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."
Governments should't be keeping secrets
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.
I support medical cannabis -- indeed, I support the end of all drug prohibition laws. But how is there a "right to privacy" any more than for any other pharmacetuical? Every pharmacy has stuff with more street value than weed, yet the locations of licensed pharmacies are public records, aren't they?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"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.
As a former Boulder resident, I challenge anyone who thinks this is a privacy issue to find any address in Boulder where they aren't growing pot. It's as "legal" there as it is anywhere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Quote:
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." ...
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
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
The danish can:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/1499735/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-disabled-Danes-visits-to-prostitutes.html
In a move that has provoked angry protests but has delighted the country's legalised sex industry, the Danish government has launched an information campaign advising the disabled how best to go about obtaining erotic services.
...
In Aarhus, the second-largest city, disabled residents have been told that they may visit a brothel or call a male or female prostitute to their home once a month and pass the bill - which can be up to £300 - on to the state.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
On the other hand...
Long-Time Marijuana Use Linked to Psychosis in Young Adults
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You want an argument for legalization? Here you go: (And I don't even use marijuana!)
If a bunch of pot smokers want to turn their brains to Jello and wreck their lungs, throats and mouths, let them. They are hurting no one but themselves. If you' say that we'll have increased health care spending, so what? If pot were legalized, you can believe that A) every single private health insurance company is going to mandate tests for marijuana and other drugs and deny coverage to those smoking pot without a prescription. Then they'll be stuck with public health care, which will not treat them because public health care is now using the same private health insurance companies mentioned above.
Besides, legal or not, they're going to do it anyway.
Plus, you can now tax the hell out of it, regulate the content (pot laced with other drugs like Angel Dust or PCP would still be illegal). regulate the THC content (no extra-injected THC), and rake in tons of cash when you fine the violators and all the excise taxes. Criminalize sales to minors, of course. More cash when you jail and fine the violators. State could license sales like they do alcohol now; more cash. Cha-ching!
Plus, it frees up the police to focus on real crimes, cleaning up crack and meth, etc.
What's not to like?
My blog
Classic propaganda from someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff. The people I know who do consume it are more caring and intelligent than those I see constantly opposing it's existence. but.... haters gonna hate.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
"Medicine" doesn't come in "joints".
No, it comes in brownies and rice crispy treats.
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.
throat and lung cancer is from smoking period not from nicotine. it doesn't matter what your smoking you really shouldn't be inhaling it. As for turning your brains into mush, long term effects are hard to judge, but every adult I have met who smoked pot back in the 60's and 70's are not what I call intelligent or well off anymore. But I have a limited pool to work from as most of them are also big drunks, and so have other problems that need to be accounted for.
Just because you have to work with politicians doesn't mean you can extrapolate that to the general public.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Cannibalism: If the person to be eaten doesn't want to be, yes, you'd have a point. You could argue against it for medical reasons though. IIRC, there was a tribe in the southeast pacific that ate their dead which passed along an illness similar to madcow or whatever the human equivalent is. But suppose cloned meat takes off. There goes medical reasons and the ethics of wolfing down some Steve or Sue steak. Nothing but good clean meat, all wrapped up in cling film right next to beef and pork.
Murder: Killing with the intent, right? The Texas state government does it often. I just find it interesting that killing intentionally can be legal even when no one is in immediate danger.
Incest: As long as it's consensual, it ain't my business. Again, possible medical reasons against it but if we banned things under than criteria, everything would be illegal.
Anyway, I just those couple of thoughts while reading your post. Carry on.
This is more toward Cryptome.org territory as its was accidentally posted as part of a memo then publicly stated for withdrawal by the city government for secrecy reasons.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0VB_QrXYauUJ:www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D12380%26Itemid%3D22+http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D12380%26Itemid%3D22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The map was included in the PDF for Jan 14 weekly updates to the city council
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%20Council/WIPS/2010/Jan_14_WIP/Medical_Marijuana_WIP.pdf
The memo has not even a classification nor mark stating it is secret, confidential, restricted, eye only ,etc yet will be withdrawn because it is "Secret."
The memo is _Still_ reachable as of Jan 9... the fast wheels of city government
"If a bunch of pot smokers want to turn their brains to Jello and wreck their lungs, throats and mouths, let them."
Well, you just removed all doubts I had regarding your ignorance.
Even our former President has said more intelligent things.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If a bunch of pot smokers want to turn their brains to Jello and wreck their lungs, throats and mouths, let them. They are hurting no one but themselves. If you' say that we'll have increased health care spending, so what? If pot were legalized, you can believe that A) every single private health insurance company is going to mandate tests for marijuana and other drugs and deny coverage to those smoking pot without a prescription.
Of course insurance companies already want to know if you smoke or chew tobacco which will affect your lungs, throats, mouth, but do insurance companies currently check for people 'turning their brains to Jello' by testing if they watch Fox news?
Ugh, another person mindlessly repeating "Security through obscurity!" like they know what it means.
If this were a cryptographic problem, then the "secret information" would be the exact locations of the marijuana producers. The decision to not publish it online is not "security through obscurity," it's the equivalent of not posting your SSN and bank account information on your Facebook.
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!
Don't forget racism, there was a lot of that in the drug prohibition movement. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were being told that marijuana would cause white women to want to have sex with black men. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were told that marijuana fueled jazz music. Go back two decades, and you find that the New York Times published an article claiming that black men who used cocaine became unstoppable forces -- that even shooting one in the heart was not sufficient to stop him. Cocaine, the public was told, caused black men to want to rape white women.
Not that anyone really cares why these drugs were banned in the first place.
Palm trees and 8
Actually it was the pulp paper industry that was most responsible for pushing for the banning of hemp. A machine had finally been invented for breaking up the stalks and it promised very cheap, good paper. Hearst had just heavily invested in cheap crappy wood pulp paper and being a newspaper tycoon and publisher, used a lot of paper.
I've also heard that DuPont also pushed for illegalization as they had recently invented nylon rope but have never seen any citations to that.
The government was willing as all the bureaucracy and policing powers that it had gained during prohibition now had nothing to do.
And as the other poster points out, most of the drug laws were also racist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism