I’m sure it was for his sick grandmother.

I was wondering why he was working so hard with Jerry Lange in Pierre this winter. He must have known something was coming! PP, great post!

PP may have a good laugh at Bob. But I doubt he would really want to laugh at a sick grandmother or other seriously ill individual who can only get relief from medical marijuana.

Patti –

I seriously doubt that people “can only get relief from medical marijuana.”

Pat, your “serious doubt” implies lack of certainty. So what if tries to defend against the stop, or the search. 4th amendment still applies right? If it is a good bust he’ll probably plead guilty. Won’t change much in the big picture.

For Bob. Hang on man;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4GBnpS83As

As I’d written over at Todd Epp’s website…

While I admit I found it more than a little bit funny in an ironic sense, we should take more from it than that.

Personally, I look at my history of interactions with Bob. While he has moments of lucidity and can be thoughtful and intelligent, most of the rest of the time I’ve just seen him act like a petulant child when a person disagrees with him or he can’t have his way.

Of course Bob crusades for the legalization of Pot. He enjoys using it. There’s no nobility to the cause – just his own personal hedonism.

If they were to make inexpensive beer illegal, I’d crusade for it’s legalization because I enjoy it. And it’s the same thing with Bob.

To some public sympathy he is now framing the issue in terms of “medical use.” And that works for his end goal. But I’m not gong to attach any “greater societal good” to the cause for him because of it.

Since he himself has written on my website about assisting others procure illegal substances (besides ditch weed), instead of going “poor Bob,” I think we should be congratulating the SDHP for taking another drug dealer off the street.

And Bill, I was thinking more along the lines of…

or better yet….

Yup, that’s the standard totalitarian answer. Put everyone in jail who’s not like us. Meanwhile, PP’s fighting to keep public smoking (known to cause disease, aggravate allergies, and kill people) legal so his pals can make a few bucks. Welcome to Powers’ political nightmare.

The next great movement on the horizon is legalization of prostitution for medicinal purposes. Just watch . . .

“I seriously doubt that people “can only get relief from medical marijuana.”

PP- Stop being such an ignoramus;

http://cbs5.com/entertainment/2.436823.html

Very sad to see people finding humor in people being arrested for any marijuana offense, even less so for a medical use of marijuana. What a waste of resources? Why potentially ruin a life over something so petty?

The U.S. arrests 800,000 annually for marijuana offenses. The U.S. with 5% of the world’s population has 25% of the world’s prisoners. And, one out of 31 Americans are in prison, on probation or on parole. These are all sign of a vast sickness in “the land of the free” and for someone to find humor in this mess shows more about that person’s sickness than anything else.

…and dipshits like Bill Phlegming advocate for legalizing marijuana while systematically trying to ban cigarettes.

Hey, Phlegm-ball, doesn’t marijuana give off second-hand smoke too?

11:03 Sometimes it’s obvious why people post anonymously. This person, for example, probably can’t even spell his own name.

Good comeback, Phlegmbag.

12:07 Yeah, those snot jokes are so funny. I remember them from 5th grade.
Everyone just got such a kick out of them. So clever.

I didn’t think it was funny at all – I thought that sucked for Bob. This is a man who fights tirelessly for something he believes in. And you know what PP; he’s right. Marijuana is about as harmless of a drug as you can get. It is not physically addicting and so far the total of people who have overdosed on it remains at a grand total of zero. To spend so much time, energy and money on the failed attempt to stop something so innocuous is absolutely asinine. Not to mention there are definitely medicinal benefits to marijuana and if you don’t know this you are just being a obstinate. Perhaps there are prescriptions that you can take to get your medical relief – have you considered at all that these are usually very expensive and have side effects far worse than a pleasant buzz?

I doubt very much that you’re going to hear “ad nauseum” about being improperly pulled over. I assume he’ll use this unfortunate incident to bring further attention to his cause. You obviously don’t know much about Bob Newland, he’s been fighting this uphill battle longer than you’ve been having kids and you know what… he’s doing a damn fine job of it too. Medical marijuana went down by a 4% margin in conservative South Dakota! By contrast, abortion remained legal by a 10% margin. Which ballot measure do you think stands a better chance in the next go round?

You know what might give me quite the belly laugh today… if we enforced child safety seats for all kids under 12. It would certainly save more lives.

Again, great defense of your position Bill.

The issue…

Bill Fleming advocates for legalizing marijuana while systematically trying to ban cigarettes.

Doesn’t marijuana give off second-hand smoke too?

OK, Bill. No name calling there. Defend your ridiculous position.

There is no known medical use for tobacco. It can only harm you and the people around you. That said, as addictive as tobacco is, it’s probably good that it’s legal or there would be mafia and a black market around it and another huge segment of the population behind bars. I know, because I myself am addicted to nicotine. Conversely, I do not use marijuana. It makes me paranoid. Plus, it’s illegal.

I assume it’s because pot gives you the giggles and increased sales at Taco Bell. Cigarettes, well, cougar voice… nice wrinkles that make you look like an elephant seal and teeth the color of a beige handbag…. oh, then there’s support against the ban by the funeral industry…

As to second hand smoke, the issues are probably the same. I don’t advocate for anyone to smoke anything that can harm others in public. That said, I’ve never heard of anyone smoking 20 or even 40 joints a day, every day 365 a year. That’s because marijuana is less addictive than caffine, whereas nicotine is more addictive than heroine. How am I doin’, 12:28? Ok If I call you “Asswipe” by the way?

Bill-

It’s simple really, people who are against the legalization of marijuana have never tried it, because if they would, they would be all for it.

Detroit. You mean they should maybe have a joint session in Congress or something, mon?

Sure there is….have you ever seen what happens to somebody who quits using tobacco? They gain weight like there is no tomorrow. Their chances of developing diabetes increase with each passing ballooning moment. Further, tobacco use helps people to cope with stress. Some people are at their wits-end until they can get their hands on a cigarette.

Don’t tell me there is no known medical use for tobacco. Just because it’s been stigmatized doesn’t mean there’s nothing redeeming about it. You think your joint has medical value to you, I’ll damn well guarantee you my cigarette does to me.

“Some people are at their wits-end until they can get their hands on a cigarette.”

Yeah, bonehead, that’s something the medical world calls ‘Addiction’ look it up.

2:43 Have you lost your mind, AW? There is no known medical use for tobacco and in fact, its use doubles one’s risk of developing diabetes.

I repeat, tobacco DOES NOT prevent diabetes. In fact, it can CAUSE it.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/diabetes/en/index.html

And yes, I know what it looks and feels like when a nicotine addict detoxes,

Been there, done it. It sucks.

But that doesn’t make tobacco a medicinal substance, just an addictive one.

Bill:

In the 1950s, didn’t Ronald Reagan do a Lucky Strike print ad singing the health virtues of cigarettes?

Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

I don’t know, Todd. Could RR sing?

Pot is illegal. Any time one chooses to use an illegal product, that person risks the threat of arrest and imprisonment. I may believe that if one is on the Interstate, he should be able to travel at 100mph if he feels like it. Should he do so and the SDHP happens to notice him, I am fairly certain he will be pulled over and visit a judge. If h e is unwilling to pay the price, then he had better not speed just because he thinks the speed limit is stupid. If Bob chooses to flaunt the law, then I am sure he is willing to pay the price.
Bill, you may not be aware, but tobacco does have an important medical use. Users tend to die at younger ages and wind up not requiring all of the medical services other people do. They are saving us money.

First, can we quit with the disparaging personal comments especially against someone who signs his name (ala Bill Fleming)?

Second, it highlights for me what I’ve been trying to say about the smoking ban and the general desire to impose our views on those who find their “vices” redeeming. More importantly, it highlights my general abhorring of ad hominem attacks.

Respect for disparate “values” does not mean that it is only tolerance in private (ala smoking tobacco or pot) but sometimes requires acceptance in public via either smoking in bars or sanction of homosexuality (gay marriage).

At the same time, disrespect for disparate “values” should not be inferred by legal prohibition (ala smoking tobacco/pot) or a lack of legal sanction (gay marriage).

Respect and disrespect are internal matters. Public policy positions are external matters which involve much more than for each person than just the matter at hand. And it is this misunderstanding that causes people to be the most emotional and derogatory toward others, especially for those who are the “target” of what they believe is intolerance.

A smoker can interpret the current attitude toward smoking in public as an indictment and lack of toleration of their choices. While in some cases it is a lack of toleration, it is presumptious to infer this as the predominant or sole motivation. Similarly, a person who desires to enter into a gay marriage can interpret the opposition to gay marriage as a lack of toleration of their choices, it is similary presumptious to infer this is the predominant or sole motivation.

There is an article in the NYT written by David Brooks that addresses this matter that was sent to me by a fellow SDWC poster ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=2) . The thrust of the article that is relevant to this discussion is that people form opinions on issues for a number of conscious and unconscious reasons with which they put different weights guiding them to one position. Brooks called it “emotions” but I call it “prudential judgment based on experience.” Thus, I disagree with his headline/consclusion but agree with his substance.

Unfortunately, in this current world of political dialogue, too much weight and judgment is placed on one’s position and too little on the rationale behind it.

As many of you know, I’m opposed to the death penalty. But, there are pro-death penalty people who I agree more in regard with the motives and intention than many anti-death penalty people. In this case, I’m opposed to most Republicans and conservatives in policy position but respect their rationale and motives more than most Democrats and liberals on this issue.

Similarly, as many of you know, I’m an unabashed capitalist. But when it comes to worker protection and economic justice goals, I agree more often with the motive of those who labor on behalf of worker’s rights than many other capitalists. In this case, I’m most opposed with Democrats and liberals in policy position but respect their motives more.

Ok. I know I’ve rambled. Let me summarize (Detroit, I know you are ready to blast me for bloviating )

One can agree with someone’s motives and and even rationale but disagree with their policy position because our experiences are different. And, ironically, those I respect most with regard to motive or rationale might vilify me while those I disrespect with regard to motive or rationale might praise me. All because of my position as opposed to my rationale/motive.

And this is where we have it all screwed up. We judge positions and not motives/rationale because it is “easier” or “simpler.” When we judge positions without regard to different experiences, we are showing intolerance which I think is improper and disrespectful of our neighbors as well as exhibiting a lack of intellectual vigor.

At the same time, judgment of motives/rationale is more meritorious and proper but it is more difficult to do because it requires personal knowledge of the person’s motive, it requires respectful dialogue to discern their rationale, and it requires greater intellectual vigor on our part. More importantly, it requires for us to be a civil society to be more focused on the facts and rationale of the issue at hand and less personally villifying (again intellectuall vigorous).

Newland’s problem was never that he doobied or whatever you kids call it today. It was he wasn’t honest. All that “medical” crap, if he had at least stood up like Fleming and said “Dammit, I like doobies” at least people could have respected the guy.

Now, he’s probably going to room with Klaudt.

Just so I am clear.

There are times that I agree with Bill Flemings motives more than those with whom I agree in position.

There are times that I respect Bill Fleming’s rationale more than those with whom I disagree in position.

There are times that I understand Bill Fleming’s reasoning better than those with whom I disagree in position.

There are times that I can’t understand at all Bill Fleming’s motives, rationale or reasoning. In this case, I sometimes can’t discern if it is my fault, his fault, or we are mutually dense.

But, even though the above are true, Bill Fleming is wrong more often than he is right. At least in my opinion.

PS. in point’s two and three, I meant to say “agree and not “disagree”. I type faster than I think (and I type with one finger).

Sometimes I think you gotta be high to understand Troy, especially people with a high toleration.

Possession ought to be de-criminalized. Filing our prisons with non-violent possessors is a tremendous waste of time and resources. Here’s the result after seven years of de-criminalizing drug possession in Portugal. Don’t argue what you “feel”, it’s irrelevant – argue the facts.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf .

PP’s dad was an FBI agent. Of course he’s not interested in the facts. He hasn’t put any independent thought into this issue since, well, ever.

How come PP puts up a post about Bob, makes a direct, person to person comment to him in his last sentence, and then won’t let Bob post anything here on this thread in response? What kind of news guy is that?

You’ll have to see Mount Blogmore for Bob’s take on this, I guess.

http://blogs.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/?p=3151#comments

Thanks Troy. Always a pleasure doin’ business with ya.

Bill –

Given Bob’s past spamming of my comment section, he’s pretty heavily moderated by my spam filter.

Yesterday, he had simply posted a piece of pro-ditchweed propaganda, without any comment of his own, which gave me no reason to un-moderate it.

If he cares to offer any original accounting of the matter, that would be a different story.

Anonymous (or pothead 11:50, whichever you prefer) –

I actually don’t know my Dad’s opinion on the matter. My own opinion is formed from observations of friends who enjoyed it, and promptly let their potential drift away.

I can’t say I’ve ever met anyone who was a regular user whom I had a high opinion of.

That, and it’s illegal.

Here is what I see as Bob Newlands whole problem laid out in my point of view and with my own invention. I am against abortion and think it is an aboration to life; yet I am not an abortion doctor therefore my rationale is not personal nor personally benefitting. I also am against the death penalty and have no interest in putting anyone to death except in cases where an immediate threat is placed upon me making my case certainly not personal in being anti death for crime. I am against the smoking ban for many reasons yet do not smoke so for me that is also not a personal view for I can leave any bar found to be too blue with smoke and spend my money in a non-smoking bar if I so choose. Now here is where Mr. Newlands cause gets it all wrong. He uses, wants everyone to share the weed, blow the bong, hit the reefer, etc., and pushes for legalization starting with medicinal use. This is very personal for him and it makes his entire cause one of an integrity issue and not a legal/moral issue. If he were to be against the use of pot for personal use just to get high and only for those individuals dying or in pain or with glucoma(sp)then his cause would be validated. But when a person pushes a legal issue to solve their own use denial or personal desire they steal their own fervor before ever getting on with the cause. And if my good friend Troy Jones would give me half his brain I would share my left handed index finger with him so he can type faster with two fingers and I could sound intensely intelligent. There was a black bottled Tequila back in the seventies with that name; Two Fingers; oh yeah off course again. ADD !!

Man, Troy and Charlie, looks like you guys are getting what we old hippies used to call a “contact high.” Rock on, doods.

In the light of the fact that Dr. Traub (30-plus years as an internal medicine specialist in Rapid City) stated in court that “smoked marijuana is essential to Tom Faltynowicz’s AIDS therapy,” and that Judge Eckrich obviously believed him (see sodaknorml.org, “AIDS patient busted”), why do you think govenrment should insert itself between a doctor and his seriously ill patient?”

This is so funny! One thing about you Bill, your attitude is remarkable, even when faced with some of that ignorant charm out there. I had a friend come home from the Cancer Institute in Zion IL. She said Les I am on pot. They had prescription pills for nausea, not illegal. That being said, and knowing how pot users throw their ambitions out the window, legalizing it and treating it like alcohol would probably help our drug problem in giving the dealers less reason to bring hard drugs to my town. After that we just shoot meth dealers on sight. btw Bill, I think you gave me a little contact hi this morning. Thanks for the smile.

Les. Very cool. You’re welcome.

Bob –

Are you saying that you were taking illegal drugs to a sick friend? I think that would go towards the intent of your distribution charge.

You’ve lost me, PP.

I’ve come to this site regularly for some time because I thought it was on occasion a place where people could exchange ideas in a civil manner. It’s your blog, if you want to allow people to be called names for voicing their opinion on your blog, that’s your decision.

When you allow the kind of sophomoric anonymous baloney you’ve allowed on this string, (Phlegmbag), the blog is no longer interesting, stimulating or funny, for that matter.

I’ll be back when, as moderator, you strive for some decorum in the forum.

Michael –

My apologies, I do try to police it, but I can’t be everywhere at once.

However, when it comes to Bill, I think he’s a big boy who gives as good as he gets.

PP, “Big boy?” Who you callin’ boy, boy? (I tell ya. Kids these days.)

p.s. Thanks, Michael. U da man.

“My own opinion is formed from observations of friends who enjoyed it, and promptly let their potential drift away.”

Lots of things can limit what a person accomplishes in his or her life, from playing too many video games to eating too many burgers and dying young from a heart attack. But this is a free country, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the standard for prohibiting something that poses no danger to anyone other than the user be just a bit higher?

See, this is why all your nanny-state ranting rings hollow. You’re no limited government crusader. You’re just looking to advocate for what you personally find tasteful (like rights for business owners), and advocate against what you personally find distasteful, (like Newland, and potheads). Conservative ideology isn’t the guiding light; self interest is.

If you really mean what you say about the nanny state, you have no choice but to support outright legalization, at least of harmless drugs like pot, at least for medical purposes. And if you really mean what you say about marijuana, then you have no choice but to also desire the prohibition of tobacco, alcohol, red meat, and soda pop, among other things.

But as it stands, you pick and choose the substances you’ll tolerate based on nothing more than your own personal predilictions. This renders you ideologically and intellectually bankrupt.

“I’ll be back when, as moderator, you strive for some decorum in the forum.”

Yeah, don’t hold your breath. The moderator can’t even refrain from characterizing his opponents on this issue as “potheads” and similar derogatory and defamatory things.

It’s a textbook example of the ad hominem “politics of personal destruction” that Troy is always talking about. Why Troy won’t call PP out for it is beyond me.

Charlie Hoffman, it’s right to criticize those who advocate for med. marijuana merely as a sham or end-around for outright legalization, and if that’s what Newland is up to, then he deserves your scorn.

But it’s not right to hold it against the legitimate ones — the patients who benefit from it, and those who are advocating it not for selfish reasons, but for selfless reasons.

PP is right that there are very few patients who can obtain relief ONLY from pot. But it’s also equally true that there are a lot of people — particularly those who suffer from MS — who obtain the best relief only from pot. These people should not be denied the medicine that works for them, whether it comes from a plant or a petry dish. Not in a free country. Not if limited government really means something. Not if we really want to call ourselves conservatives.

9:07,

I don’t get too worked up with sarcastic comments against those who are so chicken that they won’t even use a pseudonym. For instance, I have no idea who duh or publius is, but they at least give us an idea that it is a single person. Someone who makes snide comments under “Anonymous” warrants a sarcastic assigned “psuedonym.” Frankly, if this were mine, I’d require people to use a psuedonym so we can get a personal flavor for the person, their intellectual vigor, and consistency.

MJ should be legal for recreational use as well as medical. There is no good reason to continue its criminalization. All it does is waste law enforcement resources and fill up our jails and prisons.
The war on (some) drugs has been a bigger failure than prohibition.

In spite of the fact, Mr. Powers, that you seem unable to answer any question I ask, I do appreciate that you have let me post twice on this thread. I have no idea of your traffic, but some of your traffic reads what I say. Thanks.

For the past 20 years, there has been an arrest for a marijuana violation every 60 seconds (FBI stats). 88% of those arrests were for mere possession. During the past ten years, the rate has increased, with an arrest every 42 seconds today.

In 20 years, that’s over 15,000,000 arrests, with over 13 million of them being for mere possession.

All in pursuit of a butterfly, the elusive butterfly of abstinence from the use of a valuable medicinal herb (for some) that also is a mild euphoriant (for some). The force used and money spent and the time served all seem inordinate in the face of the threat.

The threat. Yes. What is it, please? I’m serious. What is the threat?

Wow, Bingo @ 8:55.

I’d like to follow Bob’s question and ask PP what is the threat? Now we’re all waiting, PP. Seems like Bob and others regularly supply links to scientific papers and statistics, making their arguments much more powerful than your opinion. Your 8:00 boils down to this: “pot should be illegal in my opinion for three reasons, because my friends who’ve used it didn’t live up to their full potential, I’ve never liked people who smoke pot, and it’s illegal now.”

Using your first two rationalizations for why it’s illigal, your statements would put you in jail for being an idiot, and the third would keep you there because it would suddenly become a crime to be you.

Anon –

“Bob and others regularly supply links to scientific papers and statistics, making their arguments much more powerful than your opinion.”

Are you kidding? Is that supposed to sway me in some way, shape or form? Twain quipped that “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Bob seeks out and is happy to cite articles that are supportive of his position. If it was worth my effort to find and cite articles in rebuttal (which I have in the past) they are equally easy to obtain. However, I choose not to do so in this instance because I have no interest in fashioning my very existence around collecting statistics to prepare for rebutting Bob.

Anon, Bob and yourself seem to be attempting to cite that you believe the law to be unjust. Obviously, we all know that’s Newland’s raison d’Etre, and he has spent more time than the rest of us would think is reasonable trying to change it. Fortunately for the rest of us, he has yet to convince a majority of state residents to endorse the legalization of his personal hedonism.

HOWEVER – and this is where Bob fails – while he believes it to be improper – IT IS STILL THE LAW.

If he chooses to break the law, he should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

“…that’s Newland’s raison d’Etre, and he has spent more time than the rest of us would think is reasonable trying to change it.”

I’m neither Ghandi nor M.L. King, but I wonder how many readers think Ghandi spent more time than was reasonable getting thumped on the head (literally) protesting the fact that the British were charging Indians to gather salt that accumulated naturally on the salt flats in India.

I wonder how many think King spent more time than was reasonable trying to change laws that required those of his skin color to ride in the backs of the buses.

And, as a matter of fact, articles of rebuttal to my arguments are NOT that easy to find, which is the real reason no one is providing them.

PP correctly states that the law prohibits possession of cannabis. But even that does not provide a reason to put people in jail simply for attempting to alleviate their own pain or nausea.

PP, a nonsmoker I think, spends quite a little time defending the rights of people to smoke and drink, and the rights of others to serve drinks to smokers in their bars. He is correct on principle. The same principle applies to cannabis and those who advocate the right to ingest it, and PP can not evade that truth. Putting me in jail will not change that truth.

Bob –

The principle is not the same. Smoking and drinking are legal activities. Using and selling illegal drugs are not.

You knew what the law was, and intentionally broke it your your own pleasure. Not for pain, or the alleviation of suffering, but because you wanted to get high.

You did the crime, prepare to do the time. There’s no injustice in that. It’s pure justice.

“You did the crime, prepare to do the time. There’s no injustice in that. It’s pure justice.”

Rosa Parks was prepared to do the time. I can do no less.

Rosa Parks? I was thinking your run of the mill meth-manufacturer would be a closer comparison.

And this is precisely why you are accurately described as intellectually bankrupt, PP. You don’t respond to reason. And you’re oblivious.

Actually, Bob was bringing it to me, his sick grannie. Many of his backers are hesitant to become as open as Bob has. Don’t just tell him, “Good Luck Bob” – help out!

You can send a check made out to:

Newland Defense Fund

And mail it to:

(Actually, why don’t you all feel free to contact the prosecutor and ask for a stiff sentence for those who traffic in drugs. -PP)