10 Years in Jail for Pot?!

Stuff like this actually makes me angry. People should go to prison when the crime affects someone else. When someone is running a medical dispensary and gets 10 years in prison, it makes me sick.
 
sekio said:
tell him to say hi to marc emery
Click to expand...

I chuckled, but I feel bad about it :(

It takes balls to run a dispensary even if you are following state law to the letter. The Feds get bored, and when the real criminals are to hard to catch you can just go bust some liberal potheads who are "destroying the local community" or whatever propoganda they spit.
 
pretty fucked up but completely political. I'm not sure what kind of dispensary he ran though, perhaps it was warranted if he was selling terrible medicine.

yeah and say hi to marc emery, now that is fucked up.
 
Fuuuuuuck! I've been to this place it was down the street from my old job in rancho/upland.. That's whack :/
 
This is actually the ID card you use once you register there..really was a chill spot and I wish them and this guy all the best :/

25fqfdt.jpg
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Explain. You're being very vague.
Click to expand...

“Mr. Davies was not a seriously ill user of marijuana nor was he a medical caregiver — he was the major player in a very significant commercial operation that sought to make large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana,” the letter said. Mr. Wagner said that prosecuting such people “remains a core priority of the department.”

At the center of this federal-state collision is a round-faced 34-year-old father of two young girls. Displaying a sheaf of legal documents, Mr. Davies, who has no criminal record, insisted in an interview that he had meticulously followed California law in setting up a business in 2009 that generated $8 million in annual revenues. By all appearances, Mr. Davies’ dispensaries operated as openly as the local Krispy Kreme, albeit on decidedly more tremulous legal ground.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/14pot.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What a corrupt pig, making 8 million a year on seriously ill people. He makes neurosurgeons in my family look like paupers because he was pushing overpriced medicine. I used to think being a surgeon and making 100 grand a year was an exorbitant pay, this guy is scum.
 
If he was making 8 million a year on seriously ill people, then he was selling medical marijuana (perceived as medicine in this context). So he was selling medicine to sick people. That doesn't sound very corrupt to me.

Was he overcharging them? What would be an appropriate price for him to sell his product at? Do you hate all pharmaceutical providers with the same passion?
 
The guy had a company that was growing and selling weed.
He was smart enough and enterprising enough to go out there and risk his own neck in order to both make money and distribute the lovely herb, which serves as a medicine for many people.
If anyone didn't like his prices or quality, they were free to go to one of the many, many other dispensaries in California.
I don't see how he hurt anyone.

He generated $8 million in revenues, but what was his overhead?
How much did it cost him to grow the weed, and to hire the workers, and rent the locations, storefront, etc.?
How much did he have to pay his ex-wife each month, or for student loans?
Is it immoral if he made "too much" money? Who decides what "too much" is?
I have known rich people who were giving and kind, and poor people who are stingy and miserly.
You can't generalize that all rich people are X, where X= bad thing.
etc. etc.
You make it sound like it is a bad thing to make too much money.
But the only bad thing could be how you use the money you make.
This guy may have been a philanthropist, for all we know.

It is always easy to look at it in terms of broad brush strokes when we don't know the story.
But I cannot see where he did anything immoral in this case.
 
I think everyone should have only what they need, and redistribute what's left to the rest of the population. I think population should be numerically controlled to ensure there is no scarcity.

Personally, all I need is a little food and more than a little heroin.
 
Sounds nice in principle, but do some people need more or different things than others? Who gets to decide the answer to that question and if it is yes, what and how much? Hello, inequality - glad you could make it back, and in record time!
 
scureto1 said:
If he was making 8 million a year on seriously ill people, then he was selling medical marijuana (perceived as medicine in this context). So he was selling medicine to sick people. That doesn't sound very corrupt to me.

Was he overcharging them? What would be an appropriate price for him to sell his product at? Do you hate all pharmaceutical providers with the same passion?
Click to expand...

He is just the same as big pharma, no wonder medical Cannabis is overpriced in California. No wonder "Medical" Cannabis is viewed as a for profit joke venture by many members of the MSM and middle America.
 
23536 said:
I think everyone should have only what they need, and redistribute what's left to the rest of the population. I think population should be numerically controlled to ensure there is no scarcity.

Personally, all I need is a little food and more than a little heroin.
Click to expand...

I like what I am guessing is your sarcasm.
You certainly don't "need" heroin.
But once you open it up to people's pursuit of happiness - getting what they "want", and not just what they "need" - things are not black and white at all.

Scarcity is not the result of overpopulation.
It is the result of a system designed to maximize profit, e.g. by throwing out all the foods that are "aesthetically challenged", e.g. by controlling the market by manipulating supply and demand.
We have more than enough for everyone, if our purpose is simply to feed the people of the earth.

For me, I think that everyone should be allowed to live at a minimally decent level, as long as they are willing to contribute to the larger good. If someone is willing to work, even sweeping streets, I believe they should be entitled to a place to live, clean food and water, medical care, etc.
Once everyone who contributes is minimally at that level, I don't care if some people get rich.
 
Sarcasm aside--I think the development of intelligence compels our species to strive for equality and fairness, instead of deifying selfishness.
 
23536 said:
Sarcasm aside--I think the development of intelligence compels our species to strive for equality and fairness, instead of deifying selfishness.
Click to expand...

Is it intelligence, morality, or wisdom?
And it apparently is not just our species; today's newspaper has an article that describes research arguing that chimps have a sense of fairness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top