Nine years ago, a young Sacramento Kings star, Jason Williams, was suspended at the start of the NBA season for testing positive for marijuana. Williams was a big fan favorite at the time, and his suspension (the Kings were then a legitimate title contender) was a blow to the team’s chances in the upcoming season.
I wrote a column at the time about the incident, including in it the various reactions that were prevalent in the Sacramento community. In the pre-9/11 world of the year 2000, steroids had not yet emerged as the major issue they were soon to become, and marijuana use was still a significant federal crime, in spite of the passage by California voters four years earlier of the nation’s first “medical marijuana” law. (The same kind of law, permitting the use of marijuana with a health care professional’s authorization to combat the effects of illness or disability, has since been enacted in twelve other states.)
In the years since, the world has changed dramatically (just compare security at airports then and now if you need to be reminded), and views on marijuana use have changed perceptibly (with occasional news of use by professional athletes more likely to elicit a yawn than the community outrage that accompanied the news of Jason Williams’ use).
We know more about the effects of marijuana now than we did in 2000, but we still know (or acknowledge) precious little. Back in 2000, as I documented in my column at the time, the revelation that Williams was a “doper” led some to attribute the excessive number of turnovers he was inclined to commit to his use of the drug. Others (albeit far fewer) opined that in moderation the drug is no more harmful than a six-pack of beer.
Around the same time as the Williams suspension, a study reported in the Journal of Immunology concluded that smoking marijuana may put one at greater risk of contracting lung cancer than smoking tobacco and that the major psychoactive component of “dope,” tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), may promote the growth of other tumors as well. (Studies since then have linked smoking the drug to cancers of the mouth and throat.) The report, based on a study by the Jonsson Cancer Center at UCLA, raised significant questions about contrary claims that the use of marijuana may actually be desirable on medical grounds in certain instances.
With so much controversy continuing to surround this most ubiquitous of drugs (the word “weed” is certainly descriptive of its availability if not its effect), and with the Obama Justice Department recently announcing it will no longer prosecute medical marijuana users in states (like California) where such use has been legalized, it’s probably time to try, yet again, to shed a little light on the drug of choice of so many superstar athletes (and regular folks, too).
First, a little history: Marijuana (which is derived from the dried leaves and flowering tops of the hemp plant) has been around for a long time. In fact, for thousands of years it has been used as both a medicine and an intoxicant in many parts of the world. Laws against the use of the drug have existed for not quite as long. In the United States, state and local laws prohibiting its possession were first enacted in the early 1900’s. The first federal law against it was passed in 1937.
Dope use in the U.S. was “discovered” by the beat generation (its virtues were extolled by the likes of Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg) in the 1950’s, but it was during the anti-war movement and the sexual revolution of the late 1960’s when grass became something of a social phenomenon. It was first adopted by hippies, who “dropped out” by getting stoned, and then became part of the scene at rock concerts (think Woodstock), before it finally found what seemed to be a permanent home on just about every college campus this side of Bob Jones University. And, as those college students graduated and moved into mainstream society, they brought their dope with them, leading to pot-parties and other forms of casual use among many young (and, with time, not-so-young) middle-class couples.
And then came the “Just Say No” campaign led by Nancy Reagan, which seemed born of the rather retro idea that marijuana was indeed a “gateway” drug, meaning that it led, inevitably, to more serious abuses (with cocaine and heroin being the most commonly mentioned). As a direct result, for a number of years marijuana use may have leveled off (actual figures and statistics are somewhat problematic, since survey results on this question may not be reliable). With the emergence of the Millenials (of either the Gen-X or Gen-Y variety), however, the drug seems to be enjoying a resurgence, and its use and acceptance now may be higher (pardon the pun) than ever.
The strain of dope that is smoked by current users bears little resemblance to the relatively innocuous green leaves that stuffed many a joint during the “make love, not war” period of its former heyday. In response to the tremendous demand that exists, growers (annual revenue from this underground economy is estimated to be in the billions of dollars in California alone) have become highly sophisticated in their methods, creating crops that are bud-laden and resin-heavy. The THC concentration in these new and improved strains of the plant produces far more intense and sustained “highs” than boomers got from much greater quantities of the stuff a generation ago.
And what, exactly, is that “high” and what makes it so appealing? Is this drug capable of altering consciousness or of creating a physical addiction? Can it assist those suffering with disease or increase the risk of life-threatening illnesses? Does it enhance one’s perceptions or dull one’s senses? Is it the path to enlightenment or the road to ruin? What is the truth about this much maligned, misunderstood, mysterious drug?
According to the most currently-available figures, over a half million Americans are regularly incarcerated on illegal drug charges. Of this number, approximately twenty percent are imprisoned for violating marijuana laws. The annual cost of incarcerating these “criminals” is in excess of ten billion dollars! (Obviously, as a national policy, we take the issue of drug abuse very seriously.)
Here is a little relevant information (compiled in a 2000 report by the Justice Policy Institute, an organization committed to reducing incarceration for all crimes) to place this “primer on pot” in perspective: In 1986, 31 out of every 100,000 young people were in state prisons for drug offenses. By 1996, that figure had risen to 122 per 100,000. (More recent figures are not available, but are unlikely to be any lower.) Not surprisingly, states with the highest rates of imprisonment, the Institute’s study found, also had the highest rates of drug use.
So, what have we here? More than a full generation after it was popularized by the counter-culture movement of the sixties, marijuana continues to confound and perplex our society, even as it now enjoys perhaps its greatest degree of popularity amongst the mainstream of today’s youth and continues to be enjoyed (albeit perhaps not as frequently) by aging “baby boomers.” On the one hand, pot is reviled as a “gateway” drug, while on the other, it is deemed a social alternative to alcohol, producing a much less dangerous and much more enjoyable “buzz.”
Herewith then, some facts, scientific and medical findings, and “expert” opinions on the dangers and delights of the ubiquitous weed:
o Marijuana does not produce a physical addiction. Unlike tobacco, which contains the addictive chemical nicotine, and unlike heroin and cocaine, the repeated use of which leads to severe symptoms of withdrawal, thereby creating a physical need for the drugs, marijuana is “safe,” in that one will not become physically dependent on the drug. But …
o Marijuana use can most definitely create a psychological need, wherein the user becomes “hooked” on the desire for a high. (More on this point in a minute.) This more subtle effect may be irrelevant to the social user, but it is reason enough for concern in the minds of policy-makers, because …
o Marijuana is a mind-altering substance. Inhalation (or ingestion) of it creates a “high” in which the user experiences an altered sense of reality. The most common example of this fact is the “munchies,” which refers to the need that those high on marijuana develop for large quantities of food, preferably of the tasty/flavorful variety.
This heightened sensory awareness and sensitivity is one of the many pleasures attributed to the drug (and is also offered as a medical benefit in diseases such as cancer which rob sufferers of their appetites), but it also evidences the effect marijuana has on one’s mental alertness, because …
o There is clear evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) which suggests that the greater focus on the singular experiences or feelings that marijuana promotes also results in a loss of attention to everything and anything else. Thus, those on a marijuana high will often exhibit short-term memory loss, as in forgetting where one put one’s car keys (even though they are often in a very obvious place) or neglecting to change a baby’s diaper (even though the little one is crying loudly in the next room) or failing to pass on an important phone message to a spouse (even though the user took the message only five minutes earlier). Every regular marijuana user has experienced these or similar instances of “forgetfulness,” but they invariably accept the trade-off, because …
o Marijuana users claim that they see things more clearly when they are stoned. This aspect of the marijuana high may differ only in degree from that experienced by other hallucinogens (psilocybin, hashish, mescaline, LSD) or opiates (cocaine, heroin), but it is perhaps the single-most appealing effect of the drug. In simplest terms, marijuana users experience a sharpened appreciation for whatever they choose to focus on while they are stoned. Hence, users claim to have greater insights, more meaningful discussions, stronger emotional reactions, even better sex, while they are high. But, as with all artificially-induced states, …
o There is a sense of depression that follows the high, which has both a physical and an emotional component. Physically, the body has had a workout of sorts (most evident in the increased heart rate users experience) which is followed by a sense of lethargy that is palpable. Emotionally, there is often a feeling of ennui, probably due to the “return to reality” that is perhaps similar to that experienced in returning from a vacation. This depressed state passes quickly in most users, and some will claim they do not even experience it at all, but it can create the psychological dependency mentioned above. And, too, …
o There is now clear, scientific evidence, that marijuana is a carcinogen. As reported recently in the Journal of Immunology, smoking three marijuana cigarettes (joints) is equivalent, in terms of subjecting one to the risk of lung cancer specifically and to the development of malignant tumors more generally, to smoking a pack of unfiltered tobacco cigarettes.
Of course, with today’s highly-developed strains of dope, no one needs to smoke even one joint to get as high as one could ever want to be, but with many young people developing significant tobacco habits to go along with their use of marijuana and with many also undoubtedly smoking marijuana in far greater quantities than necessary to get high, the health factor cannot be ignored.
So there you have it. As much dope on dope as you’d probably want short of engaging in a little experimentation of your own. Should you choose that route, though, be advised that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a citable (non-criminal) offense in California. And it is still a potential felony, regardless of the amount possessed (or, in all but 13 states, the medical justification) in the federal courts and in 23 states.
Caveat emptor!
Excellent points.
My roots are in San Francisco, and I was raised on a diet of Woodstock music couple with a conservative family who did not approve of Mary or Jane. I am also a ‘pro sober’ fan, though I do not impose my beliefs on others.
Having said this, it’s 2009 and time to focus on more important things besides jailing marijuana smokers. I believe the jail/prison systems are overcrowded with some pretty hefty criminals, many of whom have committed violent crimes.
I just can’t get the ”alcohol is grand” but marijuana is a demon. Alcohol destroys more lives in my humble opinion. Why is alcohol not considered a stepping stone to more dangerous drugs? Face it, most drug addicts were raised in homes that socially drank or allowed alcohol.
I suppose, like the days of Prohibition, we must ask who profits from keeping it illegal?
All I want to know is this: what was Ed smoking when he wrote this?
Just kidding, Ed. Informative summary and wonderful writing as always.
Great piece! Thinking about marijuana reminds me of the halcyon days of lockers, AP classes, and free condom giveaways!
I don’t think I know a single person (with the exception of maybe one friend) in my age range that hasn’t at least tried pot. I’m one of the very few people in my age bracket who can honestly say that I’ve never even tried or “experimented” with the stuff. And not in the “I didn’t inhale” kind of never. I mean never, never. It just never appealed to me. I was warehoused at a high school with a bunch of loser stoner kids. My fear of gaining weight and losing what little attention-span I did have, effectively deterred me.
But then again, this is coming from someone who (per the docs) is supposed to take a daily regimen of one very scary-ass cocktail of amphetamines.
Marijuana related health risks aside (just because something is “natural” doesn’t make it good for you), my feeling is, and has always been, that we need to prioritize. Just like with crime, there’s a continuum of egregious conduct. Like the difference between petty theft and murder I.
The criminal justice system needs to understand the difference between drugs. And focus on what causes the most trouble. Methamphetamine kills people. And it doesn’t just kill its user. Meth makes people crazy-violent and causes them to get all stabby with you while you’re hitting the ATM. Meth is truly a dangerous and horribly destructive drug.
I once read said somewhere that more money is spent on marijuana than meth. If true, that’s just insane. Every penny should be directed towards eradicating meth, coke, crack cocaine, and heroin. The whole marijuana is a “gateway” drug argument is so bogus that even the people who say it don’t actually believe it. By that retarded logic, drinking water is a stepping stone to slamming heroin.
Potheads don’t break into your home in the middle of the night and put a knife to your throat. When I worked domestic violence cases, it wasn’t pot that inspired some guy to go home and beat the living s$&t out of his wife or girlfriend. Nor was pot the reason a this guy threw his little 4-year daughter across the living room and then dragged her (kicking and screaming) across the linoleum.
But the part that just kills me are all those “intent to distribute” statutes. I know if you’re caught with less than a certain number of ounces, you’re charged with “possession”. But if you’re caught with any more than than that, you’re hit with “intent to distribute.” And by the way, the amount you need for intent to distribute is not that much.
Normally, the way our system works is that the cops wont do anything until after the commission of a crime. And this is generally true for most crimes. You can’t just think about doing it, you also have to have committed some act. That’s the land we live in.
Yet, if you’re caught with less than half a pillowcase of weed, that somehow rises to the level of “intent to distribute.” Even if you were never caught selling or dealing. And by the way, intent? How do they know what you were thinking when they didn’t see you actually sell or solicit the sale of marijuana? Since when is assuming that someone is doing something, without more, enough?
You know, some stoners just stock up on the stuff with no intention of ever selling it in the way some of us go to Costco and stock up on paper towels and Diet Coke.
A little over two years ago, when I reported this guy for harassing me, the cops told me that they couldn’t do anything until he actually did something. Real briefly: The guy is a true sociopath and for seven miserable months stalking me was his full time job. The cops refused to respond when he was following me from Sacramento back to my home in North Davis. Night after night, I drove home, with the knowledge that he was right behind me and was driving up and down my street all night long. Somehow, he was under the impression that he had the “right” to have sex with me. And he became awfully agitated when I pointed that he was mistaken. And even after I received hundreds of harassing phone calls, creepy texts and voice messages, the cops still said, “There’s nothing we can do. Until he actually ‘does something’, we can’t do anything.” This guy constantly called and at all hours of the night, leaving threatening messages, but still I was told, “Nothing we can do.” Even though he was showing up everywhere–waiting for me. And even after he was witnessed brandishing a loaded gun and declaring how I was to “blame” for all of his academic and social problems and how I would “pay” for that, still I was told, “There’s nothing we can do.”
So. . .What have we learned? Someone can repeatedly threaten you (after working very hard to ruin your reputation and torpedo your career) and if you tell the cops about it, you’re going to get a bunch of this “Nothing we can do. We have to wait until he actually ‘does’ something. We can’t bust him before that. Just saying it isn’t enough.”
Fine. But after all the inertia, how can they then justify busting people for “intent to distribute”? What is with this hypocrisy? Why is a goddamn bag of weed more important than protecting people from real, dangerous criminals? It’s ridiculous to fill the jails with petty offenders and clog the courts with these bullshit marijuana cases when we have much bigger fish to fry.
It is not only time to legalize marijuana, it is time to unlock it’s additional (arguably, more important) social and economic benefits.
First, revenue from “sin taxes” on production or distribution could prove beneficial for governments at various levels who need more funding. (And last I checked, California’s government needs much more money to function than it can currently generate.) Oakland’s voters approved such a tax earlier this year. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124105239168771233.html) As the article says, some growers and dealers also support the tax because it legitimizes their business. If this is in fact a billion-dollar a year industry in California, a hypothetical 1.8% tax (as in Oakland) could generate at least $10m/year if even half of what is currently sold is taxed. I would imagine that a city or state could levy a much higher tax-percentage if they wanted. Also, much of the billions of dollars of jailing for pot-related offenses would disappear if pot was decriminalized. The only question is how to steer sales away from the underground market and into a market with oversight. The best way to do this would be to only allow pot transactions through certain wholesalers who are then taxed – other transactions would still be illegal and subject to punishment. Additionally, by allowing legit entities certain tax breaks and the ability to produce at a larger volume in large farms could create a financial incentive for producers to allow themselves or their customers to be taxed without being more expensive than the non-taxed black market. Ideally, growing and selling would be more free than this, but it would give better incentives for city governments and conservative voters to support the idea. (This scene from the Wire provides a “romantic” variation on this theme. Warning: some cussing in the scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzdMjqb8GW0&feature=player_embedded)
Second, producing hemp as a more viable alternative textile could benefit the environment. Farmed-hemp can be regrown much more quickly than trees and can also be used for paper. Additionally, it is durable enough to use in clothing and other products. This is obviously another prime source for revenue and should at least be considered.
And I hear that everything is just simply better with a bag of weed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWBXxKYzV0s&feature=related
😉
Many of us used it as a spiritual drug, thinking we were in tune with the Shivites of India or the Rastafarians of Jamaica. I became psychologically addicted, and stopped through a 12 step program, Marijuana Anonymous. The Sonoma County public health dept. now has a task force on dealing with substance abuse for older adults (I’m 60, and a volunteer on the task force.) We “baby boomers” have brought our drug addictions with us, notably marijunana, prescription drugs, and of course, john barleycorn.
Thank you for sharing your experience, Mr. Johnson! And congratulations on your sobriety! It takes a lot of strength and courage to admit you have a problem and then go through such a difficult process.
I used to work with people struggling with addiction. I found that even the people who admitted they had a problem and desperately wanted to stop using had a really difficult time following my directions. Just getting them to attend AA, MA, CA, etc required Herculean strength.
And thank you for mentioning marijuana’s “psychological addiction.” Defenders of marijuana use always mention that smoking pot is harmless because it’s not addictive. And I say, who cares if it’s not a chemical addiction if the consequences are the same? And I’ve seen firsthand what frequent marijuana use does on the brain. It’s all bad.
Anyway, Sonoma County is lucky to have you! You’re a source of inspiration and hope to others.
Jim–very honest analysis of the psychological addictions and nonsense us baby boomers were spoon fed on reaching utopia via the bong. It was due to the ”drop out, tune in” California mantra of our times.
Thank you for sharing and congrats on being sober.
I think sober is great, and never wanted to be addicted or out of touch with my reality (painful as it could be) and spent some serious time attending meetings on how to live with other’s addictions. I was lost on the logic to be honest. I always felt the meetings were focused solely on the addict and how to detach from their behaviour. I failed Detachment 101 miserably.
Ashley–your comments are so full of life and logic. Love reading them. Your story on the stalker was scary. Don’t they have anti stalker laws in California? This man needs to be stopped.
You’re right, they need to focus more on victims rather than waste their time on pot smokers with the intent to sell/smoke/grow. I think the drug that has affected most people has been alcohol, and it’s clearly legal and encouraged. Makes no sense to me.
Thank you for the compliment, Viking Daughter! I’m delighted (especially since I’ve always appreciated your insights and perspectives)! You have no idea! And I’m thrilled that someone out there is reading the comments. I just tend to write from the heart so whatever comes to me ends up in my posts, flaws and all.
You have a point about alcohol. Despite my uncanny ability to consume glass after glass of the tasty tea of Long Island, I’m a fan of sobriety, too (even when I am not). 😀
Regarding my stalker story: Thank you for the validation, Viking Daughter. Yes, it was indeed scary (I had never dealt with a violent man in my own personal life before). Even worse, (and why he was able to terrorize me in the manner that he did, for as long as he did) he was in all of my classes during my first year of law school (yes, I know. . .What can I say except, “Good-on-Paper-Guy”). All of my energy went into avoiding/dodging him. It was exhausting. And it cost me dearly. And, in a way, I’m still paying for it.
Two weeks into our first semester and suddenly he’s professing his undying devotion to me (we in the biz call this a “red flag”) and informs me that we are dating and weaving in some yarn about how I’m just the most “beautiful”, “amazing” and “special” girl he’s ever met (uh-huh, sure). He got angry whenever I told him that I didn’t want to go out with him or talk to him. And he got especially shitty with me one night when I refused to get in his car and go home with him.
One minute he was telling me that I’m an angel and the next minute (literally) he’s calling me a whore. And then he would leave these pathetic messages apologizing (and admitting) for his conduct. But when I wouldn’t take his calls, his “I’m so sorry, please forgive me!” messages became these creepy, “You fucking bitch, I’m know where you are! How could you hurt me?! Just wait, I’m going to find you and–.” Well, you get the idea.
And even though he appeared somewhat normal when I first met him, my “Spidey-sense” detected that something was up.
He told everyone that we were dating (um. . .no, I prefer my men nonviolent and not utterly insane, thank you very much) and somehow, that was enough to get him the help and encouragement of our classmates (one of the many fun facts I learned later).
It was just an impossible situation for many reasons. And so what could I do but stoically document every incident and save every message in anticipation of the day I would have to report him and file for a restraining order (which I warned him I would do if he didn’t cease and desist).
Yes, we have some good stalking laws (Cal. Penal Code 646.9) but if they aren’t enforced because the police are too busy wasting time on bullshit cases then they are absolutely worthless.
You have to understand that stalking cases are often minimized and misunderstood by our criminal justice system. I have classmates that didn’t get it, some were even part of the problem–and a few of them actually had the audacity to blame me and tell me to “drop it” and just “get over it” (yeah, real easy to say when it’s not your education, career, and life at risk and you aren’t the one having to move out of a home you loved living in–all during final exams). And since these cases are practically impossible to prove, the burden of proof falls on the victim’s shoulders.
I only mentioned it because it illustrates just how illogical and truly fucked up our priorities are. These backwards policies only embolden criminals like him.
For anyone interested in my stalker story, I’m recommending a fascinating book on the subject. Do yourself a favor and score a copy of Gavin de Becker’s “The Gift of Fear”–and read it. It’s an excellent primer on stalking, harassment violence, and crime prevention in general.
What I like about de Becker is that he is one of the few crime experts who focus on the early warning signs of those who wish to harm you and the critical role that intuition (which we, women in particular, are socialized to ignore when we should be trained to trust them) plays in survival. But people often minimize, ignore, dismiss or fail to recognize the early signs for one reason or another.
I think this book should be required reading for everyone–men, women, and children, doesn’t matter (But to parents of teenagers, this is the stuff you should be focusing on). If you have a pulse and have any sort of contact with other human beings, this book is for you. You don’t need to have been a victim of anything to benefit from it. Plus, it’s well-written and reads like a thriller.
I can tell you from my professional (and now personal) experience that early detection is the key to crime prevention. The author knows his stuff. When people think of “risk-reduction” or how to protect themselves, they think of women carrying pepper-spray or obtaining a concealed carry permit, which is all well and good except for the fact that–meh, it is generally sort of useless.
The fact is, crime is generally inflicted by those that you least expect, the people you let your guard down around; those you trust. The people you let inside your home. Your friends, coworkers, classmates, roommates, boyfriends and–girlfriends, et al. These are the type of people who have the power and ability to bring chaos and wreak havoc into your life (and statistically speaking, this is who will eff with you and cause the most damage). It’s the guy (or girl!) you aren’t looking for, the one you never saw coming.
So it’s better choose wisely and learn the signs–early and often. It can spare you years of time, money, therapy, and aggravation. Don’t experiment with your life.
The signs are there long before any violence erupts. Before any of the blatantly obvious flags. Don’t be fooled or distracted by appearances, education, social strata or phony charm.
The only thing that saved me from my stalker was that I was able to block out all that noise in order to notice what mattered, and didn’t confuse his unhealthy and inappropriate obsession with me as normal attraction or anything even close to the fuzzy boundaries of what is considered normal/healthy behavior (other girls, I later learned, weren’t so lucky). I wasn’t flattered by his attention because I never trust him to begin with.
Before he exhibited his inappropriate jealousy/possessiveness behavior, before the creepy texts, notes, and phone calls started, and well before I knew that he was hiding in my bushes, hacking into my email, interrogating classmates/friends and brandishing a loaded gun. I knew better than to ever be alone with him–way back when–when he (and my classmates) were trying to convince me that he was just another “nice guy” and that I should “give him a chance.” But I never fell for that over-achiever-blond-hair-blue-eyed-boy-next-door-bullshit.
Keep in mind, everyone is “nice” when you meet them. Everyone is on their best behavior when they want something. But who is this person, really? Who are they when they think no one is looking? When the cameras are off and there is no one around they need to impress?
How did I know? What do you look for, specifically? De Becker’s ambitious book attempts to explain it.
I beg to differ on the last point:
“So there you have it. As much dope on dope as you’d probably want short of engaging in a little experimentation of your own. Should you choose that route, though, be advised that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a citable (non-criminal) offense in California. And it is still a potential felony, regardless of the amount possessed (or, in all but 13 states, the medical justification) in the federal courts and in 23 states. ”
Cultivation, Possession, and Consumption are ALL criminal offenses in California, unless otherwise authorized by law.
If you do not believe me, check out my website, do your own research, or visit any county courthouse in the state.
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/calmjlaws.html
I promise you that despite wider acceptance, police officers and prosecutors LOVE to cite and prosecute small-potatoes users because it makes for a quick and easy statistic. Talk to any law enforcement officer or DA and you will learn that most departments take a thoroughly statistic-driven bent on prosecuting crimes because a high volume case-load shields them from deeper budget cuts. While the author on this page presents a nice balance of both sides, it goes without saying that users should take the utmost precautions before indulging in the sacrament.
Caveat Emptor indeed!
However, most people with Prop 215 cards can tell you just how easy it is to clothe yourself in the protections of permissible possession and use under CA law.
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-11-26/news/l-a-39-s-medical-weed-wars/
That being said, I enjoyed the article and discussion!
–Chris Conrad–