Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As you probably know by now, the DEA has continued to raid medical marijuana facilities that are perfectly legal under state law where they are located even after Obama, who opposes such raids, was inaugurated. Last week there were two such raids, both in California.
Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided at least two Westside marijuana dispensaries Tuesday, and a spokesperson defended their actions, despite President Barack Obama's opposition to such raids.One of the raids was at the Marina Caregivers at 730 W. Washington Blvd. about noon, said Sarah Pullen of the DEA.
Pullen defended the raids:
Asked about Obama's comments that he did not want to waste Justice Department resources on raiding medical marijuana shops, Pullen said that "marijuana is still illegal under federal law."The law is still that it is illegal to possess, distribute or cultivate marijuana in any way," she said.
Which is not particularly relevant. Yes, the Supreme Court wrongly ruled in Raich that the federal government had the constitutional authority to overrule state laws on medical marijuana, but having the power to do something does not mean one must exercise that power. Picking and choosing where to spend limited resources is a normal function of law enforcement.
Obama pledged to end these raids during the campaign, but Reuters quotes Pullen as saying that they have received no directive from the White House to stop them:
Asked about those comments, Pullen said, "There has been no direction as to a change in how we ... enforce federal law." The DEA is a Justice Department agency.
But the White House says this will change as they get new people in place:
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro on Wednesday reiterated Obama's stance that "federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.""And as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," Shapiro said.
He's only three weeks into his term, so of course it's hardly a shock that Obama hasn't done everything that he promised to do already. But I do hope that now that this has become a public problem, he will issue an order to the DEA to suspend such raids until they've got a new person in charge. As chief executive, he has the full authority to do so. And it's quite obvious that the DEA is not going to stop doing this until they're ordered to.
Politics
Comments
Yes, as chief executive, he has the full authority to do so, but until he gets his people in place, he could have political problems doing so. Michele Leonhart, career DEA/current DEA head and Bush appointee, has been a promoter of the raids on medical marijuana since they started in the 90s.
I could easily imagine a scenario where Obama/Holder tells the DEA to lay off, and Michele goes complaining to the press that Obama/Holder is ordering her to ignore federal drug laws, with some comment about how it's not unexpected given Obama's past interest in drugs. Of course, you know how the press would react.
Politically, it's much easier for him to get a new DEA head who will support the President, and then just have the raids stop quietly without any publicity.
What the White House did by releasing that statement was probably the smartest thing right now (if not the best thing). It then causes the DEA to have to answer uncomfortable questions if there's another raid, rather than the White House, as it makes clear that the current DEA administration is not up to speed.
Posted by: Pete Guither | February 10, 2009 11:20 AM
"Picking and choosing where to spend limited resources is a normal function of law enforcement."
"LIMITED RESOURCES"?
I presume you mean financially...?
You're quite wrong. The US gov't has not run out of money YET.
Consequently, it has TRILLIONS of dollars MORE it can use to raid dispensaries.
Presume the DEA will continue to raid UNTIL... idiots like Sarah Pullen get a new clock-puncher, shuffler job.
Laws have NOT changed... YET.
Will they EVER?
Only when/IF they DO.
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 11:50 AM
Fairminded,
The DEA does indeed have limited resources. It does not have either the manpower or the time to pursue every violation of federal law that happens in this country. Just because the federal government is borrowing hundreds of billions to finance its trillions in spending does not mean the DEA has escaped the basic economic reality of limited resources.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 10, 2009 11:55 AM
"It then causes the DEA to have to answer uncomfortable questions if there's another raid, rather than the White House, as it makes clear that the current DEA administration is not up to speed."
You're so WRONG it is pathetic.
"UPHOLDING FEDERAL LAW" is their newest war cry.
As big a lie as (legalizing marijuana) "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO YOUTH."
Obama will NEVER back off the DEA ... BECAUSE federal LAW must be upheld.
Get it through your heads... Obama is a LIAR like the rest of the gov't shufflers.
He HAS NO POWER to stop DEA raids.
Wake up, people........... YOU are the ones who gave the gov't to strip you of your rights to consume.
YOU want it that way. Remember?
Morons.
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 12:00 PM
Okay fairminded, step away from the crackpipe and the caps lock key.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 10, 2009 12:07 PM
"It then causes the DEA to have to answer uncomfortable questions if there's another raid, rather than the White House, as it makes clear that the current DEA administration is not up to speed."
You're so WRONG it is pathetic.
"UPHOLDING FEDERAL LAW" is their newest war cry.
As big a lie as (legalizing marijuana) "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO YOUTH."
Obama will NEVER back off the DEA ... BECAUSE federal LAW must be upheld.
Get it through your heads... Obama is a LIAR like the rest of the gov't shufflers.
He HAS NO POWER to stop DEA raids.
Wake up, people........... YOU are the ones who gave the gov't to strip you of your rights to consume.
YOU want it that way. Remember?
Morons.
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 12:09 PM
Obama promised to change things and I really hope he does. If not then I and many others would feel he has broken his promise.
Of course it was a promise made on the campaign trail wasn't it
Posted by: Brian | February 10, 2009 12:09 PM
"Fairminded, The DEA does indeed have limited resources. It does not have either the manpower or the time to pursue every violation of federal law that happens in this country. Just because the federal government is borrowing hundreds of billions to finance its trillions in spending does not mean the DEA has escaped the basic economic reality of limited resources.Posted by: James Hanley"
James Hanley, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
You know NOTHING about federal finances.
This gov't went BROKE DECADES AGO....... yet, it STILL spends money UNLIMITED AMOUNTS on their War on Drug Disorder.
That is called a TREND.
The AMERICAN PEOPLE ***WANT*** the War on Drug Disorder... regardless of what a bunch of drugged out 60s / 70s hippies got propped up while stoned out of their minds (read prop 215 / SB 420).
FEDERAL RAIDS are the will of the AMERICAN PEOPLE - the "conservative" azzwipes who are ADDICTED TO CONTROLLING the lives of others regarding what they can and cannot consume.
MONEY will NEVER cease to exist for these "conservative" idiots to get their addiction fixes.
FORGET about their being ANY stoppage of DEA raids.
Type on your keyboard and blow your "medical" Bubba Kush -- that is ALL you will be able to do... that is, REMAIN in CONTRARY TO FEDERAL DRUG LAW status living your life in "Medical Marijuana" LaLa Land.
READ the godam "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937" - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm -- it is 215 / 420 all over again.
You ever heard of a guy named Harris?
Hippies got NOWHERE in 70 years.
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 12:22 PM
Oh Ed, you beat me to the punch.
Posted by: Schmeer | February 10, 2009 12:23 PM
Whoa, somebody didn't get their nap today.
Posted by: Don | February 10, 2009 12:29 PM
Fairminded, you ever notice how William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln, Oliver Wendel Holmes---you EVER notice HOW NONE of THOSE guys CAPITALIZEs random WORDs in their sentences? It's because doing so does not add emphasis. It just makes you look like a raving nutcase.
Posted by: steve s | February 10, 2009 12:31 PM
Fairminded* - You're not a birfer and/or a trufer by any chance? - Curiously DJ ;)
*"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2009 12:40 PM
OK, Bozos...
Now you're pinning your hopes of the DEA *running out of money* to stop them from continuing to conduct raids - LMAO - saying they have "limited resources" (i.e., limited CASH).
OK, let's say that's true - that they do NOT have UNLIMITED MONEY TO CONDUCT RAIDS.
Fine. Then, ONE TRILLION DOLLARS is already slated for their future War on Drug Disorder endeavors... and that includes RAIDS.
Perhaps NOT "unlimited," BUT,
1. You've got a medical marijuana-HOSTILE president (ever heard of Obama?) newly elected, who will turn out to be the GREATEST gov't "SHUFFLER" the White House has EVER seen.
And, the American people LOVE it.
2. The DEA is WELL-FUNDED to continue DOING BUSINESS AS USUAL with the NEXT TRILLION DOLLARS already agreed upon to TARGET medical marijuana dispensaries.
That is $1,000,000,000,000. More than most readers here can even count.
Objective: ENFORCE FEDERAL DRUG LAWS. RAID DISPENSARIES.
Now, be good little sheeple and take another "rip" from your Roor bong packed with Bubba Kush - http://www.thefreshscent.com/wp-content/post_imgs/0107/tfs_mm_realdealbubba.jpg - while your Daddy takes your dispensaries away.
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 1:07 PM
Re Fairminded
Mr. Fairminded makes Larry Fafarman look almost sane.
Posted by: SLC | February 10, 2009 1:15 PM
Fairminded: You APPEAR to fail to NOTICE that PRESENTING ARGUMENTS in the manner in which you do DOES NOT advance your CAUSE, because NO ONE CAN TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
Posted by: Shih Tzu | February 10, 2009 1:23 PM
"Last week there were two such raids, both in California."
First off, Ed Brayton, learn how to COUNT.
It isn't very hard. Just stamp your feet.
Local Marijuana Dispensaries Raided
Los Angeles - "Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided FIVE Westside marijuana dispensaries and a doctor's office." - http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/5_Westside_Marijuana_Dispensa
Five, moron, NOT "2."
AND Dr. Dean Weiss @ 122 S. Lincoln Blvd #205, Venice (310) 437-3407 - was also RAIDED.
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Fairminded - I think you overdid your Ritalin!
Even a hint of evidence to back up your claims (such as they are)?
Either show me the evidence or, with absolute and deepest respect, just keep popping those tabs until you fall over. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Despite the opinions of the ever reliable FOX network, the DEA itself provided evidence of two raids not five. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2009 1:43 PM
Let me make something perfectly clear.
You know, when you jerk off, either by yourself or have someone else jerk you off... how that, you get rather messy afterwards?
That is what 215 and 420 amounts to. Just getting messy.
There is only ONE way to deal with MARIJUANA.
1. FULLY LEGALIZE IT AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL.
1b. Fully legalizing it will cure many things, and the *mess* will go away.
1c. Marijuana will be DE-scheduled. So that it is no longer a "controlled drug/narcotic/plant."
1d. Marijuana HAS to be DE-scheduled with ZERO medical oversight (the way it "sorta kinda" is now with doctors who get raided writing recommendations).
1e. Marijuana MUST be classified in the same classification as alcohol and tobacco.
RAID WILL CONTINUE UNTIL marijuana is FULLY LEGALIZED.
Until then, continue jerking off, getting jerked and being jerked off. Because that is ALL that is gonna happen.
Forget EVER changing federal drug laws... as they pertain to "medical marijuana" because there is NO such thing as "medical marijuana" in the sight of the STUPID AMERICAN PUBLIC (who put even more stupid elected officials into power to carry out the WILL of the people).
You want REAL change?
With "medical marijuana" you're p|ssing up too short a rope hung from the wrong tree, at night, in the wind, in the rain.
Get balls. Get brains. Get money. CHANGE the godam FEDERAL LAWS *****BY***** fully legalizing marijuana.
END OF STORY.
Until you do, have your stupid, stoned-out-your-mind whiner typing sessions on blogs written by fat-faced, chubby-fingered fvcks like Ed Brayton.
I got sh|t to do today... see ya!
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 1:56 PM
Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. At all. Also, I think the point about the limited resources of the DEA was that medical marijuana fields are the most comparatively harmless form of drug cultivation (I may be wrong, but I doubt there's a lot of violence and such associated with the medical marijuana trade in California, compared to that associated with harder and completely illegal drugs like coke or heroin). I'm sure the thoughtful posters here already knew that, though.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | February 10, 2009 2:05 PM
That ladies and gents was the typical troll.
Unable to engage with others, formulate a coherent argument or operate the shift lock. In short: no ideas, no arguments, no evidence, no clue, and no guts.
Now that fool has gone to get his social security cheque, and fill his prescriptions, we can get down to an actual adult conversation. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2009 2:10 PM
Fairminded: 1, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e...
Dude, where's 2? You really shouldn't have 1 w/out 2.
Posted by: ildi | February 10, 2009 2:39 PM
Did our newest troll make any valid, or even semi-valid, points? Or was it ALL JUST A sea of CAPS!!!1!!1!!?????!/2??!"?
Posted by: blf | February 10, 2009 3:01 PM
This could be a great opportunity for more economic stimulus. Legalize pot and tax it. That could be another revenue stream to help pay for the new national health plan. With all of the tax cuts Repubs have tried to get jammed into the bill, I don't see one that decreases the tax collected from alcohol. Legalizing pot makes way too much sense: decreases caseload on courts, decreases interim jail traffic, decreases costs to run any agency enforcement takes - DEA, Vice, etc.
Posted by: Jeff Handy | February 10, 2009 3:11 PM
Is someone practicing their poe?
Posted by: Taz | February 10, 2009 3:40 PM
blf,
Yes, our amusing troll did make at least one valid point.
That is accurate, in my opinion. But this part,
Now that's crazy talk!Posted by: James Hanley | February 10, 2009 3:41 PM
I think it's crazy to even skim comments posted with caps running rampant. I'm glad the fruitcakes use 'em so please do not dissuade them; it saves me valuable reading time.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 10, 2009 4:03 PM
Fairminded reminds me of that David Mabus.
(now that I've mentioned him, will he show up like Candle Jack?)
Posted by: fsb | February 10, 2009 4:14 PM
Fairminded has brought something to the argument, though. While the debate on medical pot may have an opportunity to get moving at a federal level, Fairminded makes it very clear that medical crystal meth is a long way off.
Posted by: Ranson | February 10, 2009 4:20 PM
You know, I've always been fascinated by whirlwinds. Those embryonic tornadoes that start over there and do mischief all the way to over yonder. I've usually observed only one at a time, multiple occurrences being less common, but I once was fascinated to observe six at one time!
I was on a Greyhound (yeah, ridin' the dog) across west Texas in 2001. The highway had descended into a broad drainage characterized by dry topsoil and fine dust. Four harbingers of chaos on one side, two on the other. I was quite taken by the privilege of the sight and watched for several minutes as, one by one, they all ceased to be.
Thanks, Fairminded, the inaptly named, for the memories.
*actually, I have no idea why my brain dredged up this memory . . . analogy?* ;^)
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 10, 2009 6:14 PM
*back by popular demand*
I didn't know I could use HTML here, else I would not have used caps, that is tantamount to YELLING.
If I was yelling I guess I was yelling at the American public who are too stupid and/or too greedy to fully legalize cannabis.
People are actually reading what I have to say??
OK, then, I'll bring something else to the party... something I have been saying for a while now with no one paying any attention.
Did anyone here know there is a single principle that would entirely blow the whole lid off this marijuana legalization / anti-legalization mating dance of retards? (that is, the Generational War - old farts versus hippies).
Flip on your brights and brace yourself because... "the truth shall set you free."
There is nothing in the Constitution and/or in the Bill of Rights granting or authorizing the US gov't to form, create and make rules and laws about and regarding what citizens can consume, as it pertains to arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning people.
Absolutely nothing.
You know what that means? No, not that you possibly have a lawsuit against McDonald's because your grandmother died while biting into her 47,000th Big Mac.
It is that ALL LAWS that Congress and lawmakers wrote regarding drug prohibition, regarding drug criminalization, regarding marijuana prohibition, made and created are phony and they are fraudulent.
Why? Because nothing in ANY article of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights grants them the power to make such laws.
Therefore, ALL LAWS and RULES pertaining to personal and private consumption (especially of marijuana, that does not cause death) are literally non-enforceable, non-prosecutable because NOTHING in the paperwork establishing America and its core US law and rule creation system permits for the arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning of American citizens based on their private and personal consumption choices, because no such laws are even allowed to be written and made.
How much plainer can I make this?
Mounted properly, a class action lawsuit based on this reality and on this truth could and would literally crush ALL current perceived War on Drug Disorder statutes, rules and laws "written into law" on a fraudulent, non-authorized basis. The DEA would legally go bye-bye by default.
In other words, the US Constitution and Bill of
Rights does not authorize lawmakers and congresspeople to make ANY such laws prohibiting substances such as "narcotics" and marijuana.
The fight against the War on Drug Disorder was never lost because it was never permitted to be created, by the actual, core US Gov't Constitution to begin with.
There's your winning card, gents.
Part 2 coming soon...
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 6:43 PM
Doesn't the DEA typically sieze enough private property whenever they feel like it to run more or less indefinitely?
@Fairminded: Jesus dude, I thought I was high strung. So we should make weed legal by making weed legal? What other amazing insights can you offer us?
Posted by: JThompson | February 10, 2009 6:45 PM
@Fairminded: Damnit, you posted again before I could hit the button.
You do understand an awful lot of people here favor legalization, right?
You're pretty much going into a church on sunday and screaming at people "Why don't you love Jesus!?"
Posted by: JThompson | February 10, 2009 6:49 PM
Part 2
This is why no lawmakers can create the following "law."
On every second Tuesday of the month, EVERYONE must wear blue shirts and put on ONLY one shoe.
Anyone who "breaks" that law gets shot on sight; or, will be arrested and prosecuted, forfeiting all their material wealth.
Oh yes, no, I am not insane.
IF lawmakers COULD create that law above they would.
WHY don't they? Because they CAN'T.
Why can't they?
Because... US Constitution and Bill of Rights that America is founded on does NOT allow them to, nor permit them to.
It is identical with issues pertaining to substances.
Lawmakers setting "Legal Age" is not even constitutional if you want to get technical.
I could go out today, stand right in front of the White House, shoot heroin, drop acid and smoke marijuana. I could sell ALL these substances to ANYONE of ANY age, and I would be perfectly within ALL my Constitutional, legal and lawful rights to do so.
I would be breaking NO laws nor rules.
Why would I be arrested then? For the same reason I would be prosecuted for NOT wearing a blue shirt on every second Tuesday; and for wearing TWO shoes that day.
In both cases, rules and laws were written AGAINST what the US Constitution and Bill of Rights authorizes gov't officials to make and to create.
Gov't officials are very limited regarding what they can establish as enforceable laws. And, prosecuting over personal, willful consumption ain't an enforceable, prosecutable law, nor is it allowed to be created.
Lawmakers are simply NOT ALLOWED to write ANY such laws. The US Constitution / Bill of Rights STOPS them from doing so.
Take this issue to the Supreme Court and you'll win. The "War on Drug Disorder" will be ended.
Have a nice day, gentlemen.
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 7:04 PM
Fairminded goes on:
Yes, friend, we already knew that and take what comfort we can in it. But simply because such a rule is not codified in the Constitution is not a guarantee that it will not be codified at another time. After all, compare the word count of the Constitution to that of the United States Code!
Yeah, verily, you are (to some significant degree) preaching to the choir here. Much of what you have to say I find appealing. It's just that you haven't taken consideration of the subtleties of the English language, which permits discourse at many different levels to suit speakers and audiences of diverse moods and persuasions. Additionally, many readers would like to be constructively amused by the tone and theme of your words.
I'm sticking my neck out here for your sake. If you take the advice I and others offer, a long and satisfying exchange may occur. If not, it won't. I'm sure you can manage the transition. I'm also sure that I'm not alone in wondering what you'll say next. So, c'mon back. Set a spell.
E Pluribus Unum
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 10, 2009 7:12 PM
4JThompson: "So we should make weed legal by making weed legal? What other amazing insights can you offer us?"
What other amazing insights? This one...
No one needs to "make weed legal," because, it is ILLEGAL for ANYONE in the US gov't to write, make and create ANY LAWS and/or rules making it of ANY offense whatsoever for personal, private consumption and usage.
The core issue here (in the US) is that lawmakers and congresspeople BREACHED and BROKE provisions the US Constitution / Bill of Rights grant them when they jimmy rigged false "laws" into place.
They can't write such laws because they are NOT ALLOWED to.
Therefore, ALL DRUGS -- especially marijuana -- CANNOT be prohibited, cannot be make "illegal," their consumption and commerce is NOT authorized by the US Constitution / Bill of Rights to be restricted and put into a state of "prohibition."
There IS no such thing as "scheduling" drugs or other consumable substances, according to the legislation America was founded on.
LSD, meth, weed, heroin, cocaine, etc., is perfectly legal to consume as far as the US Constitution / Bill of Rights is concerned.
Lawmakers must break laws and write laws illegally in order to pass ANY such rules allowing prosecution against US citizens for mere consumption and possession and marketing of these substances.
In fact, America was founded on freedom of commerce and personal choice when it comes to consumption and speech and freedom to worship.
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 7:31 PM
4Crudely Wrott: "I'm also sure that I'm not alone in wondering what you'll say next. So, c'mon back. Set a spell."
I would, but I have no interest in fvcking around wasting my time with non-progressing losers and get highs.
Take care, people, and take it to the Supreme Court, like you should have done over 70 years ago with cocaine prohibition.
I gave you your solution. Now, stop whining, and destroy stupidity through knowledge and judgment. You're not as smart as you think but, you don't have to be to win this little contest with the gov't morons.
You've already won. Just get the Supreme Court to confirm it, and legally dismantle what should have never been allowed to be put into place to begin with.
I'm so outa this loser zone...
FM
Posted by: Fairminded | February 10, 2009 7:43 PM
Trainwreck -
Don't use CAPS, it makes you look like a twit and by association makes me and most of the others here look like twits. Why does it make us look like twits, you're asking yourself? Because I don't think there are many here who don't believe in legalizing drugs and I doubt there are any who don't support legalizing cannabis.
Basically, you just wandered through and insulted a hell of a lot of people who mostly fucking agree with you. But like the fucking moron you obviously are, you just assume that people who are talking about medical marijuana, aren't also supporters of legalizing it.
DJ -
Hey now, I'm on Ritalin motherfucker!!! Lets not insult those of us who have neurological issues. And trust me, ALL CAPS is not what happens when I take too much Ritalin. I just get a whole fucking lot of work done.
Now if I take WAY TOO MUCH!!!! Well, lets just say it's a good thing you live on another continent (that's it's own country) and I don't know what you look like....
(The above should not be taken as indicative of people with ADHD, who use Ritalin or other stimulant therapies. The above is the result of a mind deranged by spending way too much time reading about what a complete and utter failure our social and political addiction paradigm really is, largely fueled by the fucking war on drugs. This is your brain - this is your brain on research paper.)
Posted by: DuWayne | February 10, 2009 7:55 PM
OK, Fairminded, you've convinced me. When I grow up I'm not going to be like you.
Thanks for the drive by. Wanna work on your aim?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 10, 2009 8:59 PM
DuWayne: fairminded is an idiot -- and this coming from the person here who has presented a legalization bill for comments. (Ed, don't know if I could or should do this, but as a guest columnist, can you keep him away from that thread?)
But remember Prup's Law "Whatever side you take in any political, religious, social, or sexual dispute, you are going to have some idiots agreeing with you." I just wish we didn't have such a prime demonstration.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 10, 2009 9:41 PM
DuWayne - Hey, don't get me wrong crankypants, you're a little 'left of center', certainly not afraid to admit it and wear it as a badge of honour. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if I had the guts I would; you have & do, kudos. If you were here at "the arse-end of the world" I'd really love to introduce you to a friend of mine, he sounds like your long long twin (but without the ADHD). He's a harp player and vocalist with a keen interest in everything (esp. cooking).
What I was trying to say that this Fairminded character sounded like someone who either over medicated, or got into someone else's meds cabinet. Neither is recommended. No slur on ADD or ADHD was intended. -DJ
PS: English journalist Melvin Bragg once beautifully described David Helfgott as being "...Like James Joyce on speed." :)
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2009 10:10 PM
DuWayne:
I did Ritalin for a while some years back, never much liked it. I take Adderall, now, but my last subsidized scrip is about gone and there's no way I can afford to pay for it and still have enough money for drinks and gambling. Well, it's been fun being marginally productive; but, then again, I never really minded being unproductive--except when people gave me shit about it.
Posted by: democommie | February 10, 2009 10:27 PM
Posted by: Paul Murray | February 10, 2009 10:29 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | February 10, 2009 11:07 PM
I recently posted a wee bit about Mr. Phelps, pot and Sergeant Friday at my blog, you may find it mildly amusing.
http://torhershman.blogspot.com/
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
Posted by: Tor Hershman | February 10, 2009 11:34 PM
James, I took my first ride on the dog sometime early in the last half of the last century. The logo was a dog. We rode the bus. We rode the dog. I always considered it a first hand lesson in how language evolves.
I first heard it spoken aloud by old black men in a station somewhere in the northeast; possibly Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. I traveled to those places with my father back then, so it's a likely source.
More recently, post 2000, I have had occasion to wear out my ass on the most abusive seats in the transportation industry.* On any given trip I am nearly assured of hearing the phrase spoken by some fellow traveler.
Ain't it cool to speak a living language?
*I don't know why it is but my butt don't fit them seats. A travel pillow is a must on the bus, yet I don't need one on airplanes, trains, trucks, cars, broomsticks, carpets, or dragons. Riddle me this.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 10, 2009 11:38 PM
Did I mention that I once rode the dog from Wyoming to Arkansas and not only lost my luggage but met a kid surnamed Malarkey who just happened to have primo hashish? No? Well, you're right. Hadn't got around to that yet.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 10, 2009 11:53 PM
Jeff Handy (way up there): You make a mistake that I was accused, incorrectly, of making in my own discussion of marijuana as an economic stimulus. (And, btw, why don't some of you who haven't shown up -- and are sane -- drift over there as well. The discussion there is more limited to the practical proposition of actually getting marijuana legalized, and many of your comments would be useful.)
But, Jeff, taxes are not stimuluses. They are transfers. Stimuluses -- and marijuana legalization definitely is one -- increase the money in circulation. Taxes may provide revenue that can be spent on stimulus projects, but tht is a whole different thing.
And the stimulus effect from marijuana would be $2 billion per month, while taxes would raise for the state only about $2.5 billion per year -- and an equivalent amount for the state.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 11, 2009 1:15 AM
Crudely Wrott, Thanks for responding. It's great to hear that the phrase has such a long history. I haven't ridden the dog in years, but have vivid memories of a trip from San Francisco to Indiana a couple of decades ago. I still tell stories about that trip, even though it didn't involve hash (although my one and only experience with coke happened while riding the dog from L.A. to Fresno.)
Posted by: James Hanley | February 11, 2009 8:41 AM
I'm a staunch advocate of legalization, but I'd like to point out that Fairminded has a very unsophisticated understanding of the Constitution when he says government doesn't have any authority to ban it.
Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Marijuana undoubtedly moves in interstate commerce, and the power to regulate is the power to ban--a ban is just a very strict regulation.
And states have the authority, under the general police power (to regulate for citizens' health, safety and welfare) to ban intoxicating substances.
I don't support those bans, but I don't think our cause is helped by making stupid arguments that supporters of the drug war can knock down with a feather.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 11, 2009 8:47 AM
James - A serious question:
If Marijuana Dispensaries required their clients to show proof that a) A doctor prescribed it and b) they live within the state, by what authority does the Federal Government raid said dispensaries and/or clients? I'm mean it can't be 'interstate commerce' since that would require the Feds to prove that a) the dispensary was selling dope (usually they get around this by giving it away) and/or b) the client is on-selling the dope and/or c) such trade crossed state lines, surely? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 11, 2009 9:03 AM
Two beatniks in a car:
The driver says, "Anything comin' from the right?"
The passenger says, "Just a dog, man."
They wake up in adjoining hospital beds.
The driver says, "Wow, that must have been one big dog!"
The passenger says, "Dig, man, it was a Greyhound!"
Early to mid 50's joke.
Posted by: democommie | February 11, 2009 9:13 AM
DC,
Good one. I'm going to use it next time I'm at the bar.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 11, 2009 9:20 AM
Dingo,
Where was the dope grown? Did it cross state lines?
And even if it didn't, the case of Wickard v. Filburn still controls, a case in which the Supreme Court said that 20 acres of wheat grown for a farmer's personal consumption affected interstate commerce because it meant that was 20 acres worth of wheat that he wouldn't be buying. It was a New Deal era decision, and--I believe--very stupidly decided. But it still shapes commerce clause jurisprudence today. (If only we could get justices conservative enough to overrule Wickard, but not conservative enough to overrule Mapp and Miranda.)
Posted by: James Hanley | February 11, 2009 9:27 AM
James - thanks. But would they have to actually prove an affect on commerce, or would a possibility of harm be sufficient grounds? Also would it be possible for the Pres to abolish states on the basis that any idiotic decision they make might wreck the economy? That would get Wickard v Filburn overturned quick smart, or risk a second civil war* -DJ
*(no, I'm not serious)
Posted by: DingoJack | February 11, 2009 10:06 AM
democommie -
You should see if you can get your doctor to switch you to dextroamphetamine extended-release, the generic equivalent to Dexedrine ER. It isn't a strict generic equivalent to Adderall, but the difference is mainly in patent. I can't remember for the life of me who it was, but one of the SciBloggers here wrote about it more than a year ago. He said the only significant difference was changing the chemistry just enough to get a new patent drug. dectroamphetimine er is only twenty bucks for ninety, as apposed to several hundred for Adderall.
I really wish I had script coverage, because I would really like to try Vyvanse, which actually extends release metabolically. It's supposed to have very of the common stimulant therapy side effects.
I don't care for the Ritalin as much, but saving every bit I can is helpful, though I am thinking that when it comes time for my next appointment, I am going to see about making the switch. I get headaches with the Ritalin, that just aren't such an issue with amphetamines. (though I have never been on Adderall - I did a work trade with a guy, to get him to make me pure amphetamine in dose specific tabs)
DJ -
I really appreciate many of the aspects of my neurological proclivities. There are some definite downsides, but overall, I also get a lot from it. I am firmly of the belief that not only does it benefit me, the sorts of neurological proclivities that I have, have a definite value to society as a whole. Lest I come off as sounding even more arrogant and narcissistic than I actually am, I mean those qualities in the people who have them, not just me specifically.
So I try to foster positivity about neurological issues and those of us who have them. The dominant social paradigm is stuck on the notion that these are all a complete negative, instead of embracing the understanding that it's just atypical. There are profound correlations between this and the dominant addiction paradigm, which is what I really should be studying and outlining my paper about right now. But I will get there.
Prup -
I actually have a sinking feeling that fairminded is a friend of mine. I got an email from a friend who goes off on tares like that, mentioning how much he enjoyed some of the posts on my blog. I know a mutual friend has mentioned Ed's blog to him, so if he hit mine....
Yes, I have some very nutty friends. But I don't disavow my friends because they happen to have strange and occasionally even stupid ideas. If it is him, I should note that he's a fucking genius when it comes to things mechanical, machining and microcircuitry.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 11, 2009 11:04 AM
Just remember - political sabotage is alive and well in our government. An agency of the executive branch that continues a policy that the *person in charge* of that branch has publicly stated he does not support and would like to see stopped - well, if you need any further proof, I don't know what that would be.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 11, 2009 11:19 AM
4James Hanley: "I'm a staunch advocate of legalization, but I'd like to point out that Fairminded has a very unsophisticated understanding of the Constitution when he says government doesn't have any authority to ban it.
Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Marijuana undoubtedly moves in interstate commerce, and the power to regulate is the power to ban--a ban is just a very strict regulation.
And states have the authority, under the general police power (to regulate for citizens' health, safety and welfare) to ban intoxicating substances."
James Hanley, you got your head SO FAR UP YOUR AZZ... it is for these kinds of posts that I do not "hang out" at idiot-poster-superstars sites like this.
As usual, most people have missed the point completely and/or grossly misinterpreted what I write. They then spit out mangled garbage that others read.
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 11, 2009 1:12 PM
This is my last post on this stupid, lamer blog, then I'm deleting the link to it from off my favorites list.
The filth James Hanley so ignorantly spewed in his haste to overrule my entire principle, he twisted what I said, and launched his "power to ban" (substances) based on "interstate commerce" blather.
It is due to gross misunderstandings of the US Constitution like his that is the main reason lazy-minded people never see the clear and simple point I brought up earlier in my posts.
It has nothing to do with BANNING.
It has to do with making laws (fraudulently, against original legislature) that provide for the prosecution and imprisonment of US citizens for personal consumption and private possession of SUBSTANCES based on their FREEDOM of choice.
FREEDOM of choice and to choose for one's own self is what America was ENTIRELY based on.
Look at the pornography.
Look at the strongest and deadliest possible substances: alcohol and tobacco (nicotine).
ALL completely LEGAL
You must ask "WHY."
It is because of ALL the reasons I already clearly stated.
The more you listen to blatantly ignorant and stupid minds, of the likes of James Hanley, the further away from the reality and truth of what I wrote, you will be.
You guys have a nice day and have a nice LIFE... on this ridiculous blog. I shall not return.
Fairminded
Posted by: Fairminded | February 11, 2009 1:30 PM
Fairlymaimed:
Don't go away all pissed off, just go away.
Posted by: democommie | February 11, 2009 3:00 PM
Dingo,
They don't have to prove an effect on interstate commerce, just make a plausible argument. The Supreme Court is rather deferential to Congress on that point. Since the Great Depression, they have overturned, IIRC, exactly two laws on the grounds that they don't affect interstate commerce, the Gun Free School Zones Act (United States v. Lopez, 1995) and the Violence Against Women Act( U.S. v. Morrison, 2000.
The president can't dissolve states. The U.S. Constitution specifies how new states can be formed (notably, West Virginia was formed in clear violation of the constitutional rules), but does not create any process for actually dissolving a state, so that is not a power lodged in the federal government. A plausible reading, however, is that a state could be effectively dissolved by breaking it into several constituent parts as new states, but only with the consent of the legislature of the original state.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 11, 2009 11:39 PM
This is suspiciously similar to my student evaluations...
Posted by: James Hanley | February 11, 2009 11:43 PM