Should it be decriminalized? Legalized? I'm talking about for peeps who are 18 or maybe 21? With some reasonable restrictions.

Hermy is going to pass along an edumacation in this thread, stay tuned.

i think it would be too tough to control, how could you test for impairment to drive a vehicle

i think it would be too tough to control, how could you test for impairment to drive a vehicle

Good point. Driving. I'm pretty sure out here they have a lil thing they wipe on your lips or test your saliva and I think it turns a color or something if positive. Then a follow up blood test.

The only way marajawana(sic...SouthPark) would be legalized is if tobacco companies were allowed to add it to their cigarettes, like "Camel Red, with THC (or something. I doubt they'd call it marajuana).

Straight up, I don't think activists groups would allow it. Watered down, I think it's got a chance... commercially.

Medically, it's being tried here in Cali, to various results. As long as somebody has an eye on it, I'm good with it's wide use for ailments. I know just down the street from me there was a medicinal marajuana shop run by some suspect individuals. It lasted a grand total of four months, then was shut down. A mile or so west of that spot is another shop, different owner, been around much longer, still in business.

I agree with Gus. I could care less if people smoke it in their home. But how do you catch people driving high?

Maybe you can, I'm no expert.

It's no worse than booze.

Ban booze or make MJ legal.

It's no worse than booze.

Ban booze or make MJ legal.
You are correct about what is worse. I agree %100. However you can test blood alcohol levels, and use breathalizers. Can you do that sort of test with pot? And I mean an officer in the field.

Also, there is the argument of pot as a gateway drug. You can argue that however you wish. Booze doesn't make you do other drugs (yes you can get addicted, but that's different). Apparently pot can (I don't use it, so I'm no expert on the subject). That's not a reason to make it illegal though. Fast food leads to obesity as well. The owness of an abuse is on the user, not the law IMO.

If there was a way to field test pot levels then I wouldn't be opposed to making it legal (but illegal to drive under the influence of course).

Unless you are talking about legalizing it to get an added tax revenue from taxing the hell out of it or to get the government to stop wasting money "fighting" it (do they fight reefer?), I don't get why any change is needed. Those who want it, get it. Just keep the stuff quiet and you can live your whole life with it.

No way to test for use in any immediacy. Canaboids remain stored in fat (thus blood) for weeks. They are not the active ingredient, but the primary decectable one. There is no way to tell chemically if an indivual is "under the effect, and further, there is no way to tell what would be the limit of impairment. I've used stuff that acted for half a day, others were gone in a couple hours.

And yes fool, I own a home, I can live my whole life with it, but I live my life as a criminal.

Well, I'm sure they tax it just like they do on alcohol and ciggs. Of course you'd get more revanue out of it. I suspect you'd still spend money fighting it (the selling of it to minors and various other fights even if it were legal).

And people would still get it from other sources. There would be some revanue created for sure though.

No way to test for use in any immediacy. Canaboids remain stored in fat (thus blood) for weeks. They are not the active ingredient, but the primary decectable one. There is no way to tell chemically if an indivual is "under the effect, and further, there is no way to tell what would be the limit of impairment. I've used stuff that acted for half a day, others were gone in a couple hours.

And yes fool, I own a home, I can live my whole life with it, but I live my life as a criminal.

That's were the problem is then. How can you allow it's legel use when you can't really police a legal limit?

Also, there is the argument of pot as a gateway drug. You can argue that however you wish. Booze doesn't make you do other drugs (yes you can get addicted, but that's different). Apparently pot can (I don't use it, so I'm no expert on the subject).



No, its just those of us who are willing to disobey convention in minor aspects are willing to disobey in major ways. If the first drug I was offered was coke, I would have done it. It just wasn't around me in 8th grade.

If anything there is an opposite effect to the criminalization of pot as the masses of ignorant are exposed to dope as being safe despite their prior learnings, then question "If dope really was OK, then maybe I'll shoot up some heroin too, hell, I can handle anything". The way to minimalize dangerous drug use is to provide genuine drug education in our schools and media instead of marginalizing all narcotics into one Nancy Reagan slogan.

On the taxation subject there is the issue that few fools would buy it. One well maintained plant provides enough to keep a recreational user high for a year, or to just give en mass to his user friends.

There would be some purchases, but it wouldn't be the volume some might anticpate.

And yes fool, I own a home, I can live my whole life with it, but I live my life as a criminal.

Your choice captain. Is it really that terrible? Must not be as bad as living without the sticky and how bad is that? I'd say its not bad, thus your life as a criminal = better than "not bad".

People buy water in droves and that shit falls from the fucking sky.

pot, im my experiences, is definitly a gateway drug. i dont know one heavy smoker who hasnt atleast expiremented into other drugs.

i wont say which plan of action i endorse, because i think there is a downside to any plan, but education is definitly a faultless plan. schools should spend more time educating students on things that are actually applicable to their lives, true sex ed, true drug ed, true financing and debt ed. why shouldnt school have a practical side to it?

Your choice captain. Is it really that terrible? Must not be as bad as living without the sticky and how bad is that? I'd say its not bad, thus your life as a criminal = better than "not bad".

And similairly the change you say is not needed wouldn't be all that bad either, would it?

also, i thought we gave up on the war on drugs (and organized crime) to concentrate on the war on terror.

pot, im my experiences, is definitly a gateway drug. i dont know one heavy smoker who hasnt atleast expiremented into other drugs.




Do you know one heavy user who hasn't tried pot? Again there is simply a category of personality type you can call "user", and pot usually comes first due to availability.

also, i thought we gave up on the war on drugs (and organized crime) to concentrate on the war on terror.

Drug users are terrorists.

also, i thought we gave up on the war on drugs (and organized crime) to concentrate on the war on terror.

Well, we all know how the war on terror is going, maybe the US needs another war they think they can win.

well that may be, but i dont think that rebutts the notion of pot being a gateway drug.

and if the argument is: pot isnt that bad in and of itself, but it leads to other drugs, and other drugs are bad/ then you can understand why increasing the availability of pot could be a bad thing. i realize that pot is ridiculously easy to get, and maybe legalizing pot but not other drugs maybe creats a discontinuity and eliminates the "gateway" aspect to it, but i think the anti-legalization argument is strong. off hand, i think drug sentencing needs to be reformatted, but not the legalization.

People buy water in droves and that shit falls from the fucking sky.

I know, I'll never understand some people and water. I drink bottled stuff occasionally (out of convenience on the road), but at home we have a filter on the tap. I can understand some people just having shitty water, but other's I don't get it. They just don't drink enough water to get used to its slight tastes.

well that may be, but i dont think that rebutts the notion of pot being a gateway drug.

and if the argument is: pot isnt that bad in and of itself, but it leads to other drugs, and other drugs are bad/ then you can understand why increasing the availability of pot could be a bad thing. i realize that pot is ridiculously easy to get, and maybe legalizing pot but not other drugs maybe creats a discontinuity and eliminates the "gateway" aspect to it, but i think the anti-legalization argument is strong. off hand, i think drug sentencing needs to be reformatted, but not the legalization.


No bd, the arguement is that pot doesn't lead to other drugs, it just (almost) always comes first. If pot never existed I still would have used the other drugs, I would have used them when I did in highschool, and wouldn't have used any drugs in middle school (when I tried dope).

And similairly the change you say is not needed wouldn't be all that bad either, would it?

We can analyse how things are, we can only "predict" how change might alter things.

But in general, no I don't think making it legal to be a pot head would end the world.

Bottled water costs $2.50. I would suppose a plants worth of pot would cost several hundred dollars if prices remained near the same. But maybe you are right.

well thats your argument, mine was an anti-legalization one. im not sure if i agree with you. i suspect someone could do a study on this. i've never known anyone to do other drugs (except for painkillers and maybe E) before trying weed. i realize your saying its availability. i guess i could see that being true in alot of cases.

No bd, the arguement is that pot doesn't lead to other drugs, it just (almost) always comes first. If pot never existed I still would have used the other drugs, I would have used them when I did in highschool, and wouldn't have used any drugs in middle school (when I tried dope).
Weren't you the one arguing that making pot sound like its as bad as everything else leads kids who are cool with pot's effects to think other drugs are similar? You are arguing both sides.


Bottled water costs $2.50. I would suppose a plants worth of pot would cost several hundred dollars if prices remained near the same. But maybe you are right.
You just fucking did it again. First its so damn plentiful that the dude on the corner will be keeping the whole block supplied. Now its so expensive that people won't be able to afford it.

Pick a side criminal!

We can analyse how things are, we can only "predict" how change might alter things.

But in general, no I don't think making it legal to be a pot head would end the world.

Well, I am not willing to predict how it would change me not to have it, as the last time that was true it was more than half my life ago.

Weren't you the one arguing that making pot sound like its as bad as everything else leads kids who are cool with pot's effects to think other drugs are similar? You are arguing both sides.


No, read it again. That is simply the effect of purposeful miseducation, not some forced effect of use.

You just fucking did it again. First its so damn plentiful that the dude on the corner will be keeping the whole block supplied. Now its so expensive that people won't be able to afford it.


The stuff you grow is cheap.

The stuff you buy is expensive.

Please read my posts. Thanks.

You don't think people will sell what they grow? I mean, they already do it now illegally. Once its legal to do it, you think they'll stop? You think they are in it for the thrill?

How do they make the stuff they sell? Does it fall from the sky like another product I know that sells for $2.50 a bottle (or about 1 cent a gallon)?

No bd, the arguement is that pot doesn't lead to other drugs, it just (almost) always comes first. If pot never existed I still would have used the other drugs, I would have used them when I did in highschool, and wouldn't have used any drugs in middle school (when I tried dope).

I've never used any of them, but I know plenty of people who used pot because it was pretty available and other people were using them. They figured why not I guess. I suspect some of those people enjoyed the effects and tried other things. That makes it a gateway drug (if you believe people do follow that path). They probably woulnd't drop acid or anything, but might take the risk after feeling the effects of pot and liking it.

It's kindof like a hot chick giving you a blow job and wondering whether it might lead to sex. You might not have had sex with her (because you are saving yourself, or for whatever reason) but once she starts giving you oral suddenly your tune changes.

Use young kids as an example. We've all read the reports of 12 year olds saying BJ's aren't the same as sex. Maybe not, but I bet those BJ's lead to more a lot more often than they would have before.

Again there is simply a category of personality type you can call "user", and pot usually comes first due to availability.

Couldn't agree more.

Denny. The feds come in bust those state allowed distribution places up here in NoCal. Not turning this into a political debate but the Reps/Conservatives always talk about states rights, till it disagrees with their thinking. CA was the first, now AZ, Oregon, NV, Wash and Alaska have passed simillar props. (edit Props making medical mj legal with a prescription)

On 'just do it in your home' point. The problem is that someone has to sell it to the person who is just wanting to use it in their home. So the end game might be harmless but that person risks felony charges.

I'm pretty sure the CHP have a lil cotton swab type thing and it can show positive immediately.

You don't think people will sell what they grow? I mean, they already do it now illegally. Once its legal to do it, you think they'll stop? You think they are in it for the thrill?

How do they make the stuff they sell? Does it fall from the sky like another product I know that sells for $2.50 a bottle (or about 1 cent a gallon)?


Why buy from a friend when another has piles of the shit in his back yard for free, or you can make your own?

No, read it again. That is simply the effect of purposeful miseducation, not some forced effect of use.

So wait, you don't think kids who like using reefer will make the quantum leap that they might enjoy other shit that fucks you up without learning about it in school? I didn't know the "drug problem" in America didn't exist until Nancy came along.

I've never used any of them, but I know plenty of people who used pot because it was pretty available and other people were using them. They figured why not I guess. I suspect some of those people enjoyed the effects and tried other things. That makes it a gateway drug (if you believe people do follow that path). They probably woulnd't drop acid or anything, but might take the risk after feeling the effects of pot and liking it.

It's kindof like a hot chick giving you a blow job and wondering whether it might lead to sex. You might not have had sex with her (because you are saving yourself, or for whatever reason) but once she starts giving you oral suddenly your tune changes.

Use young kids as an example. We've all read the reports of 12 year olds saying BJ's aren't the same as sex. Maybe not, but I bet those BJ's lead to more a lot more often than they would have before.


Well, at that level I guess it's the same as drinking.

Why buy from a friend when another has piles of the shit in his back yard for free, or you can make your own?

I got this thing in my kitchen that spits out that stuff in the bottle, you can come over any time and carry that shit away in buckets. Back a truck up to the house if you want. Or you can buy it for $2.50 from the corner store.

Your choice.

So wait, you don't think kids who like using reefer will make the quantum leap that they might enjoy other shit that fucks you up without learning about it in school? I didn't know the "drug problem" in America didn't exist until Nancy came along.

And we had drug problems before pot.

Right, because of schools. Fucking schools.

Well, at that level I guess it's the same as drinking.
Drinking is a gateway drug as well. As I said a few posts back, it being a gateway drug isn't a reason to make it illegal. Eating pretzels in a bar might make me more likely to have an extra beer, and thus drive home drunk. It doesn't mean the pretzels shouldn't be there. The owness to not make the leap to another drug is on the user.

The reasons to have it illegal would be because you cannot field police it properly as mentioned above.

I got this thing in my kitchen that spits out that stuff in the bottle, you can come over any time and carry that shit away in buckets. Back a truck up to the house if you want. Or you can buy it for $2.50 from the corner store.

Your choice.


You gonna charge me $10 per sip? I'll take the tap for free, thanks. Especially if the bottles come in a convenient zig zag pack.

Its not as fun for me if you miss the analogy.

Drinking is a gateway drug as well. As I said a few posts back, it being a gateway drug isn't a reason to make it illegal. Eating pretzels in a bar might make me more likely to have an extra beer, and thus drive home drunk. It doesn't mean the pretzels shouldn't be there. The owness to not make the leap to another drug is on the user.

The reasons to have it illegal would be because you cannot field police it properly as mentioned above.


Very fair.

Its not as fun for me if you miss the analogy.
Please, break it down so you can be easily dismissed again.

If by "dismissed" you mean "blindly holding to your incorrect presumption" then I will explain it again.

Its silly to think that once its legal no one will buy it when people buy it while its illegal for them to do so. Its sillier to say that it will be both too plentiful and too expensive and thus no one will be able to, nor want to buy it. Its just plain dumb to pretend like there isn't a market for both the cheap as hell stuff and the "designer" (I would guess that would be its future label in our hypothetical world) stuff, as this already exists, and as there is with almost every other product available for purchase in the USA.

The stuff from my sink is the cheap/free stuff. The designer stuff is the bottle at 7-11. Getting it free from your neighbor, buying it for $2 a bag, and paying for the good shit is exactly what you would do if it was legal. Just like you do with water, or food, or whatever the hell you want to use as an analogy.

And no, schools don't make pot a gateway drug. If that in fact, is what it is.

First let me appologize, if I did say "No one" I meant "not a lot". Some would obviously buy it, but not in a quantity to justify the whole "we'll make a shit-load of tax dollars arguement".


People buy it now because it is also illegal (and more difficult to hide) to grow.

I wouldn't dare plant in my back yard, but I'll hide a baggie in my sock drawer.

Here is the designer issue. The better quality will presumibly be available locally. Its a issue of freshness and strength, and I'm not sure if companies would be willing to sell "super weed" with higher THC levels that ships fresh into the produce section. Meanwhile its easy to get a seed from super quality product (free with every purchase).

Or maybe they would be in this market, we do sell super high proof alchohol, but the perception there is different. That and my assumption is the price ceiling would be set very high with the level of taxation. If they want to sell packs of joints at $5 a pack, oh yeah, I'll buy the convenient shit. But the prices I see at Hash Clubs rivals the price on the street where you're talking $100 a pack and consumers would seek out alternitives.

I love how you've narrowed the market. All those areas would exist and prosper. Once its legal, people will do all kinds of shit to it they would never chance now. Sell it with sticks of bubble gum, make it smell like strawberries and sell it as air fresheners that make you feel good, Starbucks would probably make a coffee out of it. All taxable revenue.

Think of all the things you could make or grow but don't because who wants to when you can just buy it. And the freshness/potency/morality issue isn't an issue, the answer is "money". Safe to say the way you've seen weed your whole life wouldn't be anywhere near what the market would look like with it legal.

I suspect this would be a controlled market? Only sold legally in rare places? I'll agree if you can sell it in these specialty senses I'll wholely buy into the idea, but that would be a big suprise and outside the model of other nations.

Ok. Controlled I will concede your perspective. Clearly I had been envisioning a freer form of "legal".

The legal limit for alcohol assumes that there's definite impairment at .08-.1% BAC. That's just not true for everyone -- for some, it's more, and for some, it's a lot less. We've made the presence of some particular BAC while on the road a crime regardless of what the actual impairment may be. In the case of THC, even if one could detect its presence from a road-side test and get a rough idea of , there's the same issue. How much THC causes impairment? It varies by quite a bit. I'm opposed to laws that try to regular possession moreso than behavior, be it alcohol, marijuana, or pseudoephedrine.

Marijuana doesn't appear to be a "gateway drug" with folks in the Netherlands. There's a lot of folks who think the only reason it could be considered a "gateway" drug in the U.S. is because it's illegal. Making it legal but expensive would make it less of a gateway drug. Speaking of which... aren't cigarettes a "gateway" drug, especially in a teenage context where they're illegal?

As for legalized form factor -- howsabout FDA-approved marijuana brownies?
:)

I would be in favor of 'ZERO' tolerance on the road. Legal to do buy and smoke in your own home. They have roadside tests to detect it, but prolly not how much.

How are cigarettes a gateway drug? Using your Netherlands comparison, wouldn't that make the entire planet drug users?

The % of hard drug users that are also cigarette smokers is way high relative to the average population. 90% of smokers start smoking in their teens, when it's generally an illegal act (even in the Netherlands). The gateway effect is simple -- start with a little crime for a little high, then work your way up. Also, see:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/nida_notes/NNVol15N5/Craving.html

Part 1 sample size = 18 people
Part 2 sample size = 32 people.
Strong Mxy.

The study was to determine if ads with people saying "man this is better with a cigarette" make smokers (or drug users) want to smoke (or use drugs). I'm truly shocked at the result. I am also surprised to find that coke heads, when not out of their mind, can typically be found chomping on cigarettes.

Cigarettes are legal the world over. As I said, if it was a "gateway" then the world would be drug users.

I know quite a bit of smokers and not one of them did any other drug (at least that I knew of), besides smoking some weed once and a while. Ciggs are not a gateway drug IMO. No more so than caffine. Yes, you might crave more ciggs, but it doesn't create wild sensations that make you want to experiment more (at least in my opinion).

but it doesn't create wild sensations that make you want to experiment more (at least in my opinion).


Pot really doesn't do this Chris.

I said "also, see". That wasn't so much backing up what I had said to that point, but was in addition to what I said, because I thought that particular relationship between the addicitions sorta neat. I would've pointed at something like this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11110061&dopt=Citation

if I wanted a more direct citation:

Here's the government bugaboo about marijuana as a "gateway" drug:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg9-10.html


Q: Does marijuana lead to the use of other drugs?

A: It could. Long-term studies of high school students and their patterns of drug use show that very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana (7). For example, the risk of using cocaine is much greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it. Using marijuana puts children and teens in contact with people who are users and sellers of other drugs. So there is more of a risk that a marijuana user will be exposed to and urged to try more drugs.

To better determine this risk, scientists are examining the possibility that long-term marijuana use may create changes in the brain that make a person more at risk of becoming addicted to other drugs, such as alcohol or cocaine. Further research is needed to predict who will be at greatest risk.

Replace "marijuana" with "nicotine" and the paragraphs above remain fundamentally true. The person who illegally provides booze and|or cigs to underaged kids isn't far removed from the person who'd sell weed or speed or worse.

I'm bringing up cigarettes not to bash cigarette smokers, but to point out the problems with the "gateway" drug concept, which I think is broken. I suspect it's the illegal that makes things sexy. Tell someone they can't do something and they want to do it more than otherwise.

I'm fine with that. Sounds like a very loose definition of "leads to".

like i said, i think its definitly a gateway drug. generally speaking, in the drug exploration stage, it can be kind of awkward to smoke around non smokers. i cant even imagine a group of people snorting coke with one guy who's never done any illigal drugs. im sure it happens, but thats gotta be rare.

and of course theres the fact that its an illigal act. the sex anaolgy, or more on point maybe, i doubt most career thieves start by robbing safes, it probably starts at shoplifting and breaking through the morality barrier.

Transformers Star Megan Fox says...


The 21-year-old actress-and-model experimented with a host of illegal
substances before deciding marijuana was the only one she "enjoyed".

Megan told Maxim magazine: "I've done drugs, and that's how I know I don't like them.

"I tried several things in order to make an informed decision, but I didn't enjoy anything other than marijuana."


She said: "I don't even think of marijuana as a drug - it should be legalised."


This is hilarious on so many levels. I mean I did some crack and LSD so I could make an informed decision on whether pot should be legalized? Holy shit, I'm thinking the peeps at norml might not pick her up as their spokesperson.

experimentation is funny? i thought thats what alot of people did.

<-- has done alot of drugs, and the only drug i've really "got" was opium. but im trying to send my life in a different direction than junkie though. maybe in 10 years.

I know a lot of people who live to a ripe old age smoking weed. I don't know anyone who lived to a ripe old age drinking alcohol.

P.S. I completely disagree with the whole "gateway drug" thing. It works exactly the opposite way: if people are determined to shoot up heroin, a little weed isn't really going to scare them. Fact is, it's the heavy drug users who also smoke weed, not the n00b weed smokers who are suddenly going to decide that putting MDMA up your butt is a good idea.

I have done TONS of drugs, everything except for heroin (too risky), meth (waaaaay too risky) and opium (just not available). The only drugs I ever really liked enough to use them repeatedly were marijuana and Ecstasy. And frankly Ecstasy, as much as I enjoyed it, never seemed remotely safe enough to use more than 10 times. I don't use any drugs at all now, but I don't see any reason why a person who's at least 21 years old can't decide for themselves whether or not marijuana is a good idea.

The worst drug I've ever done was cocaine. The people you need to know in order to get cocaine are the worst people in the world, bar none. Just thinking about my coke friends soberly for 5 minutes causes me to wonder what the hell kind of person I was, hanging around people like that.

I'm for legalization/decriminilization with restrictions.

I know a lot of people who live to a ripe old age smoking weed. I don't know anyone who lived to a ripe old age drinking alcohol.
Tell that to the red wine drinkers in the south of France.


P.S. I completely disagree with the whole "gateway drug" thing.
I think what a "gateway" drug is needs to be better defined and understood if it is potentially to be used effectively.


The worst drug I've ever done was cocaine. The people you need to know in order to get cocaine are the worst people in the world, bar none. Just thinking about my coke friends soberly for 5 minutes causes me to wonder what the hell kind of person I was, hanging around people like that.
You don't necessarilyt need to "know" anyone. There's a stretch of a Detroit about 10 years ago where you would drive down it slowly and someone would knock on your window and ax you what you want. I found this out helping a friend of mine chase down his thieving cokehead stripper gf ("like Sandra Bullock in Forces Of Nature, but with track marks").

DEA raided LA MJ outlets.

I think it's funny how beaten into submission we are when it comes to government confiscation of our money. It's just assumed that if pot were legal it should naturally become the latest government cash cow. Taxed at absurdly high levels and "field tested" on the road so it can add another revenue stream to the vastly profitable DUI industry.

I wouldn't mind seeing it legal and subject to nothing more than ordinary sales tax.

When it comes to driving, if someone drives recklessly, destroying property or injuring people... charge them with reckless driving, destruction of property or causing death/injury. The whole impairment thing is just a convenient way to collect a lot of money from people who haven't actually done anything except get pulled over when the government wanted a payday.

I wouldn't want it legalized. I'd want it decriminalized...so the statutes are still on the books but no one is enforcing them.

I favor Decriminalegalization. :)


As the turf war between the federal government and local officials over medical marijuana continues, the Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to block more medicinal pot shops from opening over the next year.

City officials aim to weed out dope peddlers who are ignoring the intention of 1996's Proposition 215, which allows Californians to obtain marijuana for treatment of chronic pain, anorexia, cancer and other serious illness.

Since Los Angeles doesn't currently regulate or license shops - estimated at several hundred - the City Council voted to temporarily halt new stores while it develops a policy to separate ones selling the drugs for medical use from ones masking recreational sales under the banner of compassionate care.

As the city attempts to implement the policy, Councilman Dennis Zine sent a letter to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to ask it to back off raiding dispensaries.

The move came the same day as DEA agents raided the California Patients Group, a nonprofit center on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood, and nine other dispensaries in the city.

"The people of the state of California voted to have this legalized, and we want to do that," Zine said. "We need the ability in this society to help those people who need (marijuana) because of medical purposes - not because they want to get high, not because they want to commit some violation of the law, but for medical use."

Zine, a Republican ex-cop who says he's never tried the drug, asked the feds to back off to let the city police its own territory.

Before Wednesday's raids, the DEA sent more than 100 letters to landlords warning that pot shops are illegal.

"We're constitutionally mandated to uphold federal drug laws," said Special Agent Sarah Pullen, a spokeswoman with the agency's Los Angeles office. "We don't get involved in city or county politics."

Wednesday's raids led to five arrests on suspicion of distribution of marijuana and netted two handguns, large quantities of plants, dried drugs and edible products and "significant amounts of cash," Pullen said.

Though Pullen said the timing was coincidental, dispensary operator Reed Gordon described it as "a kick in the teeth to the City Council."

Gordon shut down his San Fernando Valley shop, which he said caters mainly to middle-aged patients, for the day and said the federal government is overriding the concept of states' rights. "I represent a product that I believe if you give it to 10 different people for 10 different things, most will benefit from it," he said. "I've seen it work."

Medical marijuana advocates praised the council's decision and said they hope the temporary moratorium will ease the DEA's scrutiny.

Sarah Armstrong said one of her regular collectives, Native Natural Care Collective in Reseda, recently closed after the operator's landlord received a letter from the DEA. It was the kind of dispensary that should be encouraged, she said - clean, well-maintained, secure and conscientious.

I wouldn't want it legalized. I'd want it decriminalized...so the statutes are still on the books but no one is enforcing them.
If a statute isn't going to be enforced, then it doesn't belong on the books. Otherwise, some podunk cop or judge somewhere who "didn't get the memo" about laws silently being unenforced does something stupid to make news.

I'm in favor of making marijuana as legal as produce, which means it's still under FDA rules as far as safety, how it's sold, truth in advertising, etc. Non-edible uses of marijuana/hemp should fall under the same laws that other related consumer products do.