Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pot Grower's Privacy Challenged

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the show-me-the-stash dept.

Privacy 477

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."

cancel ×

477 comments

Let's put it up on Wikileaks (5, Funny)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817048)

Governments should't be keeping secrets

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817200)

Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817322)

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?

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817430)

Don't even go down that road with the "a plant is a plant" or "God made weed, man made beer" bullshit. If I want to snort crystal drain cleaner it's nobody else's business. It's my life, my body, fuck off.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817630)

You're right. It is your body. Have fun killing yourself! I certainly don't want to waste time, money, and effort trying to stop people who only hurt themselves (and in addition to that, supporting criminals who wish to sell the illegal materials).

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (4, Insightful)

uncqual (836337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817690)

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.

Stop with the "Just a plant" nonsense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817330)

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)

Re:Stop with the "Just a plant" nonsense (1)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817476)

Behaviors and plants are different. One can be malevolent; the other is always neutral (unless it falls on your house or something). Even if you're against pot, your problem isn't with the plant, but rather with the behaviors of those who use it.

Re:Stop with the "Just a plant" nonsense (2)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817494)

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?

Re:Stop with the "Just a plant" nonsense (1, Interesting)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817542)

If a bunch of pot smokers want to turn their brains to Jello and wreck their lungs, throats and mouths, let them
And if the voice of all ignorance continues to spread fear, uncertainty, doubt, and lies, let them.

Tax and regulate, tax and regulate, that's all we hear is tax and regulate. First you spread lies and then you want to tax and regulate--taxations and regulations justified by the lies previously spread. Control freak much?

Re:Stop with the "Just a plant" nonsense (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817622)

Well, I'm not normally in favor of taxes and regulations, but if you legalize pot, it's inevitable. Me, I'm an anarchocapitalist. But I live under no delusion that our current system of government is going anywhere anytime soon.

Re:Stop with the "Just a plant" nonsense (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817534)

You're putting words in his mouth. He's suggesting growing a plant (any plant) shouldn't be illegal. He didn't say anything about legalizing every behavior that occurs in nature, a totally unrelated idea. I am not really saying that this approach has merits, although I do have a hard time coming up with a plant that I absolutely think should be illegal to cultivate. I guess you could still ban processing the plants in certain ways (e.g. to manufacture opium) or to sell the grown plants or their products.

Re:Stop with the "Just a plant" nonsense (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817738)

You want to argue for legalization of marijuana? Fine, argue for the tax potential.

Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.

Or take a philosophical perspective to liberty and how severe ill effect should the be before we limit that.

I think that's exactly what "you shouldn't need a license to grow a plant" is. How is "you shouldn't need a license to do XXXXX" anything other than a "philosophical perspective to liberty"?

But the "It's a plant" and "You can't criminalize a plant, man" are just stupid.

Why? I think the burden's on you to give at least one reason why criminalizing a plant makes sense.

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.

Too bad for you he's not saying that.

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)

Maybe your problem is that you're thinking of it as a substance instead of a plant.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817352)

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.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (4, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817584)

Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.

They absolutely should if it's prescription medicine.

I think you need a prescription for some high-grade woooosh!

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817508)

Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.

Governments that can force people to buy health care insurance aren't going to stop there.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817658)

Yeah. Just look at those Europeans. Fucking bastards. Did you know that everyone in the Netherlands is required to own health insurance? You can bet your bottom dollar they'd never do something like decriminalise marijuana.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817600)

You need a license to sell food. The reason isto know who is doing it so they can be inspected to ensure that they are not breaking laws such as using illegal herbicides. The license is not to grow the plant; it is to sell the plant to the public (even through a middleman).

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817554)

No there are some secrets that a government needs to keep.

There needs to be a way to control what secrets are kept and for how long.

The US needs new laws and I think Judicial oversight of what state information is deemed secret and how long it could be held.

Basically I think stuff needs to be run by a judge in order to be kept as a secret for more than a year.

Also note there is a difference between secret and confidential.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817624)

What's your point? Do you think we don't deserve to know how the people that represent us do represent us?

As the article shows, we don't need wikileaks to breach the privacy of defenseless individuals, the government, already does so with impunity. But your point of view seems to be that if we want the government to respect the privacy of what people do in their homes we should in exchange forgo any semblance of accountability and government transparency?

You may claim to just be joking, but you are simply trolling.

Re:Let's put it up on Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817640)

Slashdot It! [slashdot.org]

Forget medical marijuana (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817050)

i want some medical crack and heroine... better stuff

Re:Forget medical marijuana (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817056)

I could go for a few fat lines of medical coke. To treat my sinus pain.

Re:Forget medical marijuana (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817300)

I demand my right to a medical blowjob!

Disabled man gets a visit to an Amsterdam prostitu (5, Informative)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817350)

The danish can:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/1499735/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-disabled-Danes-visits-to-prostitutes.html [telegraph.co.uk]

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.

Re:Forget medical marijuana (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817420)

You are in luck: Cocaine is a schedule 2 substance, legally available by prescription, whose primary medical purpose is anesthesia in nasal, ophthalmic, and other facial surgery.

Not as commonly used now(mostly replaced by synthetic alkaloids of various flavors with similar effects); but the legal status remains.

You can't exactly walk into a pharmacy and expect to walk out with a 30 day supply; but a fair amount of stuff whose "street" form has been thoroughly demonized is actually schedule II or below in its more respectable medical guise: Cocaine, opium, amphetamines, methylphenidates, methamphetamine, PCP, etc.

Re:Forget medical marijuana (1)

dkuntz (220364) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817502)

I do believe some hospitals do still use cocaine as a topical anesthetic.

Re:Forget medical marijuana (1)

dkuntz (220364) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817550)

Medical Heroine... Morphine or Dilaudid?
And Heroin was a brand made by Bayer (yes, the aspirin people...), and is a derivative of morphine

Re:Forget medical marijuana (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817704)

There is a ton of different pharmaceutical opiods. Primarily for the reason that nothing else can really come close for pain management. They're the best option, even with the problems they have (dependence, constipation, etc).

I seem to recall that heroin was developed as a less dependency-causing alternative to morphine. I guess that didn't quite pan out, did it...

It's kind of funny when you think how far we've come in medicine, with some incredible breakthroughs - and yet our heavy painkillers haven't much changed in centuries. Poppy sap, and similar synthesized compounds.

OK, so I don't know the whole story... (3, Insightful)

scribblej (195445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817054)

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.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817112)

Sombody has been dumped by Mary-Jane recently..

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (4, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817142)

Oh you.... Bringing all that common sense and logic to slashdot. Have you yourself been smoking some of this medicine perhaps?

*sips coffee*

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817152)

Agreed. You don't see wine and liquor stores or even distilleries freaking out about the same thing.

I know exactly where they are. Do you know how they keep theft down? By having closed circuit TV cameras and a silent alarm that calls the police.

If these are private businesses then they need to learn how to protect their product from outside and inside theft.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

Denihil (1208200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817234)

yeah BUT there's smaller "mom and pop" facilities that are very small and don't have the funds necessary for all that shit you mentioned above. Plus, ya know, the gov't DID tell them they were going to keep that location secret. Plus they aren't selling at the place of business, so there's no need for the public to know the whereabouts, like a liquor store. Why would we want them to be at MORE RISK for no reason other than to make cops more lazy?

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817336)

Poor little pot farms barely getting by.

Look, they are growing it for a reason and charity ain't it.

The cost of doing business is providing security and if not the city then one of their own employees.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817496)

Surely it's different because in the case of alcohol retailers it isn't the frickin GOVERNMENT who are bursting in firing guns.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817186)

I'm fairly sure that banks choose to advertise their places of business, rather than having them helpfully outed by the local government...

Further, while retail establishments, banking and otherwise, are made as public as possible for obvious reasons, it is quite common for actors in a wide variety of legitimate industries to be somewhat cagey about the locations and precise purposes of their various "back office" facilities. Keeps security costs lower, provides less information to competitors, and so forth. Most of this stuff isn't truly "secret"(in the sense that it is nothing a PI or decent reporter couldn't dig up with a bit of work); but there are tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of industrial parks and office complexes around the country, often gated and typically deliberately understated, quietly doing assorted stuff, under the (small) placards of various corporations that may or may not be under some other umbrella entirely. In addition to static facilities, things like shipments of cash, high-value consumer or industrial goods, hazardous chemicals, and pharmaceuticals are quite commonly done quietly. Again, not secret; but the local government sure doesn't "accidentally" reveal the time and route that the next shipment of medical opiates is going to be taking into the local oncology hospice...

Obviously, this isn't the end of the world; but conflating retail and backend operations is pretty misleading.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817224)

Wait, so are we saying that obscurity *is* the best path to security now?

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (3, Insightful)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817282)

In addition to the other security features, some extra additional obscurity only helps. In physical world much more so than digital, though.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (4, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817402)

How do you feel about The Drug Companies? Should *they* be able to hide the locations of their pharmaceutical plants from the public?

Look, if these folks want to be in the *BUSINESS* of manufacturing marijuana, they need to take the same types of precautions as the plan that makes Oxycodone.

And, according to one guy quoted in the story (yes, I RTFA, did you?), that's exactly his attitude: He doesn't care because he's got security.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817492)

The same precautions as the plants the manufacture oxycodone includes: the state not divulging their location, and a fenced off area.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (-1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817518)

Are you sure of that? Because I can find lists at FDA. Maybe the FDA doesn't know?

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817626)

Then post a link to where this information is made publicly available, instead of just claiming it's true.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (-1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817702)

Then post a link to where this information is made publicly available, instead of just claiming it's true.

Do your own search. I'm not arguing with you, I'm *telling* you something. You are perfictlay capable of finding these things yourself. And what's with your attitude?

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817578)

No, the problem is that there are many businesses that feel that they don't need the security gates, cameras, alarms, guards, and other security measures because, well, they're in a low-profile office or industrial park and they think no one will bother them.

It's a bit like putting Apache on a non-default port and then not bothering with security updates, passwords, etc., and then complaining later that someone hacked your server. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (5, Interesting)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817478)

I do work for a business in my town. It has a emergency generator, a secondary generator for HVAC/R and lights, and a tertiary generator for the -30F freezer. The stuff in the walk-in cooler (36F), the walk-in freezer (0F) and the other walk-in freezer(-30) (reachable only by going through the cooler and 0F freezer) are all small boxes and insulated containers marked with bio-hazard symbols. They keep a rotating temp chart that if it varies by more than 3F in an hour period, they call me for immediate service and inspection. And when I asked them what was in the boxes, they said "stuff". When I asked abut the temp requirements, they said the "stuff" gets unstable above 40F. The company name is very generic. The staff, about 30 or so, don't wear name tags. There checks are drawn on a local bank. And when I google them, there is no information other than their phone number and address. That's the "I don't know the whole frickin story" I am interested in. Oh, and they have never questioned any of my bills, or prices. I show up, verify the equipment is functioning within parameters (Amp draw, operating pressures, etc) and give them a bill. They write me a check then and there, no matter if it is 2pm on a Monday, or 3am on Christmas Eve (yeah, called me three years ago because the temp varied by 4 degrees F at approximately 11pm.)

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817620)

I can't decide whether the outfit you describe is more likely to be on a federal watch list or a federal supplier list...

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

UttBuggly (871776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817648)

I'm fairly sure that banks choose to advertise their places of business, rather than having them helpfully outed by the local government...

Further, while retail establishments, banking and otherwise, are made as public as possible for obvious reasons, it is quite common for actors in a wide variety of legitimate industries to be somewhat cagey about the locations and precise purposes of their various "back office" facilities. Keeps security costs lower, provides less information to competitors, and so forth. Most of this stuff isn't truly "secret"(in the sense that it is nothing a PI or decent reporter couldn't dig up with a bit of work); but there are tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of industrial parks and office complexes around the country, often gated and typically deliberately understated, quietly doing assorted stuff, under the (small) placards of various corporations that may or may not be under some other umbrella entirely. In addition to static facilities, things like shipments of cash, high-value consumer or industrial goods, hazardous chemicals, and pharmaceuticals are quite commonly done quietly. Again, not secret; but the local government sure doesn't "accidentally" reveal the time and route that the next shipment of medical opiates is going to be taking into the local oncology hospice...

Obviously, this isn't the end of the world; but conflating retail and backend operations is pretty misleading.

I quite agree.

And yes, while I (or random miscreant) can see the Fritos or Budweiser truck at the 7-11, they're rarely hijacked or robbed. The Wells Fargo truck is heavily armored and has men with guns.

The relative value is quite different for that which is munchies, that which causes munchies or that which buys munchies.

If the 7-11, Fritos truck, or Wells Fargo truck are assailed, police response and serious media coverage are virtually guaranteed. I don't know that would be the case with the pot grower.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (3, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817212)

Banks have security measures that are highly effective and widely used. A small-scale grow operation implementing the level of security used at the average bank would have no funds with which to do anything else.

You have to remember, these are very small scale operations. An average bank is dealing with literally thousands of times more revenue than these operations, and doing so with a limited footprint compared to a grow operation, which makes it easier to protect with bulletproof acrylic, cameras, a security guard, and a gigantic 2-foot-thick vault with a tiny amount of floor space for holding 99% of the cash and valuables. You can't grow this stuff inside of a vault like that - otherwise you're looking at a warehouse sized, multi-billion-dollar vault, with the potential to produce maybe a million or two in income yearly.

By the way, banks don't have their information published by the state, as you're insinuating they do. They choose to publicize it themselves (for obvious reasons). They can keep their location confidential if they wish.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817222)

GET SOME SECURITY

Dude. This is Boulder. BOULDER. We do not permit apish security types in our city. Only a gun crazy wing nut could think like that. Go read your sky daddy book and leave the thinking to us. Thanks.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817358)

Go read your sky daddy book and leave the thinking to us.

Based on the rest of your post, it doesn't look like that will be viable.... for anybody.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817380)

Nor does Boulder do a good job of investigating child murders.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817230)

But do you know where the armored car companies operate from? That is usually kept under wraps.

A better example would be pharmacology labs and distribution facilities. Most of our wonderful pharmaceuticals flow through these privately operated facilities, they almost always need a business license with the local municipality, but the location that the license is good for is not disclosed to the public for a number of good reasons, mostly having to do with concern for the safety of the employees as well as the general public if the facility were broken into and it's contents distributed on the street.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817250)

Banks usually have security guards either on payroll or contracted out. And they do this out of necessity, as they have normal individuals frequently stopping in to cash checks, deposit money, etc. On the other hand, these locations where cannabis is grown are not typically open to the public eye, one way or another, and shouldn't be forced into employing armed security personnel simply because their locations are no longer private.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817258)

put down the pipe, and GET SOME SECURITY.

If marijuana was as legal as tobacco or alcohol, it wouldn't be any more likely to be stolen, which is still somewhat common but generally at a small scale. Lack of availability, combined with the absurd street price for something that is a glorified weed is the problem. A security system is obviously part of the solution, but once pot is legal for any use (and at 46, I'm betting it will happen in my lifetime) then it won't be as huge of an issue.

And yes, of course they should have their contact info as public as any other legit business, if they are to be perceived as legit.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (5, Informative)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817308)

They - OH MY GOD - list their addresses publically!

...not the addresses of their currency distribution facilities or data centres they don't. I live near the processing centre of a large bank. The place doesn't have a sign, front door, receptionist, anything - Just armoured cars coming and going.

they don't publish a map to the vault (0)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817454)

of those banks. Or to the big money distribution center that transports money from and to the banks, ATMs and all that.

Not legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817458)

That's great, but it's NOT legal. Not anywhere in the US. Hence, there is still a black market, and all the violent crime that comes with a black market.

Until the day when one doesn't have to petition authority to purchase marijuana, there will be a black market, and there will be violent crime as a result. Until then, the destructive side of prohibition (aside from oppression) hasn't been solved at all.

Re:OK, so I don't know the whole story... (2)

RCC42 (1457439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817486)

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.

It's funny that the submitter chose the words "risk of armed robbery by criminals" to describe the dangers posed to grow warehouses since, by law, Federal agents are allowed to and frequently do raid Medical Marijuana stores and warehouses in states where it's legal.

Since the Feds usually kick the doors down, wave their guns around and take all the weed it seems to me that if you described the situation to someone and didn't mention that the aggressors had DEA written on their hats then the person you described it to would probably agree that it sounded like an armed robbery by criminals.

Part of the cost of doing business (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817078)

Should we hide the locations of diamond distributors? Electronics makers? Lots of people deal in valuable merchandise, and they hire security and pay for insurance to cover the risks.

Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817100)

Will growers be liable to patients when they contract lung cancer from their medical marijuana? Will tenants of apartment buildings be able to sue their neighbors due to the effects of second hand medical marijuana smoke? May I smoke my medical marijuana as prescribed at my workplace?

Re:Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817156)

Do you have any evidence that marijuana causes lung cancer?

Re:Questions (3, Informative)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817292)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html [washingtonpost.com]

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.

Re:Questions (3, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817414)

On the other hand...

Long-Time Marijuana Use Linked to Psychosis in Young Adults [businessweek.com]

Young adults who used marijuana as teens were more likely than those who didn’t to develop schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms including hallucinations and delusions, an Australian study found.

Those who used the drug for six or more years were twice as likely to develop a psychosis such as schizophrenia or to have delusional disorders than those who never used marijuana, according to research released online by the Archives of General Psychiatry. They were also four times as likely to score high on a list of psychotic-like experiences.

The findings build on previous research and shows that marijuana use isn’t as harmless as some people think, lead study author John McGrath said yesterday in an e-mail. The study was the first to look at sibling pairs to discount genetic or environmental influence and still find marijuana linked to later psychosis, the authors said in the study.

Re:Questions (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817654)

First off what does this have to do with cancer?

Second off:

Of the 1,272 participants who had never used marijuana, 26 or 2 percent were diagnosed with psychosis. Of the 322 people who had used marijuana for six or more years, 12 or 3.7 percent were diagnosed with the illness.

The difference was only 1.7% thats not that big of a difference, and I wonder what the margin of error is.

Re:Questions (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817686)

Nice link, but there's no reason to think that the causation isn't the other way: people with psychosis tend to use marijuana.

It's known as "self medication." It may not be wise, but then people with psychoses are not necessarily known for good judgement.

Re:Questions (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817320)

Yes.

Re:Questions (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817404)

Yes.

Your .sig is uniquely appropriate in light of your post.

Re:Questions (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817506)

Stupid AC. You are taking a substance, setting it on fire, and sucking the resulting smoke and other substances down into your lungs. It makes you cough. That alone tells me that it ain't probably "good" for you. And I fully support the legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana. I think you should be able to go buy a ounce of pot, a fifth of booze, 30 pills and a few rocks of crack, some LSD, and PCP, along with antibiotics, and other stuff like cyanide, if you chose to do so as an adult.

businesses have little "right to privacy" (3, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817114)

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?

Re:businesses have little "right to privacy" (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817294)

Pharmacy's are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. The locations where cannabis is dispensed usually are, too, but the locations where it's grown ARE NOT and probably shouldn't be for that reason alone.

Re:businesses have little "right to privacy" (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817388)

The locations of pharmaceutical manufacturers usually aren't public, though. Also, pharmacies choose to advertise themselves; the state never gives out a listing of all pharmacies inside of the state.

"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (2, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817128)

"Medical marijuana" is just a scam. 60 "grow facilities" in Boulder, Colorado? Four times as many "dispensaries" in San Jose as 7-11s? [nytimes.com] .

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.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817196)

So how are things with your wife in the kitchen or giving birth and voting for Ronald Reagan?

Been to any tea party rallies lately?

Why try to get people off medication if it makes life better?

Don't know why your type are always such buzzkills.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (3, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817286)

Apparently smoking a bong, while desensitizing you to pain and making you feel generally euphoric, still allows the absorption of leftist talking points. Interesting.

Eh, at least it keeps you from any job more technically challenging than filling a fry bag...or emptying a Doritos bag.

what, are you high? (5, Informative)

alienzed (732782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817564)

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.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817716)

That depends on the stage of your life in which you use it. It's a bad idea to get on any psychoactive drugs before you're about 21, ESPECIALLY antidepressants.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817732)

Eh, at least it keeps you from any job more technically challenging than filling a fry bag...or emptying a Doritos bag.

My father, who has smoked pot for 50+ years, is a retired math professor.

Now me? I work for the Feds, mostly sitting on my ass doing nothing. I don't use marijuana.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817208)

An even bigger scam is the pretext they use to prop up prohibition.

Count deMonet

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (5, Informative)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817390)

How is the parent post flamebait? It's true. The only reason we have prohibition is because it helps certain people (like DEA and their goons) remain in power and profit. Under our current laws, dangerous radicals like George Washington [google.com] , Thomas Jefferson [google.com] , and John Adams [google.com] would be thrown in a federal prison. The whole medical marijuana thing might have whatever problems, but much worse than anything associated with it is the fact that lives are being ruined because a someone scumbag likes sucking up taxpayers dollars to screw over honest law abiding citizens.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (1)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817552)

It's flamebait because it makes a potentially controversial or inflammatory statement without any supporting facts or commentary. It's like saying, "An even bigger scam is the pretext Apple uses to promote 'openness.'" You may or may not agree with Apple's policies, but without any supporting verbiage, it's just a useless jab at iTards. Pure flamebait.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817226)

Maybe you're right. But partial legalization through "scam" laws is still better then no legalization at all.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817246)

"Medical marijuana" is just a scam.

You're right. For many, it's a way around misguided drug laws that should be changed.

www.NoJailForPot.com [nojailforpot.com]

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (1, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817270)

"Medical marijuana" is just a scam.

I think of scams as cheating someone. The growers, distributors, and consumers are consenting adults happily do business with each other. The only scam I see is big, intrusive government types propping up a failed policy.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (1, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817482)

I think of scams as cheating someone. The growers, distributors, and consumers are consenting adults happily do business with each other. The only scam I see is big, intrusive government types propping up a failed policy.

On the contrary, the growers and distributors are cheating the consumers. They allow them to believe that it is a harmless product, when that isn't really true [businessweek.com] .

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817666)

On the contrary, the growers and distributors are cheating the consumers. They allow them to believe that it is a harmless product, when that isn't really true.

Nobody believes that marijuana is harmless. Nobody who buys pot is being "cheated." Have you seen all those movies where potheads are portrayed as coughing, brain-dead stoners who couldn't remember what they were just talking about? People who use pot know that the shit isn't good for them, though ingestion and vaporization are more healthy than smoking. People who live on diets of fries, Big-Macs, pizza, and ice cream know that the shit isn't good for them. People who drink beer, wine, or liquor know that the shit isn't good for them.

We don't use marijuana because it's harmless, we use it because we like how it makes us feel. Even drinking water in excess will kill you. What we're upset about is the convenient inconsistency in our laws. Marijuana is a schedule I substance while cocaine is schedule II. Marijuana is a drug for dirty street people while corporate-sanctioned drug abuse via long-term prescription of benzodiazepines and opiates is socially acceptable and even hip - just ask Rush Limbaugh. The public and states often support medical and even recreational use of pot, yet the FedThugScum are still at it breaking down doors with battering rams and assault rifles.

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817280)

And in real treatment, you try to get people off medication.

You haven't been involved in medicine in the last two decades or so, have you?

Re:"Medical marijuana" is such a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817376)

My insurance company seems to think that no medication is the best way to practice medicine.

"Accidently" (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817166)

That's funny... Seems to be a lot of that going on these days

Hire Halliburton to guard them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817236)

At most, one attempted theft from each one, followed by an obituary in the following days' paper. Solve three problems at once: 1) no trial expenses for the attempted theft, 2) dead thieves stop stealing permanently, 3) dead addicts are free from addiction. And Halliburton gets a bounty per head.

Not an Issue (3, Interesting)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817266)

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.

Let's be clear - this is a business license (5, Insightful)

vinn (4370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817298)

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.

Re:Let's be clear - this is a business license (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817634)

The city is well within their right to place requirements on a business as part of a business license application.

That is standard cop-out language.
It may be within their legal rights, but that's not the question.
The question is "Is it the best choice given the likely effects?"

At no time did any of us think, "Oh, we gotta collect all this information so we can do a raid."

Of course not. But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:Let's be clear - this is a business license (1)

Toasterboy (228574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817642)

Require a security system? Really? In Montana most people don't even bother to lock their cars.

While it's a good idea to have one as a business, it really should not be a requirement. Now you have to staff your police to respond to the constant stream of false alarms that come from said security systems. There's a reason most police jurisdictions bill you for their time when responding to a security system incident after the first false one.

Plus, now you are requiring businesses in your small town to pay service fees to an external security monitoring company. That's a drain on your local economy. Good job, because that's $30-$100 per business per month that isn't staying in your community.

Either Legalize it or Continue Prohibition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34817386)

Medical Marijuana is a scam. "Medicine" doesn't come in "joints".
There have been numerous busts of people with Med Licenses selling on the street... then there's this... http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_17040253
Grow Houses using Medical as a cover for illegal sales.

Legalize it
Control it
Tax it
 

Re:Either Legalize it or Continue Prohibition (3, Funny)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817572)

"Medicine" doesn't come in "joints".

No, it comes in brownies and rice crispy treats.

Armed robbery? (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817650)

I have to wonder what sort of mentality thinks exposing growers to the very real risk of armed robbery by criminals is justifiable.

As opposed to the very real risk of armed robbery every business and person faces? This is a red herring.

Decriminalize it (5, Insightful)

crumbz (41803) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817670)

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.

Obscurity versus security again.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817684)

... I have to wonder what sort of mentality thinks exposing growers to the very real risk of armed robbery by criminals is justifiable.

Oh, look... he's advocating security through obscurity. Haven't we already agreed this isn't security? I guess not.

The way to FIX this is to legalize it. Then anybody can grow it - it's not that hard or expensive - and they'd have no reason to send squads of armed thugs to someone else's house to raid their stash. Then security wouldn't even be an issue. Diamonds and gold are valuable because they're relatively scarce (hard to mine), but marijuana is valuable ONLY because it's been arbitrarily made illegal.

Hassel (1)

kurtis25 (909650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34817724)

I'm anxiously waiting to hear the decision. If they start posting this information I'll expect a call from my insurance carriers announcing a rate increase or cancellation. Either way I'll have to hire real security until I can move shop.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...