.

This has to be legalized broadly. If we don't, we're in for a very rude awakening.

Paul|4.12.10 @ 12:58PM|#

hours of operation, and compensation for owners and employees

Wha?!

|4.12.10 @ 12:59PM|#

If marijuana is a dangerous weapon, surely we have a right to it under the 2nd Amendment.

Paul|4.12.10 @ 1:04PM|#

Subject to local, reasonable restrictions.

|4.12.10 @ 1:03PM|#

That branding, she thinks, should not be linked to green crosses and billboards for Medicann...

Or:

That branding, she thinks, should not be linked to silver bullet trains and billboards for Coors Light...

Fucking people.

MrGuy|4.13.10 @ 1:52PM|#

Good analagy.

Bünzli|4.12.10 @ 1:11PM|#

The accidental result of a city attorney who didn’t want to legitimize marijuana and a city council that didn’t want to think about it could be the realization that it’s better to allow a pot free-for-all than to continue to wage war on marijuana.
For that to happen people would actually have to show some common sense in judging a controversial issue. I'm not holding my breath!

|4.12.10 @ 1:12PM|#

NIMBYism, in the form of property owners who are concerned about the value of their home, means that the initiative to legalize cannabis statewide in California in November is doomed to defeat.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 2:39PM|#

I'm not a fan of zoning and land-use restrictions, but if there's one that's actually legitimate, it's restrictions meant to make the marijuana use more private. Most of the justifications for zoning in terms of "preserving" real estate values just don't hold up; most of the things that are restricted would NOT damage real estate values - just look at Houston. But a bunch of punks smoking marijuana outside right next door on a regular basis would most definitely destroy your house value. It constitutes real damage to you just as much as someone dumping on your land, or emitting pollutants into a stream that empties into a pond you own, etc.

In other words - micromanaging the minutiae of details of your property as regular Euclidean zoning does, telling you how many families can occupy a home regardless of size, telling you you can't run a small business out of it, saying you can't build a shed - bad, and doesn't really protect realty values (they at best create an artificial rise until the bubble bursts again). Stopping punks from smoking marijuana in broad view of the public, which would be a MAJOR turn-off for MANY prospective buyers, - legitimate because it really can pwn the value of your realty.

Now I'll grant that the restrictions described in the article go too far and some of them are just plain silly, but the concept is valid.

And before any libertarians get all up-in-arms about it, just look at the Netherlands. They've effectively legalized marijuana. The massive amounts of violence and subsequent costs that prohibition created are gone, and marijuana use is actually LESS than here in The States. But they still have restrictions in terms of not smoking on public property, if I'm not mistaken. So it works out fine, even by libertarian standards (relative to what we have now). You can whine about your "moral principles" but you have to admit that the brunt of the damage done by prohibition is gone.

Hacha Cha|4.12.10 @ 2:47PM|#

in the Netherlands you are talking primarily about recreational cafes, these are MEDICAL dispensaries. if a city is dumb enough to enact zoning laws, then any zone where a pharmacy can operate a cannabis dispensary should also be allowed. they are both dispensing medicine to patients, except the meds at a regular pharmacy are more hardcore.

WTF|4.12.10 @ 3:08PM|#

I'm not a fan of zoning and land-use restrictions

So you wouldn't mind if a hog rendering plant was built next door to your home?

Pip|4.12.10 @ 3:14PM|#

Would I get any pig freebees?

Adonisus|4.12.10 @ 5:12PM|#

If we made a deal to get some free chitterlings and hog maws.....I could live with it. :)

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 3:22PM|#

read my post thoroughly - I'm saying that it's clearly appropriate in some situations

WTF|4.12.10 @ 5:13PM|#

Just being snarky for not any really good reason. Isn't that what we do here?

MrGuy|4.13.10 @ 1:57PM|#

Being a douche in general is not good practice.

Hacha Cha|4.12.10 @ 5:53PM|#

if the hog rendering plant did not directly effect my property I wouldn't give a fuck what they put in. but my point is that a place of business that sells drugs (alcohol, rx, herbal) doesn't directly effect someone elses property. a hog rendering plant as you put it may directly effect a neighboring property if it was not built properly (ie: if they were leaking out an awful smell) but that can be argued, there is a cheese plant right next door and a bread bakery, one smells good, one smells like shit, but I don't mind either operating there, it doesn't bother me inside of my house and due to my proximity it doesn't really effect me outside of my house either. but start taking a walk across the street and you may catch a nice or nasty scent, oh well deal with it.

Colonel_Angus|4.12.10 @ 1:13PM|#

"local woman in her 80s who can’t understand what kind of world she’s living in, where marijuana is sold on her corner"

Well, it sounds like she would probably be living in a world similar to the one of her youth...

Also, I doubt she really owns "the corner", so she can buy it or shut up.
Also, I doubt the old lady exists.

Art-P.O.G.|4.12.10 @ 1:17PM|#

Apparently some elderly people find all sorts of aspects of the external world confusing and strange. Crazy, right?

Octogenarian|4.12.10 @ 1:29PM|#

WHY IS MY CAR ACCELERATING? AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!

WTF|4.12.10 @ 3:09PM|#

Someday we'll be old and (more) confused, too...

Grandpa Whithers|4.12.10 @ 3:15PM|#

I'm already there, baby. Already...oh look, a squirrel!

MrGuy|4.13.10 @ 2:55PM|#

Why should conflict between old people stagnation vs modern progression dictate how everyone lives? If you don't understand what's going on around you, you have no right to bitch.

|4.12.10 @ 1:59PM|#

Even people who don’t care about pot smoking in general get upset when they think stoners are gaming a system that is supposed to serve patients with doctor-certified needs.

I understand that sentiment, but it should be clear that people need to "game the system" because it's been gamed to death by prohibitionists for decades now. So long as that demand is unable to find any legitimate outlets, it will use illegitimate ones.

Besides, that really has nothing to do with dispensaries; a fraudulent "stoner" can just as easily grow his own marijuana under the guise of medicinal need as he can buy it at a dispensary.

meant to post this here:

|4.12.10 @ 2:47PM|#

Yeah I mean I don't think many of us would reject a model of heavily zoned legal industry in favor of maintaining prohibition.

But the problems you're talking about aren't at all unique to dispensaries. Liquor stores, bars, sex shops, gun stores, and pawn shops could all have similar effects on surrounding property values. So yeah, go ahead and subject these businesses to zoning laws, but do so in a manner consistent with the regulations imposed on other, similar businesses.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 2:53PM|#

oh my god, a reasonable response that actually recognizes some policies as better or worse, instead of just shrill moral absolutism - from a LIBERTARIAN!?

I think my head just exploded

|4.12.10 @ 3:32PM|#

Haha, I'm sure responses like that will encourage libertarians to continue interacting with you in a civil and respectful manner.

Really though, we're not the pig-headed doctrinaires everybody thinks we are. We're just looking for freedom -- and criminal prohibition is about the most egregious violation of freedom imaginable in the whole drug policy arena.

I don't personally know any libertarians who would knowingly sacrifice the "good" (an end to arrests for marijuana use and sales)for the sake of the unattainable "perfect" (no drug laws whatsoever).

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 3:44PM|#

I'm sorry but 30% to 50% are indeed shrill, dogmatic, and often depraved lunatics. I consider myself a libertarian, but with the "small l" caveat - or "sane" caveat. I've seen libertarians say:

A) Child prostitution should be legal, as long as you're paying the child
B)Circumcision should be a legal, you baby-hating monster
C)All U.S. soldiers are traitors
D)Forcibly keeping someone in their house would be fine if you owned all the land around it (this is a situation that does actually come up in real estate - and no, you can't do that)

etc. etc.

And these same people never recognize any improvements, and every minute regulation or law is a gross violation of human rights - even if marijuana gets legalized a la Holland they'd still complain

There's me and you and the Reason crew here, but there is also the other kind of libertarian.

|4.12.10 @ 4:03PM|#

I'd be interested to find out where you got your numbers from. 30-50% sounds really high for the nutjob quotient. I'd be personally inclined to peg that at around 5% of the human population, whether libertarian, Democratic, Republican, or whatever.

There are some crazies out there, and yes some of them self-identify as libertarians.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 4:10PM|#

I really hope you're right. I really do. But I get the idea that it's a lot more than that from the Free State Project-ers. There are some who don't take the philosophy to ridiculous ends, but they're conspiracy theorists. Seems to be very few reasonable people there.

|4.12.10 @ 4:18PM|#

Seems to be very few reasonable people there.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't exactly serve to distinguish libertarians from any other broad political contingent.

Colonel_Angus|4.12.10 @ 4:18PM|#

"But a bunch of punks smoking marijuana outside right next door on a regular basis would most definitely destroy your house value."

How so? It seems pretty harmless to me, as long as they have permission to be where they are, and aren't causing any damage to your property. And you're assuming that people who smoke cannabis are going to be obnoxious assholes, rather than like the people I see smoking cigarettes every day outside their house.

Really, your justification goes something like this:
"But a bunch of [group of people] [activity I don't like] outside right next door on a regular basis would most definitely destroy your house value."

Property values are not an entitlement.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 4:35PM|#

Yes but their massively dropping could be considered damage to the property, or an externality

Property values would drop massively in an area if open and public marijuana use all over the public rights-of-way were a regular thing. If I were raising a family I would never buy such a house in such an area, and very few other people would either. And if there were a store (commercial real estate) in such an area, I would go to it much less, if at all, again, certainly not with my kids. And again, there are many many people like me. Hell, the entirety of the house business involves selling the house to the WIFE, lol. A large chunk of home buyers are the typical American nuclear families. Single people don't need an entire house to themselves.

So yeah, property values would plummet, completely screwing over many people (remember, you've got to make the mortgage payments). And yes, that could be seen as an externality. It's not as "direct" of a damage as would be done by the stink of a rendering plant, or the noise of a rave-club, but I could see an argument to consider it an externality nonethless.

Telling me I can't build a fence or a shed, or limiting a house to being 1-family regardless of size or parking space it has, or saying that a commercial building can be a restaurant but not a storefront - now that's stupid.

GRRRR|4.12.10 @ 5:03PM|#

I am a single, pot-smoking, homeowner. I wish that my neighbor's annoying 15 year old kids and their friends would start smoking weed and calm done a little, rather than be the destructive noisy little alcoholics that they are.

Can I sue my neighbor for lowering my property value? One of their kids vomited in my driveway and tossed a liquor bottle in my flower garden.

I think that my smoking on my deck in my backyard is far less destructive then the alcoholics next door. Everyone should be so lucky as to have a stoner for a neighbor.

Colonel_Angus|4.12.10 @ 5:07PM|#

The children. We've heard it before.

"Property values would drop massively in an area if open and public marijuana use all over the public rights-of-way were a regular thing."

If you are worried that cannabis will cause such a huge problem in your area, you probably live in a shit hole already. No zoning is going to fix it. Cannabis use would probably be as big of a problem as people having beers or cigars on their patio, which is to say, not a problem unless you are a nosy asshole.

|4.12.10 @ 5:09PM|#

In the 80's people were still trying to say that they should be able to not sell homes to blacks in some neighborhoods, because it might bring down the property value. From a property value standpoint, they may have been right, but it's still wrong. Unless you own the property that the activity is occurring on, or the smell from the weed is spilling onto your property in a way that makes it difficult to live your life, you have no argument. Just because you don't like something, and it may bring down your property value, that doesn't mean that you can regulate your neighbors property. You should have to prove real damages to health, safety, or convenience (the ability to live your life the way that you want on YOUR property). Some people down the street smoking weed outside a pot dispensary doesn't really constitute harm.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 5:15PM|#

OK you guys are being silly. A huge chunk of the market would not want to buy a house in an area where people smoke pot openly in public streets, and you all know it. Nobody wants to raise kids in a place like that. I'd even bet you could find statistics from Holland backing it up.

And when you owe multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars to the bank (and that's even IF you put down a large down payment), it really is damage if you can't sell your house.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 5:34PM|#

or rather, maybe a trend could be seen (and extrapolated from) from properties near liquor shops, gun shops, brothels, strip clubs, etc.

Indeed, isn't that exactly where house prices are lowest - in the "bad" parts of town? Though of course, there may be a lot more at work there.

Colonel_Angus|4.12.10 @ 6:25PM|#

Your property values are not a justification for the violation of someone's individual liberty or property rights. Owning property comes with the risk that it will not be worth what you think it should be. Externalities are bullshit- either something causes direct damage or it doesn't. Observing someone smoking cannabis is no different than observing someone smoking tobacco.

fortyouncer|4.12.10 @ 6:41PM|#

Where are all these crazy people which will fill up the streets with their pot-smoking mayhem going to come from? Surely, those types are already smoking pot, and not bothering you now. Or do you suspect there is a large, silent, law abiding majority, just waiting for that $100 fine to be removed before they start the reefer madness and drive down your property value?

Edwin|4.13.10 @ 9:15PM|#

it's comforting to know that the dogmatic types only have rationalization, deflection, and ignoring in response to my actual points.

|4.13.10 @ 11:05PM|#

"How so? It seems pretty harmless to me"

You are clearly NOT a homeowner.

"Property values are not an entitlement."

You might be right, but you can count on property owners to fight for their values as if they were an entitlement.

My justification goes something like this
"Bunch of sophomoric, stoned (high ranking beef) idiots living next door to me in a rental will definitely destroy my house value, so I'll use my contacts in the city to get them evicted."

Edwin|4.14.10 @ 12:50AM|#

"Property values are not an entitlement"

"You might be right,..."

but they're not right. It might sound nice in libertarian theory, but the reality is much more harsh. Houses nowadays, even after the crash, are expensive, extraodrinarily expensive. They involve massive debt no matter how much you save and how small you buy. And apartments, being similarly priced in terms of monthly payments, are no substitute when tax write offs and the prospect of actually owning the house are considered. So damn near everyone has houses. If you get fucked over with a massive drop in house value, and are left a few hundred thousand dollars in debt, because of a system you don't control (that is, that made the house prices so high in the first place), no amount of libertarian philosophizing on human rights is going to change the fact that you're fucked.

Hacha Cha|4.12.10 @ 2:44PM|#

great article. it is both hilarious and sad that these fools didn't learn a thing from alcohol prohibition. of course crime will surge if you make a highly desirable chemical illegal, allow it to be sold legally and nearly all of that crime disappears. sure people may rob liquor stores, but people rob places to get TVs, does that mean TVs cause crime and should be prohibited?

|4.12.10 @ 3:01PM|#

I think anything the city is doing to pot they should also do to prescription-drug sellers.

Hacha Cha|4.12.10 @ 3:09PM|#

exactly, how is it their place to discriminate based on what kinds of drugs your store is selling. they should be encouraging more businesses to open up, regardless if they are dispensing oxycontin, amphetamine, alcohol, or cannabis.

|4.12.10 @ 3:57PM|#

They could solve this completely by selling marijuana at Walgreens and CVS. If it is medicine, sell it where medicine is sold.

Or, you just let anyone sell it because they have no business telling us what we can and cannot do to our own bodies.

But what they have now is stupid and causes such NIMBYism.

Fiscal Meth|4.12.10 @ 3:37PM|#

Let me save your head from exploding Edwin. I live right by the part of Ventura talked about in this article and have watched dispensary after dispensary open up and have never seen anyone smoking pot outside of them, in fact it's exactly the same as it was before.

Not only should there be less restriction on dispensaries there should also be less restriction on bars, liquor stores,pharmacies, sex shops AND gun stores. How's that for shrill absolutism?

Fiscal Meth|4.12.10 @ 3:43PM|#

Rhayader, as a libertarian you don't personally know, I feel I should inform you that I don't think there should be any drug laws whatsoever where adults are concerned. Except maybe it should be illegal to beat someone to death with a brick of hash.

|4.12.10 @ 3:58PM|#

Right, but even when you say "where adults are concerned" you're talking about regulation. Don't get me wrong, I agree in principle, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shit all over a regulated marketplace model that would clearly be a major improvement over zero-tolerance prohibition.

Should drugs be legal? Yes. Will I vote for whatever pathetic minor not-especially-libertarian improvements I can get? Absolutely.

tony|4.12.10 @ 3:59PM|#

I couldn't agree with you more...it's too bad we don't have a medical mushroom movement that has as much clout as the medical marijuana movement...you may think this next statement is funny...I agree with you on less restrictions on all the above that you mentioned...except for pharmacies. All too often, big pharma peddles pharmaceuticals that can really fuck you up just as bad, if not worse, than crack, smack and meth....the social consequences of letting big pharma and their peddlers (pharmacy outlets) have a free for all would be drastically bad. Ironically, pharmaceutical medications could cost society more money and lives than weed and mushrooms.

tony|4.12.10 @ 3:46PM|#

I am absolutely all for a marijuana free for all...and I don't even smoke it (hmm hmm)!

Fiscal Meth|4.12.10 @ 3:48PM|#

How did you come up with 30-50% Carl Rove?

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 3:59PM|#

I'm Karl Rove because I'm not a lunatic? Did you read my examples? I swear to you those are things libertarians have claimed.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 4:03PM|#

if you want some more examples - once a clear paranoid schizophrenic posted on a libertarian forum. He was talking about how he was the victim of "organized stalking". He believed that vast numbers of people were stalking and keeping tabs on him - and everyday gestures were actually "signals" the "agents" were sending to each other.

Now it'd be fine if it were one lone nut - but the other posters sympathized with him. Others tried to debate him, asking him to "show evidence". A clear out-and-out schizophrenic, and they expect to have a meaningful debate with him.

|4.12.10 @ 4:16PM|#

That's just an anecdote from some nameless web site though. I think Fiscal's question implied that you have no basis for that 30-50% figure; I think that's what the misspelled Karl Rove dig was all about.

And he's sorta right -- you won't convince us that we have a 50% chance of being lunatics by listing off a few stories from internet forum conversations.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 4:24PM|#

Jesus Christ, man, whatever, I'm estimating

and no the people who post on Reason do seem reasonable

Colonel_Angus|4.12.10 @ 4:30PM|#

You sound retarded.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 4:36PM|#

Why?

Don't believe me on the screwy-libertarian thing? Youtube "free state project" or go on their forums. You'll learn all about how oppressive driver's-license laws are and how we're in a police state.

|4.12.10 @ 4:50PM|#

But the Free State Project is not the central information depository for philosophical libertarians. You should spend as much time reading Radley Balko, Will Wilkinson, Cato Institute, et al before you decide that a few whack jobs speak for the broad group.

|4.12.10 @ 5:13PM|#

Fuck you, when Bush was in power, I would talk to leftists on myspace who believed that the FBI and CIA and department of homeland security were spying on them, because they had "FUck Bush" posted on their myspace. On the right, you have the people who buy duct tape and plastic bags to prepare for a terrorist attack in wisconsin. There are nuts on all sides. You are just trying to raise some ire for no fucking reason.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 5:29PM|#

Oh jeez. Calm down, spazz. I'm just saying it's a trend I noticed. I'm a libertarian myself, but "small l", like Glenn Reynolds, or Tucker Carlson, or the guys who write for Reason.

But you are falliny prey to a libertarian tendency described here:
http://www.inmalafide.com/2010.....bout-them/

|4.13.10 @ 4:22AM|#

maybe you're just a douche. Did you ever think about that?

Edwin|4.13.10 @ 9:57PM|#

hoo hoo - I theem to have thruck a nerve?

perhaps my observations have caught the ire of someone trying to stay on a certain river in Egypt?

Fiscal Meth|4.12.10 @ 4:41PM|#

No, you're Carl Rove because you invent statistics to sound unimpeachible.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 4:45PM|#

it's called an estimate, you spazz

no, I haven't personally performed a poll. Big surprise.

Fiscal Meth|4.12.10 @ 4:45PM|#

There are screwy centerists on the internet. There are Liberals on the internet who say we're in a police state and 9-11 was an inside job. The internet is a big place Edwin, you have no point, give it up.

Edwin|4.12.10 @ 4:48PM|#

jesus christ you're a spazz. I'm just saying it's a trend I noticed. The loony ones form a disproportionate share of the whole of the libertarians I've seen (on the innernets).

|4.12.10 @ 4:52PM|#

I'm just saying it's a trend I noticed.

Right. And we're just saying that there's no trend there, and that noticing one isn't valid given the available evidence.

Fiscal Meth|4.12.10 @ 5:07PM|#

Sorry, I guess the playfulness doesn't really come through. My point is the first thing whack-jobs do when the go all whack-jobby is go get a web-cam and purport to speak for a whole group of people.

The "Free State Project", too, is a bunch of individuals who wanted to move to a more free state and try to make it even more free. There are some whackos but I think that project makes a lot more sense than California's "Go Broke State Project"

Kroneborge|4.12.10 @ 6:23PM|#

Yes, but to bad they didn't pick a better state, lol

lunchstealer|4.12.10 @ 6:01PM|#

Heh. They should check out Denver. There are now two dispensaries within a couple blocks of my office - that I've spotted (the number of lame take-offs on 'Mile High' and 'Rocky Mountain High' are staggering) and at least 12 within a mile of my house.

Some Liberal|4.12.10 @ 8:10PM|#

We're only for states' rights when it comes to abortion and pot.

South Dakota Liberal|4.13.10 @ 7:59PM|#

We're only for states' rights when it comes to abortion

Slow down there, cowboy.

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 5:38PM

Is it ok to use a propane stove (camping stove) in my house so I can boil water in a links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Brass / Green Glass Banker’s Lamp £20.00 | Bankers Lamps UK Is under the cold weather | WeatherTwits.com Dining Room Tables are the Centerpieces in Most Homes | Simple Table Ideas L.A.’s Pot Revolution – Reason Magazine Tagged with: cold weather • glass tops • pot Filed under: Camping Stove Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more! Comments RSS Feed TrackBack URI 10 Comments…

adamatari|4.13.10 @ 9:50PM|#

The easy solution is to put pot in convenience stores with the cigs and beer, and place the same restrictions on public use as are on tobacco smoking in California. Nobody loses property value because of convenience stores because they are already zoned and expected to have people hanging out around them day and night. NIMBYism can't argue with 7-11, because even the NIMBY people need gas and a candy bar sometimes.

The ultimate question of all this, the road this is leading to within the next 10 years, is whether we're going to legalize of retrench. Sadly, the chances of retrenchment are very, very high, even with a majority in CA behind legal weed. Ultimately it will become a national issue, and our leaders will have to choose between withdrawing from the UN drugs conventions or cracking down. The current "bust occasionally for image" status quo can't last forever.

If the US goes legal, Europe will too. Asia will not. This is my prediction.

Edwin|4.13.10 @ 9:59PM|#

+1 on the 7-11 proposal

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 11:37PM

My pot belly pig baby is scared.? | Pot Bellied Pigs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 at 3:14 am Hοw ԁο I ɡеt mу baby pot tο come up tο mе аחԁ dont bе scared. Related Topics L.A.’s Pot Revolution – Reason Magazine Tagged with: pot Filed under: baby pot belly pigs Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more! Comments RSS Feed TrackBack URI One Comment Krissy says: April 14, 2010 at…

Pingback| 4.14.10 @ 12:22AM

How many people have quit smoking pot. I am trying to stop starting now. What is cons links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Lu Parker, for Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa? | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog Marigliano Rakes In $19K Pot-Limit Omaha Win Against “skjervoy” | High Stakes Poker L.A.’s Pot Revolution - Reason Magazine Man Says Girlfriend With No Hands Or Legs Threw Urine On Him | News One Chicken Pot Stickers | Danica's Daily Posted in Stop Smoking | Tags: girlfriend, pot « What Do I Have To Do…

|4.14.10 @ 12:35PM|#

Libertarians have a lot of good ideas, but what always keeps me from identifying myself as a Libertarian is this nealy psychotic defense of drug use. Nearly every single argument from Libertarians seems to center around their right to get high. Knowing that such short sightedness pervades the movement I fear that the second a joint is decriminalized most so-called Libertarians would suddenly lose interest in their "Libertarian" ideals. Try worrying more about illegal wiretaps, taxation without representation, and wanton trashing of the Constitution before smoking your joint and maybe, just maybe, people might start taking Libertarians more seriously. A movement dominated by the "right" to get stoned belongs more rightly in the pages of "High Times" than a website/magazine that is desperately trying to be taken seriously -- and currently failing. "Reason" sorely lacks its own self-identifying credentials.

|4.14.10 @ 12:43PM|#

More true than you know, Nick. They worry about wiretaps because someone may overhear something about a drug sale; the fear people looking into their backyards because someone might spot a pot plant; they fear illegal search and siezure because a cop may find a drug stash under the steering column; EVERYTHING centers around this perceived "right" to use drugs. All other rights be damned. Libertarians are like your racist grandma; you love her dearly and her old timey stories are genuinely fun to listen to and she seems to be sewn out of whole-cloth common sense -- THEN she calls her next door neighbor a "darkie" and you just need to put a gun to her head and put her out of her misery.

adamatari|4.14.10 @ 4:44PM|#

Nick, maybe you should actually read this site instead of just painting the entire libertarian movement as a bunch of druggies? On Reason's front page I see THIS article and 2 others about drugs, out of 30. That's 10%, which may seem high to you but considering there is a Mexican Drug War on our border, a massive and racially imbalanced incarceration problem in the US that is linked to the US drug war, and we are fighting a war in Afghanistan and having troubles because their economy is based on drug production... Not to mention drugs have been used as a shield for encroachments on liberty like civil forfeiture... Well, it seems like it's an issue that is important.

If you won't take a stand for your neighbor's freedom to toke a joint, why should he care if you get wiretapped? What excuse do you THINK they use when they trash the Constitution that you hold dear? It seems to me it's drugs and terrorists every time.

You can't call yourself a libertarian if you won't defend liberty. The liberty to use drugs may seem a piddling thing to someone who's never deviated from the allowed alky and cigarettes, but you need to consider how deeply it affects other liberties, and perhaps read up on the prohibition era.

Pingback| 4.14.10 @ 8:54PM

L.A.'s Pot Revolution - Reason Magazine Tools links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

L.A.'s Pot Revolution - Reason Magazine Tools Tools The Sponsors /* */ L.A.'s Pot Revolution - Reason Magazine L.A.'s Pot Revolution - Reason Magazine Video: The iPad's iCat Revolution - New York News - Runnin' Scared Plus Size Modeling Career. PlusSize Model Curvaceous Revolution Public Event: Kyrgyzstan's Second Revolution—By…

Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 3:12AM

How long does it take to melt chocolate? | Chocolate Recipes for You links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Chicken Chow Mein Gazpacho Sorbet Gluten Free Chocolate Almond Wafers — Celiac Teen Celiac Teen Gluten Free Raspberry Mousse Cake! « The Lazy GF Chef Margarita Cupcakes « Sweet and Saucy L.A.'s Pot Revolution – Reason Magazine Triple Layer Chocolate Cake « Patent and the Pantry New Brooklyn Chocolate Blackout Cake | Leite's Culinaria Share this on del.icio.us Digg this! Post this on Diigo Share this on…

Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 1:06PM

L.A.’s Pot Revolution « Later On links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

/* */ Later On A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine. 15 April 2010 L.A.’s Pot Revolution Posted in Daily life, Drug laws, Government at 10:06 am by LeisureGuy Brian Doherty at Reason.com: On a warm, bright winter day in January, I spent a few hours driving around two neighborhoods in Los Angeles, looking at marijuana stores. You know, marijuana stores. Where you (well, not…

Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 1:56PM

I’m making a strogonoff tonight and my meat is to tough.how can i tenderize it while links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…the meat is really tough! Can I save it? Related Blogs Vilmunen Dominates $8K Capped Pot-Limit Omaha Action With $114K … PETA is Anti-Animal Says Pro- Meat Fox News? | Feras.co.uk L.A.'s Pot Revolution – Reason Magazine Grow Pot Across from the Sheriff's Station… « REDHEADED BLACKBELT Jack's Home Improvement » Pot Rack This entry was posted on Thursday, April 15th, 2010 at 5:56 pm and is filed…

Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 2:50PM

Alice D. Medical Research « Around The Sphere links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…studies. They do not want to repeat the mistakes of the 1960s, when some scientists-turned-evangelists exaggerated their understanding of the drugs’ risks and benefits. Jacob Sullum in Reason: As with medical use of marijuana or religious use of psychedelics, this is an attempt to win limited pharmacological freedom by squeezing it into a socially approved category. If medical, psychotherapeutic, and spiritual uses…

|4.22.10 @ 2:48PM|#

How I wish for the good old days before all the dispensaries opened up and there was no crime in California. lol

smoke shop|5.21.10 @ 8:20AM|#

TREAT YOURSELF

surpa shoes|9.2.10 @ 5:12AM|#

On a warm, bright winter day in January, I spent a few hours driving around two neighborhoods in Los Angeles, looking at marijuana stores.

nfl jerseys|11.4.10 @ 10:49PM|#

thgf

SheepskinUGG boots|11.22.10 @ 7:30AM|#

We also access the comment made central identical analyze acclaimed name cast away ahead of the curve of Women Uggs . We will access the application for the precision Ugg Sheepskin Boots we are in the bazaar in both winter and summer. These auction access ugg been

SheepskinUGG boots|11.22.10 @ 7:39AM|#

added details about the Ugg Sheepskin Boots , for example, apparently used the best Sheepskin Boots Sale boots accurately auction

Sheepskin Boots Sale|11.22.10 @ 7:45AM|#

Because the administration of the affidavit of all equipment in the Classic Ugg Boots Online Store Boots Shorten, will charge a mild cleanser or cleaner natural that affidavit could be assertive with the highest absolute accuracy delicate added. And Ugg Boots Outlet need to adulterate your vacuum bubbler baptize according Arctic stop in the administration of the instructions

RAN|4.5.11 @ 3:30AM|#

I wish for the good old days before all the dispensaries opened up and there was no crime. | ran แรน |

Scarpe Nike|8.3.11 @ 4:28AM|#

is good

Athletic Shoes|8.12.11 @ 5:43AM|#

so perfect

قبلة الوداع|8.17.11 @ 8:55PM|#

thank u

http://www.iraq-7b.com

Travel Thailand|8.29.11 @ 5:59AM|#

You can't call yourself a libertarian if you won't defend liberty. The liberty to use drugs may seem a piddling thing to someone who's never deviated from the allowed alky and cigarettes.

UGG Boots Cheap|11.15.11 @ 12:44AM|#

good

hotel in thailand|1.10.12 @ 2:40AM|#

The ultimate question of all this, the road this is leading to within the next 10 years, is whether we're going to legalize of retrench.

sd|1.25.12 @ 4:12AM|#

Generator|3.13.12 @ 6:08AM|#

There are screwy centerists on the internet. There are Liberals on the internet who say we're in a police state and 9-11 was an inside job.

Auction|3.20.12 @ 5:25AM|#

There are some work but I think that project makes a lot more sense than California's "Go Broke State Project"

SEO|3.26.12 @ 3:20AM|#

I recomment youu to try worrying more about illegal wiretaps, taxation without representation, and wanton trashing of the Constitution before smoking your joint.