Slashdot Mirror
Pot Grower's Privacy Challenged
damaged_sectors writes "A map marking what are supposed to be secret locations of 60 warehouses and other buildings where medical marijuana is grown in Boulder has accidentally been made public by the city. Officials say an 'oversight' led them to publish the map on the city's Web site. Kathy Haddock, Boulder's senior assistant city attorney who advises the council on medical marijuana issues, said Thursday that the map would be removed from the city's Web site. No conspiracy here folks. In other news the council will decide at its Jan. 18 meeting whether Boulder should circumvent the open records act exemption for cultivation centers by requiring applicants for medical marijuana business licenses to waive their right to privacy. The council could force all growing centers to sign such a waiver as a condition of receiving a city-issued business license. While the risk this would make it easier for Federal authorities to raid grow-ops might not concern council members and others opposed to medical marijuana — I have to wonder what sort of mentality thinks exposing growers to the very real risk of armed robbery by criminals is justifiable."
But let's compare to some other businesses. Banks, for instance, are businesses that are often targeted by criminals. They - OH MY GOD - list their addresses publically! I feel the bank's right to privacy has been violated here. Not only that, but how can the banks survive now that the criminals know where they are?! OMG!
Seriously, people. If you legalize the growing of marijuana, it's just like any other product now. You want to run a respectable business, then do it. If you are concerned about security, do what any other company concerned about security would do, put down the pipe, and GET SOME SECURITY.
"Medical marijuana" is just a scam. 60 "grow facilities" in Boulder, Colorado? Four times as many "dispensaries" in San Jose as 7-11s?.
If it's to be treated as a medical treatment, it should be moved to Schedule II or III, prescribed by doctors, and distributed through pharmacies. Some people need to be on full-time pain relievers, but not that many. And in real treatment, you try to get people off medication.
Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.
Let's be clear - this is a business license. The city is well within their right to place requirements on a business as part of a business license application. Now, the term used here was waive their "right to privacy", but this is almost certainly not what the city ordinance will say. The ordinance will likely say that inspections can be done to ensure compliance with state law as well as for public safety reasons to make sure that there isn't a fire danger.
I'm not sure what the intentions of Boulder are, but we just got done crafting our own city ordinances for our small town in Montana. I think we did a fantastic job and one of the key objectives of writing it was to set up the guidelines under which the business license could be issued. The other major concern was zoning. At no time did any of us think, "Oh, we gotta collect all this information so we can do a raid." We collected it because a) it's the same information we collect for other businesses and b) there are some special concerns related to public safety and it would be completely irresponsible to to ignore those. For example, we require a security system and an inspection to make sure one was installed.
----- obSig
srsly, mods - a 0? a plant is a plant.
the government should be protecting citizens rights, not eliminating them.
regardless of the speculation about negative longterm effects (which are not founded in scientific research), the plant can grow almost fucking anywhere. someone can toss a seed in your yard and it will grow. would you want to be arrested for that?
You want to argue for legalization of marijuana? Fine, argue for the tax potential. Or take a philosophical perspective to liberty and how severe ill effect should the be before we limit that. Or argue based on actual data about countries where it is legal. Or argue that we shouldn't criminalize something that we can't really control. I still won't agree with your conclusion but those are all valid views on which reasonable arguments can be based upon.
But the "It's a plant" and "You can't criminalize a plant, man" are just stupid. If you are saying that everything natural should be legal just because it is natural, you are arguing for cannibalism, murder, incest and numerous other things that do occur in nature but we prefer to keep illegal. When arguing whether substance X should be legal or illegal is really quite irrelevant from whether it is created by growing plants or synthetizing it in a laboratory (aside from the "difficult to control" thing, which is whole another argument)
Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.
They absolutely should if it's prescription medicine.
If pot were legalized then I would agree with you, but medicinal marijuana != legalized marijuana.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
And this becomes a non-issue. After all liquor stores publicize their locations. After all liquor is a more addictive, more harmful drug by orders of magnitude yet it is regulated and legal.
Absolutely. However, don't ask a public or private ER to treat you at their or taxpayer's expense when you snort crystal drain cleaner. Don't expect food stamps or welfare from taxpayers when you make stupid choices that make you un/underemployed. Don't expect even medicare to take care of ailments that are likely traceable to such stupid decisions.
I agree completely with you, but there are two sides to the coin. On one there is personal freedom, on the other is personal responsibility and accountability. Pick both or neither.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Absolutely. However, don't ask a public or private ER to treat you at their or taxpayer's expense when you snort crystal drain cleaner.
So long as they also refuse to treat the obese, or those engaging in contact sports and other dangerous lifestyle choices.
Exactly. Just as to be an organ recipient, you should be listed as an organ donor.
Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.
They absolutely should if it's prescription medicine.
Growing a plant that can be used to produce prescription medicine doesn't require a license.
If pot were legalized then I would agree with you, but medicinal marijuana != legalized marijuana.
It's not, but it's technically not a prescription drug either. It's still against federal law and federal law provides for prosecution of medicinal marijuana as well as recreational marijuana. Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Absolutely. However, don't ask a public or private ER to treat you at their or taxpayer's expense when you snort crystal drain cleaner. Don't expect food stamps or welfare from taxpayers when you make stupid choices that make you un/underemployed. Don't expect even medicare to take care of ailments that are likely traceable to such stupid decisions.
OK, wait... four words: Lung Cancer and Alcoholics.
In addition: Don't try learning to ice skate! Everyone falls a few times while doing so -- It's stupid to think you'll be the only one not to fall down! Insurance & Medicare should be denied to people who are stupid enough to strap blades to their feet and travel unnaturally fast on slippery surfaces. (IMHO, Hockey is safer than Figure Skating -- The latter should wear protective gear.)
I agree completely with you, but there are two sides to the coin.
Likewise!
On one there is personal freedom, on the other is personal responsibility and accountability. Pick both or neither.
This is a false dichotomy! One can be both personally responsible, and a fool. One can be both free and restricted by laws.
Not all drugs are created equal. I would place marijuana somewhere between Tobacco and Alcohol -- Both of which are already legal.
Let us not forget that prohibition allowed the mobsters to use illegal alcohol profits to fuel their wars. Remember this when you consider the drug cartel wars that Mexico is experiencing.
The answer is simple -- Tax it and regulate recreational drugs, prohibition only funds the terrorists while draining our resources via a futile fight to preserve the ban.
What constitutes a dangerous lifestyle choice? In terms of injuries, running and jogging are just about the most dangerous things that anybody does. Probably the only things worse are things that people do for the express purpose of harming themselves.
The answer is simple -- Tax it and regulate...
Exactly!
Thousands are being murdered annually because of the demand for Marijuana in the US. In one fell swoop we could clean out our prisons of people who shouldn't have been sent there, shut down the Mexican and American drug lords, and find a new source of taxes. We could also renew research on medical uses of Marijuana, especially Rick Simpson's discovery that it may be a cure for Cancer (see YouTube). Medical Marijuana is not a myth. The US Gov patented almost two dozen medical uses for it. See patent # 6630507.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
So is alcohol. I suspect more people are killed by drunks than by the stoned.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."
I've come to understand that for a, surprisingly large, portion of the population, that is exactly the way they think. It's like they have no concept that it is the duty of the citizenry to judge the law.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Does one tenuous correlation to a very small increase in a very small risk really justify jailing thousands of otherwise mild mannered and productive people?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
All bullshit. For every one of those studies I can show you why it's flawed or why it can't be trusted because it is a GOVERNMENT FUNDED STUDY. The government doesn't fund ANYONE to study pot unless they intend to show it causes harmful effects.
Physical dependence is bullshit. Nobody (except quite possibly a TINY PERCENTAGE of users) develops physical dependence to marijuana.
In regards to psychosis, a study in a British journal recently found that is a flawed assertion.
In regards to emphysema, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA studied marijuana and tobacco smokers for over 20 years, and found that smoking marijuana slightly REDUCED chances of developing lung cancer or emphysema.
Got any more pearls of wisdom you'd like to share with us ignorant pot smokers?