This may be why they call the stuff 'dope'

Dave Workman · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

This may be why they call the stuff 'dope'

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d17-This-may-be-why-they-call-the-stuff-dope

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/ydndgfq

Dave_pro2a · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Normally I don't read your articles, because you only post links here on opencarry.org rather than the actualy body of your articles. That tells me you're more concerned with click rate, rather thanreadership levels (two totally differentapproaches to IP, andmonotizing content distribution)...but your sensationalistic title sucked me in.

Very poorly written article imho, lacking substance and an conclusion. No where did you actually justify your anti-MMJtitle.

And if you're going to be 'fair' to the self defense issue by citing the actual RCW, you might as well also cite the MMJ RCW. Yes the guy had 300 plants, no that is not above the "statutory ammount". Your quote:"Urquhart said deputies left "the statutory amount" of marijuana allowed by law with Sarich and his girlfriend: 15 plants and 24 ounces of processed marijuana for each." Your quote is flat out wrong.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-75-010

"The presumption in this section may be overcome with evidence of a qualifying patient's necessary medical use."

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/

"A 60-day supply is defined as 24 ounces and 15 plants. The law says that a patient may exceed these limits if he or she can prove medical need."

So Sarich will now likely have to face his day in court and prove he had a medical need to have 300+ plants -- which is proper since the MMJ law is all about a positive defense. But the fact is, there is not 'really' a statutory maximum, there is no upper ceiling, there is simply a somewhat imaginary line drawn in the sand.

How often are the police wrong about open carry laws? How often do they mislead the media? How often do they lie to people who exercise that right? How often do the people on opencarry.org show a better understanding of the law than the average police office that they interact with? Answer: all the time. So if police are likethat in regards to onekind of behavior about one action that is legal under state law (open carry), they likely do it for other actions too (MMJ).

I don't have a dog in this hunt (Steve's situation, or MMJ), but imho you should try harder to get your facts right, and not be so quick to judge activity that is legal under state law (just like open carry). I guess that's just the libertarian in me

Dave Workman · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Normally I don't read your articles, because you only post links here on opencarry.org rather than the actualy body of your articles. That tells me you're more concerned with click rate, rather than readership levels (two totally different approaches to IP, and monotizing content distribution)... but your sensationalistic title sucked me in.

Very poorly written article imho, lacking substance and an conclusion. No where did you actually justify your anti-MMJ title.

And if you're going to be 'fair' to the self defense issue by citing the actual RCW, you might as well also cite the MMJ RCW. Yes the guy had 300 plants, no that is not above the "statutory ammount". Your quote: "Urquhart said deputies left "the statutory amount" of marijuana allowed by law with Sarich and his girlfriend: 15 plants and 24 ounces of processed marijuana for each." Your quote is flat out wrong.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-75-010

"The presumption in this section may be overcome with evidence of a qualifying patient's necessary medical use."

Click to expand...

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/

"A 60-day supply is defined as 24 ounces and 15 plants. The law says that a patient may exceed these limits if he or she can prove medical need."

Click to expand...

So Sarich will now likely have to face his day in court and prove he had a medical need to have 300+ plants -- which is proper since the MMJ law is all about a positive defense. But the fact is, there is not 'really' a statutory maximum, there is no upper ceiling, there is simply a somewhat imaginary line drawn in the sand.

How often are the police wrong about open carry laws? How often do they mislead the media? How often do they lie to people who exercise that right? How often do the people on opencarry.org show a better understanding of the law than the average police office that they interact with? Answer: all the time. So if police are like that in regards to one kind of behavior about one action that is legal under state law (open carry), they likely do it for other actions too (MMJ).

I don't have a dog in this hunt (Steve's situation, or MMJ), but imho you should try harder to get your facts right, and not be so quick to judge activity that is legal under state law (just like open carry). I guess that's just the libertarian in me

Holy crap. I am stunned,r maybe I shouldn't be.

First....that was not "my" quote, it was a pull quote from, I believe, the Seattle Times article. Or it may have been from Casey''s piece in the P-I. I make no judgment on it one way or the other, but it was an interesting observation by Urquhart.

Second. you certainly misunderstood the headline. It wasn't "anti MMJ" as you assert. It was an allusion to the morons who broke into Sarich's place to steal his marijuana. It had nothing to do with what I think about medical marijuana because, to be honest,, I don't think about it at all. It is an issue about which I am indifferent.

But it is rather telling that you make a big deal of it, leading me to think you have an opinion about it and that leads you to erroneously believe I don't share it.

Lastly, show me your bibliography and we'll talk about quality of writing.

tai4de2 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

(a bunch of stuff)

What are you talking about?

We must have read different articles.

Dave_pro2a · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Holy crap. I am stunned,r maybe I shouldn't be.

First....that was not "my" quote, it was a pull quote from, I believe, the Seattle Times article. Or it may have been from Casey''s piece in the P-I. I make no judgment on it one way or the other, but it was an interesting observation by Urquhart.

Second. you certainly misunderstood the headline. It wasn't "anti MMJ" as you assert. It was an allusion to the morons who broke into Sarich's place to steal his marijuana. It had nothing to do with what I think about medical marijuana because, to be honest,, I don't think about it at all. It is an issue about which I am indifferent.

But it is rather telling that you make a big deal of it, leading me to think you have an opinion about it and that leads you to erroneously believe I don't share it.

Lastly, show me your bibliography and we'll talk about quality of writing.

I realize it was Urquhart's quote, but you includedit without investigating or challenging its truthfullness. That's bad reporting, especially when it A) is flat out wrong B) itinvolves a topic/subject that is so easy to check and C) is part of the central topic of your article.

Your article was poorly written. It was not clear who you were calling dopes. Your post here makes it clear, but the article was rather ambiguous (and meandering).

And again you are indifferent, claim to not take a position, not thinking about it, et cetera. Seems to be your MO imho... not wanting to take a position that you can be held intellectually accountable for later.

And I didn't make a big deal about it, I simply voiced an opinion about your article. And I'll admit I did so in part because your link posts are annoying, they are like spam in my opinion.

This is how people normally post 2A related news articles on gun forums http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/40508.html

Your post = spam, the wild wild west post = not spam. Spam is all about link building and seo, driving traffic away from the site where it is posted.

Dave Workman · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

I realize it was Urquhart's quote, but you included it without investigating or challenging its truthfullness. That's bad reporting, especially when it A) is flat out wrong B) it involves a topic/subject that is so easy to check and C) is part of the central topic of your article.

A) No, you said it was my quote.
B) Show me your journalism degree. Simply because you don't like the way something is written doesn't make it bad reporting.

Your article was poorly written. It was not clear who you were calling dopes. Your post here makes it clear, but the article was rather ambiguous (and meandering).

Hmmm. Other people seem to be following it okay. maybe the problem is yours.

This is how people normally post 2A related news articles on gun forums http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/40508.html

You mean, like so?
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...3d17-This-may-be-why-they-call-the-stuff-dope

Dave_pro2a · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

This post deleted at Dave Workman's request, because he cares more about click rate than readership levels.

Dave_pro2a · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

This post deleted at Dave Workman's request, because he cares more about click rate than readership levels.

gogodawgs · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Oh my you two.....

move on.....

Tawnos · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Mr Workman, normally I like your posts, but you miss so much in this one. First and foremost, it's not marijuana that was called dope, but heroin. It wasn't until the drug warriors of the 80s that MJ became "dope." Check your facts.

Second, your title is inflammatory and clearly meant to persuade in a manner that doesn't require you to officially take a position. To claim otherwise is dishonest, as your language suggests nothing more than a belief contrary to your claims here.

Third, Dave_pro2a has a good point, posting links without content does appear as spam. Perhaps you don't mean it to be, but that's how it appears.

brianstone1985 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Just my 2 cents...

I rather like most of Dave's articles. I did not read into this particular write up to be pro or anti MJ. I enjoy many of his articles that are written, perhaps if you do not like his articles you should not click on the links directing you to his site.

But I will say Dave Pro 2A you did bring issues to light that I suppose I have never thought about before. And that is what forums are all about.

-Brian

Bo · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

Not to perpetuate further thread drift, but I can't let this from Tawnos go without comment:

It wasn't until the drug warriors of the 80s that MJ became "dope." Check your facts.

Negative, Ghostrider. As one who came of age in the '70s, I can tell you that we routinely spoke of "smoking some dope" -- and we were talkin' weed/paka lolo/grass/reefer/cannabis/bud ... not referring to heroin at all. ('Course, I never saw the stuff myself ... never smelled it burning ... didn't know anyone that ever smoked the stuff ... those four years I spent on a college campus in the mid-'70s, well, I hung out mainly in the library when I wasn't going to an evening mass. It was only after I became an upstanding member of the law enforcement community that I was exposed to actual dopers -- I was shocked, I tell you! Shocked!)

Dave, no problem with your article. Just the filters that people read through, mayhaps.

Aryk45XD · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

I always enjoy your articles Dave :::thumbs up:::
Didn't read this one though since I already heard so much about it.

Norman · Mar 18, 2010

imported post

I can tell you that we routinely spoke of "smoking some dope" -- and we were talkin' weed/paka lolo/grass/reefer/cannabis/bud ... not referring to heroin at all

Same. Some high-end drug aficionados may correct us, but when I was growing up, weed = dope.

But it is rather telling that you make a big deal of it, leading me to think you have an opinion about it and that leads you to erroneously believe I don't share it.

maybe the problem is yours.

I think you hit the nail on the head there

Norman · Mar 18, 2010

imported post

I guess I'm not done. Workman, personally, I like that you just post the links. I don't like the formatting of this website and don't want to read an entire article on this "blue on white" website. Thank you for just posting the links. I'm not sure why certain people seem to have a problem with you but my guess is that they are just a couple of pot-smoking blowhards.

oldkim · Mar 18, 2010

imported post

Filters....

Yes, I think Dave_Pro2A had his filters on (smoking too much of it too). I fear your "filter" on this topic matter is definitely impairing you a bit. Lots of hostility.

I did not see any problem with the article. It was focused IMHO on the self defense issue of Mr Sarich defending himself when intruders broke into his home.

Also, you don't have to click if you don't want to.

Unlike the rest of us, Dave Workman's"JOB" is writing. He certainly is entitled to be financially recognized for it. I don't play a doctor on TV nor in my real job. Dave Workman does and should.

I for one, am greatful to have Dave Workmanon this forum and in our state.

BigIrish · Mar 18, 2010

imported post

I also like Dave's articals. That said, this is his opinion on what he read, you come on here and first state that you don't like his artcals. Then don't read the damn thing, you then rip in to his writing style or format. Sounds like you just don't like Dave. Leve it alone and take that BS elsewere! Are you the writing athority or just a digrunteled ex-wrriter who likes to pick on others because you head is too big? To come on and bash anothers poast or artical is " small "

Dave_pro2a · Mar 18, 2010

imported post

Norman wrote:

my guess is that they are just a couple of pot-smoking blowhards.

oldkim wrote:

Yes, I think Dave_Pro2A had his filters on (smoking too much of it too). I

Ahh yes, the old anti-gun style of argument via personal attack and unfounded character assasination.

You're no better than Officer Brian O’Neill who accuses all those who open carry of being felons.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/17/1112424/the-wild-wild-west-of-tacoma.html

If the problem is the inability to pass the background check for a concealed weapons permit, then maybe the pistol needs to stay back on the ranch.

gsx1138 · Mar 18, 2010

imported post

Legalize it.

Many problems solved.

oldkim · Mar 18, 2010

imported post

Personal attack?

Buddy.... look at your own post. It's a straight forward article on a self defense shooting. You took it to a whole different level.

Dave_Pro2A wrote:

Ahh yes, the old anti-gun style of argument via personal attack and unfounded character assasination.

YOU started personally attacking. How about eating your own words.

This may be why they call the stuff 'dope'

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member