# Potential downside to medical marijuana: criminals who want it.



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

I've read about a couple situations recently involving people who either had or were growing legal medical marijuana and they were attacked and robbed by people who knew they had it.  And some medical marijuana dispensaries have been targeted by armed robbers as well.

In this case, the medical marijuana that was present may not have been the motive for the robbery, but it attracted my attention and I realized how many incidents like this I've been reading lately.  Just FYI...if I were to use medical marijuana, I don't think I'd tell anyone.

http://www.khsltv.com/content/local...ictims-Fight-Back/Xn5SvhhW_E6PTOOOw8IQ7w.cspx



> What started out as a quiet Sunday night at an Oroville home near 10th St. and Nevada St., quickly transpired into something unthinkable to the three residents inside.
> Sgt.  Jason Hail with the Butte County Sheriffs Office says, A male subject  and a female accomplice entered the residence, they were armed. They  tied them up the occupants.
> One of the victims Clayton declined to speak on camera, but told Action News the details of the home invasion.
> He says the lead suspect Dusty Lacey was demanding money, cell phones and the keys to their cars.
> ...


----------



## Big Don (Oct 13, 2010)

The people I see most often advocating for "medical" marijuana usually tend to look like the stereotypical stoner. Would you take this man's advice about medicine, or anything?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Really?


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 13, 2010)

Big Don said:


> The people I see most often advocating for "medical" marijuana usually tend to look like the stereotypical stoner.


Here's a few:











Yep, just a buncha stoners.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 13, 2010)

This is not an argument against medical marijuana, it's about thieves who knew that something of value was somewhere and they wanted it ... as thieves are wont to do when since they are into the unearned.

The same argument could be made for banks, gas stations, etc.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> This is not an argument against medical marijuana, it's about thieves who knew that something of value was somewhere and they wanted it ... as thieves are wont to do when since they are into the unearned.
> 
> The same argument could be made for banks, gas stations, etc.



Yes, this is true - having something of value makes one a target.

However, there is a difference.  When homeowners are targeted specifically because they have medical marijuana, that is an added element of risk.  You can't argue that a person who is not known to have MM in their house is at equal risk for home invasion as a person who does when the crooks themselves target based on MM possession.

We've had a number of robberies here in Michigan, and MM is just getting underway.  In California, it seems to be happening left, right, and center.  There was a recent shootout in a legal MM growing area as I recall; hard to say that there would have been a shootout over a crop of soybeans.

Drug addicts are fond of robbing drug dealers - because they have both drugs and cash.  But drug dealers know this and are often armed to the teeth because of it.  MM-using homeowners have the drugs too, but don't present the same apparent risk.  It seems a no-brainer that some some crooks would figure that out and start targeting known MM users.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 13, 2010)

Yes, but it's still not an argument against MM, it's an argument against theft.  I'm sure if those people had diamonds in their house and it was known Catwoman would have shown up too.  Theft of MM in one area or another means just that thieves are stealing somethign else of value now.  In Jamaica if you have a gun (legally) and it's known criminals will break into your house and try to steal it because guns are hard to come by there.  Does that mean guns should be illegal too?  No.

Oh, anyone notice how badly written the news story was?  Had to read the whole thing twice to get the whole thing.  It's as if the writer is a blogger come journalist, it's written in a linear fashion following the sequence of events like he's writing abotu a bad date to his friends.  It's really quite simple, in journalism the first 3rd of the article has all the pertinent information to the case and the following two thirds are the sequence of events and the supporting information.  We all know from studies people rarely read whole articles, the read the first part or the first half and that's why stories are formatted this way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yes, but it's still not an argument against MM, it's an argument against theft.  I'm sure if those people had diamonds in their house and it was known Catwoman would have shown up too.  Theft of MM in one area or another means just that thieves are stealing somethign else of value now.  In Jamaica if you have a gun (legally) and it's known criminals will break into your house and try to steal it because guns are hard to come by there.  Does that mean guns should be illegal too?  No.



I'm not arguing against MM in this thread.  I'm noting that there is a new danger that perhaps some MM users are not aware of.  Grandpa decides to give this MM thing a try and tells his family about it, word gets out that he's got a stash of skunk in his medicine cabinet, and the next thing he knows, he's got a rash of morons with masks trying to break and enter at night.  That's all. I think you may have misread my intentions, probably my fault.



> Oh, anyone notice how badly written the news story was?  Had to read the whole thing twice to get the whole thing.  It's as if the writer is a blogger come journalist, it's written in a linear fashion following the sequence of events like he's writing abotu a bad date to his friends.  It's really quite simple, in journalism the first 3rd of the article has all the pertinent information to the case and the following two thirds are the sequence of events and the supporting information.  We all know from studies people rarely read whole articles, the read the first part or the first half and that's why stories are formatted this way.



Maybe the writer was smoking dope.  OK, just kidding.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 13, 2010)

Yes, but that's fear mongering in the article.  You can't have MM in your house because you'll get robbed?  That's crazy.  Criminals will steal anything of value that they can use or trade for something they can use.  Using weed as an example to highlight how evil it is is really no argument, one could replace it with diamonds, gold, a new socket set, etc.

Scarcity drives up value.


----------



## crushing (Oct 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, this is true - having something of value makes one a target.


 
That's for sure!  Makes one wonder why we continue the policies that keep the value of that 'something' very high.  Especially when a previous 'noble experiment' failed.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157es.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157es.html


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yes, but that's fear mongering in the article.  You can't have MM in your house because you'll get robbed?  That's crazy.



Having MM in your house is no guarantee that you'll get robbed, but it's an *enhanced risk* that people who have MM in their houses might to be aware of.  Would you agree with that?



> Criminals will steal anything of value that they can use or trade for something they can use.  Using weed as an example to highlight how evil it is is really no argument, one could replace it with diamonds, gold, a new socket set, etc.



I haven't said that weed is evil in this thread, nor did the article author that I noticed.  However, I disagree that one could replace it with diamonds, gold, etc.  I absolutely agree that if a person is known to have diamonds in their house, they are at increased risk of being victimized.  But having MM in their house is even more risky.  MM is not only attractive to those who would sell it, but to those who would smoke it.



> Scarcity drives up value.



Not sure what that has to do with anything.

I'm not trying to argue the pros or cons of MM use in this thread.  I have noticed the recent crimes being reported lately that involve victims who use, raise, or legally sell MM.  That seems newsworthy to me, as well as being a cautionary note for those who might be considering MM to use caution, especially about whom they tell about their use.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16209395?nclick_check=1



> In the third armed takeover  robbery of a San Jose medical marijuana club this year, two men burst  into The Dispensary on Monterey Road just before noon Wednesday, tied up  the employees and made off with* marijuana and money*.


\

Yeah, they could just as well have robbed a jewelry dealer or a liquor store; but they wanted drugs as well as cash, apparently.  And I'd be willing to bet that they saw a relatively new type of business, where the risks are not clearly understood yet, as being safer to rob than say a liquor store where most of the owners have a gun under the counter because they're used to being robbed.  Besides, you can carry a lot of pot under your arm as you run away; not so much bottles of booze.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-ar...ng-robbery-at-ann-arbor-medical-marijuana-cl/



> As three men were robbing a medical marijuana clinic in downtown *Ann Arbor*, binding the people inside with duct tape, two police officers rushed in and confronted them, Police Chief Barnett Jones said.
> The men  two armed with guns  *stole cash and marijuana* during the  Thursday evening robbery and refused to go down without a fight, Jones  said.



I'm not saying MM is evil.  I'm saying that users, sellers, and growers of MM face an enhanced risk, and yes, that risk is higher than for an owner of a fancy SUV or a diamond ring or what-have-you.  The pot itself is an attractant, not just the money one can get for selling it.  Not letting people know that they're running a risk by letting people know they have MM seems like not such a good idea to me.


----------



## Stac3y (Oct 13, 2010)

Maybe someone should compare the enhanced risk of MM to the enhanced risk of having a huge flat screen TV. At least you can't see MM through the curtains.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *Having MM in your house is no guarantee that you'll get robbed, but it's an enhanced risk that people who have MM in their houses might to be aware of.  Would you agree with that?*
> 
> I haven't said that weed is evil in this thread, nor did the article author that I noticed.  However, I disagree that one could replace it with diamonds, gold, etc.  I absolutely agree that if a person is known to have diamonds in their house, they are at increased risk of being victimized.  But having MM in their house is even more risky.  MM is not only attractive to those who would sell it, but to those who would smoke it.
> 
> ...



Sure there's an enhanced risk, just like there's a higher risk when you have anything else of value in your house and let people know.

I was pointing out that a manufactured scarcity makes weed a more valuable commodity and more attractive to thieves.  Just like diamond companies on purpose keep it relatively scares compared to what they actually dig out of the ground.  If they were to sell all they produced when they produced it the diamond market would crumble, it is it's own micro economy.  If/when weed is legal and you can buy a pack at the store (with ID proving you are 21 or older) just like cigarettes then we'll not see these robberies.

You are correct in saying that people rob these dispensaries for the money and the weed.  The dispensaries themselves can learn a lot from jewelry stores, liqueur stores, etc in that respect.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 13, 2010)

crushing said:


> That's for sure! Makes one wonder why we continue the policies that keep the value of that 'something' very high. Especially when a previous 'noble experiment' failed.
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157es.html


 
Would also like to mention that the same policies which keep the value very high keep it untaxed and uncontrolled. Most drug dealers don't care how old their customers are. 

http://wn.com/Study_Says_It's_Easier_For_Teens_To_Buy_Marijuana_Than_Beer


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Sure there's an enhanced risk, just like there's a higher risk when you have anything else of value in your house and let people know.



No.  MM is not like 'just anything else'.  It attracts *more* and *different kinds* of criminals.  I'm not sure why you choose not to see this.



> I was pointing out that a manufactured scarcity makes weed a more valuable commodity and more attractive to thieves.  Just like diamond companies on purpose keep it relatively scares compared to what they actually dig out of the ground.  If they were to sell all they produced when they produced it the diamond market would crumble, it is it's own micro economy.  If/when weed is legal and you can buy a pack at the store (with ID proving you are 21 or older) just like cigarettes then we'll not see these robberies.



Ah, now I see your angle.  Well, be that as it may - it's not the case today, is it?  I like to deal with what is, and not pie-in-the-sky.



> You are correct in saying that people rob these dispensaries for the money and the weed.  The dispensaries themselves can learn a lot from jewelry stores, liqueur stores, etc in that respect.


And, I suspect, MM growers and MM users.  That being the point of my first post.  It's a new and different kind of threat, it's an *enhanced threat* even compared to having a flat screen TV or a diamond ring that bad guys know about.  They face threats not just from the usual criminal element that might target them for what they could hock their property for, but they also face threats from those who habitually otherwise rob drug dealers to get their drugs as well as their money.

You seem rather sensitive to admitting that being a known MM user places a person at enhanced risk.  You want to equate it to 'any other kind of risk'.  Well, it's not.  That's like saying sure, shooting heroin is bad for your health, just like not exercising.  No.  They're both risks, but they're not the same.  I don't think you can yawn and equate them.  

Most 'ordinary citizens' who are just now getting interested in the medicinal value of marijuana hardly expect to have their door battered down in the middle of the night by masked men looking for their stash.  It's placing Joe Everyman into a niche or fringe society formerly inhabited pretty much exclusively by people who live on the edge and aren't unfamiliar with the idea of desperate men trying to kill them for the drugs they possess.

Taking a blase approach to the risk is foolhardy in the extreme.

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/10/11/pot/



> Ever think the day would come when you'd be on the way to Grandma's house with a goodie bag of marijuana?
> 
> According to a report in The New York Times,  middle-aged adult caregivers are coming to the rescue with cannabis to  help ease a variety of ailments for their ailing elderly parents.


Grandma, unlike her middle-aged son who fetches her stash, has probably never scored a baggie in a dangerous neighborhood late at night.  She probably has zero exposure to any violent criminal element that formerly dealt pot before the advent of MM.  She'd have no more concern for anyone knowing she had MM than she might that someone be aware she takes Geritol.  But she'd be exposing herself to some level of risk beyond just owning a flat-screen TV or a diamond ring by letting word get out that she regularly smokes MM and has a stash in her house.

http://www.kcra.com/r/25198552/detail.html


> The victim told police he had a medical pot card and was growing marijuana plants in his home.Police said the burglars were after the marijuana.The victim appears to have been justified in firing the shotgun to defend himself, police said.


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...in-pot-robbery-outside-Santa-Rosa-restaurant-



> Three men suspected of robbing a couple of their marijuana at  gunpoint Friday were caught a short time later in their silver Cadillac  with pot in the car, Santa Rosa police said.
> 
> #forumnumcom h6 { width: 250px; float: left; margin: 18px 10px 0pt 0pt; padding: 10px 0pt 15px; border-bottom: medium none; border-top: 9px solid rgb(136, 136, 136); }
> A handgun believed to have been used in the 1:20 p.m. confrontation  outside the Applebee's restaurant on Santa Rosa Avenue was found dropped  on the road a short distance from where the car was stopped, police  said.
> A Lake County couple told police they were robbed in the  restaurant parking lot by two men they'd met a few weeks earlier at a  Santa Rosa medical marijuana dispensary.


These are people who became victims for the sole reason that they grew or had MM.  They didn't have the same risk as anyone off the street, they had an enhanced risk specifically due to their MM involvement.

I am not saying they should not be using, growing, or dispensing MM.  If it's legal, it's legal.  I am saying that a lot of people just now getting into the world of MM have not had the kind of life that the typical stoner of the last couple decades have had.  They're just not prepared for the idea of armed home invasions to get their brownies.  They might want to know of the risk and prepare themselves accordingly.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *No.  MM is not like 'just anything else'.  It attracts more and **different kinds of criminals.  I'm not sure why you choose not to see this.*



How does it attract more or different criminals?  Do you have statistics proving that theft is higher because of weed being the target?  Theft happens, banks get robbed, so do gas stations, clothes stores, even houses.  In a new industry popping up they will get robbed because they have not had the years of experience say a bank would have.  Also with the manufactured scarcity because of it's prohibition people who have it do get robbed, just like when there was the prohibition of alcohol.

Just like in Jamaica to get a gun you have to first get a license from the police, then your buy it through the police as well as get your ammo through them.  They also do the ballistics on the weapon, it's very controlled and only people who can legally get the weapons can have them.  So people get robbed and their houses are broken into if criminals even hear that you could possibly have a gun.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah, now I see your angle.  Well, be that as it may - it's not the case today, is it?  I like to deal with what is, and not pie-in-the-sky.
> 
> And, I suspect, MM growers and MM users.  That being the point of my first post.  It's a new and different kind of threat, it's an *enhanced threat* even compared to having a flat screen TV or a diamond ring that bad guys know about.  They face threats not just from the usual criminal element that might target them for what they could hock their property for, but they also face threats from those who habitually otherwise rob drug dealers to get their drugs as well as their money.
> 
> You seem rather sensitive to admitting that being a known MM user places a person at enhanced risk.  You want to equate it to 'any other kind of risk'.  Well, it's not. * That's like saying sure, shooting heroin is bad for your health, just like not exercising.*  No.  They're both risks, but they're not the same.  I don't think you can yawn and equate them.



I'm not sensative about it, I'm stating what I see.  You destroyed your own argument by using that heroin and exercising analogy.  You are comparing a prescribed drug to one that is illegal.  Never heard of anyone talking about the benefits of heroin.


----------



## Nomad (Oct 13, 2010)

Actually, I highly doubt that anyone that robs a grow-op or medical marijuana user has a primary goal of getting drugs.  Their primary goal is still almost certainly the money they can get from selling (most of) what they steal.  I just don't see anyone (even stoners) risking jailtime for an amount that equates to personal use.

That said, yes, it is an additional risk.  A friend of mine (honest!) who's a medical marijuana user has the right to grow her own on her property for personal use, and only realized sometime later that you're not supposed to tell all your neighbors and friends that you are growing marijuana... mostly to minimize the possibility of theft.

On the subject of the flat screen TV being easier to see for potential thieves... yes, this is true, but while she was harvesting, the entire house and a significant region outside smelled very very strongly... a good indication for anyone that wasn't in the know what was happening here. 

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks she's one of the "got a stubbed toe, get medical marijuana!" types... I'm talking about someone for whom all other legal prescription drugs have failed, and who has been deemed inoperable.  The medical marijuana helps keep her pain at bay and lets her sleep at night.  Yep, sounds like a stoner who should be locked up to me (at least, by federal definitions)!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> How does it attract more or different criminals?



Criminals targeting MM users, growers, and dispensaries and making off with not just the money, but also the drugs. 



> Do you have statistics proving that theft is higher because of weed being the target?  Theft happens, banks get robbed, so do gas stations, clothes stores, even houses.  In a new industry popping up they will get robbed because they have not had the years of experience say a bank would have.  Also with the manufactured scarcity because of it's prohibition people who have it do get robbed, just like when there was the prohibition of alcohol.



On the one hand, you claim it's not a higher risk, then you admit it is, but put the blame on the fact that it is scarce.  You prove my point for me.



> Just like in Jamaica to get a gun you have to first get a license from the police, then your buy it through the police as well as get your ammo through them.  They also do the ballistics on the weapon, it's very controlled and only people who can legally get the weapons can have them.  So people get robbed and their houses are broken into if criminals even hear that you could possibly have a gun.



Bingo.  So we agree - people with MM are at a higher risk.  I thought you said they were not.



> I'm not sensative about it, I'm stating what I see.  You destroyed your own argument by using that heroin and exercising analogy.  You are comparing a prescribed drug to one that is illegal.  Never heard of anyone talking about the benefits of heroin.



You equated the relative risk of owning, raising, or dispensing MM with any other risk, such as owning jewelry or whatever.  It's not the same.  Comparisons such as yours invite analogies.  I made one.  I, on the other hand, do not equate MM with heroin, but neither do I place the relative risks of dealing heroin with the relative risks of not exercising.  They're just not the same at all.

We both seem to agree that there is a risk in owning, growing, or dispensing MM.  I say it is an enhanced risk because the MM is attractive to drug users as well as to those who would otherwise look for property to steal and sell.  You say the risk is the same as any attractive valuable thing; but then you say yes, it is actually an enhanced risk, and it's society's fault for creating a market where the price of marijuana is artificially high.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Nomad said:


> Actually, I highly doubt that anyone that robs a grow-op or medical marijuana user has a primary goal of getting drugs.  Their primary goal is still almost certainly the money they can get from selling (most of) what they steal.  I just don't see anyone (even stoners) risking jailtime for an amount that equates to personal use.



I posted several links to people being robbed of precisely that - their personal stash.  Believe it or don't; it's happening.



> That said, yes, it is an additional risk.  A friend of mine (honest!) who's a medical marijuana user has the right to grow her own on her property for personal use, and only realized sometime later that you're not supposed to tell all your neighbors and friends that you are growing marijuana... mostly to minimize the possibility of theft.



That would be my point.  I understand people who have a grow operation having an enhanced sense of security; but I wonder if Grandma with the gout and a brand-new MM prescription is prepared for having Joe Thugg kick down her door for her brownies?  That's what I'm talking about.



> On the subject of the flat screen TV being easier to see for potential thieves... yes, this is true, but while she was harvesting, the entire house and a significant region outside smelled very very strongly... a good indication for anyone that wasn't in the know what was happening here.



It's frankly a bit difficult for any neighbor not to know what is growing in the garden next door.  I hate my neighbor, and we've got a 12-foot-tall set of pine trees between us, but I can still see his garden and I'm sure he can see mine.  That's not an easy secret to keep unless one grows indoors.  Of course, if I were a dope smoker looking for an easy score - one that is unlikely to be armed - I might hang around near "Happy Harvesters Hydroponics" (real name) and follow home the first Volvo station wagon I saw with a mom-n-pop average-looking couple I saw.



> Oh, and just in case anyone thinks she's one of the "got a stubbed toe, get medical marijuana!" types... I'm talking about someone for whom all other legal prescription drugs have failed, and who has been deemed inoperable.  The medical marijuana helps keep her pain at bay and lets her sleep at night.  Yep, sounds like a stoner who should be locked up to me (at least, by federal definitions)!



Again, although I have a personal opinion on the use of marijuana, I have also said on more than one occasion that medical marijuana is now the law of the land in many places, and that's that.  I would rather see people who are new to this whole medical marijuana thing be safer by warning them of a risk they might not have anticipated so they can take precautions.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 13, 2010)

You missed the point Bill.  I used the gun issue and the prohibition issue to show that anything that people can't get legally they will get illegally.  In some cases robbing those who legally came by it, or targeting criminals who have it (like in prohibition).  Manufactured scarcity drives up value, but it makes people want to steal it.  Diamonds, gold, weed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> You missed the point Bill.  I used the gun issue and the prohibition issue to show that anything that people can't get legally they will get illegally.  In some cases robbing those who legally came by it, or targeting criminals who have it (like in prohibition).  Manufactured scarcity drives up value, but it makes people want to steal it.  Diamonds, gold, weed.



I got the point.  We have a different agenda.  I was wanting to note that there is a new threat which many new users of MM may have no idea they are exposed to; you want to carp about the effect that manufactured scarcity has on crime rates.  I don't disagree with your point - it just wasn't my point.


----------



## geezer (Oct 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I got the point. We have a different agenda. I was wanting to note that there is a new threat which many new users of MM may have no idea they are exposed to; you want to carp about the effect that manufactured scarcity has on crime rates. I don't disagree with your point - it just wasn't my point.


 
All of this is of some interest to me since in my state (Arizona) we will be voting on  "mediacal marijuana" again this November. We, the voters, approved it in the past, but the legislature blocked it's implementation on technicalities. Both sides hold that this time it's the real deal. We'll see. 

Now to the OP. I can't see thieves breaking into a private home to score an ounce or so of weed when there are many pounds available at a dispensary down the road. And, as far as the dispensaries go, dealing with crime is just part of the world we live in. Drugstores and pharmacies have problems too, and they deal with it. So for me, it's not an issue.


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 13, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> Maybe someone should compare the enhanced risk of MM to the enhanced risk of having a huge flat screen TV. At least you can't see MM through the curtains.



+1

yeah, basically, this

I have firearms in the house, lots of martial arts weapons etc, so same could be said for me. Many people have morphine in their homes for back pain etc, so I dont see it as much of an extra risk by having MM in your home. I would agree there might be some, in some areas, but generally I would assume not much?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

geezer said:


> Now to the OP. I can't see thieves breaking into a private home to score an ounce or so of weed when there are many pounds available at a dispensary down the road. And, as far as the dispensaries go, dealing with crime is just part of the world we live in. Drugstores and pharmacies have problems too, and they deal with it. So for me, it's not an issue.



I don't get where you can 'not see it' when I'm posting links to it actually happening.  I mean, it's happening.  Period.  Fact.  In what way is it not happening?  Is this just something you don't want to accept?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> +1
> 
> yeah, basically, this
> 
> I have firearms in the house, lots of martial arts weapons etc, so same could be said for me. Many people have morphine in their homes for back pain etc, so I dont see it as much of an extra risk by having MM in your home. I would agree there might be some, in some areas, but generally I would assume not much?



Then all these news stories I'm reading about people being robbed for their MM is just lies, I guess.  Or maybe I'm the liar.  Whatever.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 14, 2010)

I think you are reading stories of a new occurrence so it's being covered quite a bit.  People don't lime MM being available in their area and anything to draw a negative light to it.  People can have agendas.  Fact is, if someone wants to steal something of value from you they will attempt it, and yes MM falls under that heading.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2010)

Simplest and more reasonable thing to do is to decriminalize marijuana.  Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it.  When prohibition was in effect, we had the same kind of criminal activity around it.


----------



## Nomad (Oct 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't get where you can 'not see it' when I'm posting links to it actually happening.  I mean, it's happening.  Period.  Fact.  In what way is it not happening?  Is this just something you don't want to accept?



I'm curious whether these individuals were actually targeted specifically for the medical marijuana, or whether they were simply victims of robberies who happened to have that taken as well.  How much of this is the media focusing on these specific cases rather than other less sensational robberies happening at the same time?  

In other words, it would be nice to quantify whether or not there's really an enhanced risk of robbery (for the personal use type crimes; I certainly believe that dispensaries might be targeted more often than other types of businesses for the allure of ready cash and easily sell-able and smoke-able goods).

Bill, I don't think we're actually disagreeing on much here, though we might interpret it a bit differently.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2010)

Nomad said:


> I'm curious whether these individuals were actually targeted specifically for the medical marijuana, or whether they were simply victims of robberies who happened to have that taken as well.  How much of this is the media focusing on these specific cases rather than other less sensational robberies happening at the same time?



I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the couple robbed for their medical marijuana AS THEY WERE COMING OUT OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY were in fact targeted for their pot.  I know, what are the chances?  The robbers probably thought they had color TV sets in their pocket and were surprised to find medical pot patients who had medical pot on them.



> In other words, it would be nice to quantify whether or not there's really an enhanced risk of robbery (for the personal use type crimes; I certainly believe that dispensaries might be targeted more often than other types of businesses for the allure of ready cash and easily sell-able and smoke-able goods).
> 
> Bill, I don't think we're actually disagreeing on much here, though we might interpret it a bit differently.



I think it's different agendas at work.  I'm trying to point out that there are a new group of people getting involved in marijuana use now, due to the medical marijuana laws, and they might not be aware just how attractive their possessing marijuana might be to crooks; it seems others are afraid of anything that even purports to discuss that there might be a downside to medical marijuana - an unforeseen consequence.  Hence, the shrug and mutter that hey, it's probably the same risk as a guy who owns a big screen TV.  It's almost funny to watch.  Ever try to stick a dog's nose in his mess?  Yeah, like that.  They'll look anywhere but where you want them to look; they'll do anything to pretend it's not there.  Squirmy.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 14, 2010)

From what I see happening in my home town, medical marijuana is doomed. The growers are selling so much out the back door to stay under the legal possession limit, its only a matter of time before the Big crackdown.
sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 14, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Simplest and more reasonable thing to do is to decriminalize marijuana. Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it. When prohibition was in effect, we had the same kind of criminal activity around it.


It's not so simple. I saw a documentary explaining some repricussions from a bunch of mexican marijuana growers and trafficers suddenly out of a way to make money. They will do something else and possibly worse.
sean


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 14, 2010)

The same thing happens to people who have prescriptions for pain meds, like perceset (sp?).  It is a drug that has legitimet uses, but can also be easily abused and therefor has a street value.  ANYTHING with a street value can become a target of thieves.  Yes, these stories are becoming more frequent, but I think it is becaude << has become legal so the stories get reported...and there people with an agenda who want to make it seem ultra risky to have naything to do with marijuana.  My opinion, is that in the past people who had pot in thier homes got robbed and marijuana dealers as well.  They were smart enough not to report it to the police or the media.

People do need to be wise enough not to advertise anything in thier possesion that would make them a potential target.  Things such as electronics, drugs, jewelry, boose, etc will make you a target to the criminal element.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> The same thing happens to people who have prescriptions for pain meds, like perceset (sp?).  It is a drug that has legitimet uses, but can also be easily abused and therefor has a street value.  ANYTHING with a street value can become a target of thieves.  Yes, these stories are becoming more frequent, but I think it is becaude << has become legal so the stories get reported...and there people with an agenda who want to make it seem ultra risky to have naything to do with marijuana.  My opinion, is that in the past people who had pot in thier homes got robbed and marijuana dealers as well.  They were smart enough not to report it to the police or the media.
> 
> People do need to be wise enough not to advertise anything in thier possesion that would make them a potential target.  Things such as electronics, drugs, jewelry, boose, etc will make you a target to the criminal element.



Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.   Like I said, it's hilarious to watch the squirming to avoid noticing the truth staring you in the face.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. Like I said, it's hilarious to watch the squirming to avoid noticing the truth staring you in the face.


 
Honestly Bill, I don't get what you mean by this.  i'm not wiggling or squirming, just posting how I see the issue.  What exactly about my previous post is "squirming to avoid noticing the truth "?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 14, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Honestly Bill, I don't get what you mean by this.  i'm not wiggling or squirming, just posting how I see the issue.  What exactly about my previous post is "squirming to avoid noticing the truth "?



The statement that all threats are the same, that all displays of wealth attract a similar amount of criminal interest.  As others had previously tried this tactic in this thread, including denying that people were even being robbed for their medical marijuana despite my posting news articles that said they were, I tied it into my previous statement about agendas.  Some seem to have a powerful aversion to recognizing that medical marijuana brings a new threat to the table, one that patients may not have considered.  All threats are not the same.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 14, 2010)

I personally don't agree with your assessment.  I think the threat would be the same if it was anything else that could be sold on the street.  I don't think the increase of news stories is an accurate way of judging if the threat is increased from MM over any other valuble item, for the reaons I gave. If I go down to the corner store and announce I just got a new computer, I can pretty much guarantee I will have someone try to break into the house.  Letting people know marijuana is in the house, legal or otherwise runs the same risk, in my oinion.  You haven't shown me anything that counters that opinion, so I think we'll have to just agree to disagree unless you can show me something else.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I personally don't agree with your assessment.  I think the threat would be the same if it was anything else that could be sold on the street.  I don't think the increase of news stories is an accurate way of judging if the threat is increased from MM over any other valuble item, for the reaons I gave. If I go down to the corner store and announce I just got a new computer, I can pretty much guarantee I will have someone try to break into the house.  Letting people know marijuana is in the house, legal or otherwise runs the same risk, in my oinion.  You haven't shown me anything that counters that opinion, so I think we'll have to just agree to disagree unless you can show me something else.



Nobody smokes a new computer to get high.  I've shown the facts plenty clearly. Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 15, 2010)

no, they sell a computer to get high.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 15, 2010)

Three pages late to the party here.  Bill, a question for you: if you're just reporting facts and not really saying one thing or the other about MM, why does the thread title start with "Potential downsides.."?  The reason others are pointing out that MM shouldn't be made illegal because of the risk of theft is that you seem to be using it for that angle.  

Not meaning to a throw a "gotcha" at you, but if you're wondering where the two different agendas arose from, that might be it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Three pages late to the party here.  Bill, a question for you: if you're just reporting facts and not really saying one thing or the other about MM, why does the thread title start with "Potential downsides.."?  The reason others are pointing out that MM shouldn't be made illegal because of the risk of theft is that you seem to be using it for that angle.
> 
> Not meaning to a throw a "gotcha" at you, but if you're wondering where the two different agendas arose from, that might be it.



I understand your question, but no.  I've specifically left out any of my own feelings about medical marijuana in this thread.  The 'potential downside' of which I speak is the concept that medical marijuana users, particularly the elderly or those who might never have had exposure to the formerly illicit drug culture, may not be aware of the potential risks of growing it in their backyard or letting others know they have it.  

I have not suggested that they not grow or use it.  The law is the law, regardless of my opinion of it.  If it is legal for medical use, then that's what it is.  But recent news stories would seem to indicate that this is something they may want to concern themselves with.


----------



## Nomad (Oct 15, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the couple robbed for their medical marijuana AS THEY WERE COMING OUT OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY were in fact targeted for their pot.  I know, what are the chances?  The robbers probably thought they had color TV sets in their pocket and were surprised to find medical pot patients who had medical pot on them.



You're right, they probably were.  Much like someone walking away from the ATM might be targeted for their ready cash.  I certainly agree that there is an added risk here compared to someone, for instance, leaving their doctor's office.  The odds are very good that they have something worth stealing.  Whether the thief is stealing cash, jewelry, or pot is fairly irrelevant IMO.



> I think it's different agendas at work.  I'm trying to point out that there are a new group of people getting involved in marijuana use now, due to the medical marijuana laws, and they might not be aware just how attractive their possessing marijuana might be to crooks;



I agree completely with this statement, and believe that additional caution on their part would be prudent and a good idea in general.



> it seems others are afraid of anything that even purports to discuss that there might be a downside to medical marijuana - an unforeseen consequence.  Hence, the shrug and mutter that hey, it's probably the same risk as a guy who owns a big screen TV.  It's almost funny to watch.  Ever try to stick a dog's nose in his mess?  Yeah, like that.  They'll look anywhere but where you want them to look; they'll do anything to pretend it's not there.  Squirmy.



I think the big screen TV analogy wasn't great; I think the risk is likely similar to someone wearing really nice jewelry, or who counts out a big stack of bills as they leave the ATM.  Yes, you've just made yourself a much more attractive target for criminals, because they KNOW you have something worth stealing.  I just question the idea that the drugs themselves would make you more of a target than other easily disposable valuables.  I'm not even saying it couldn't be true, just that it sounds like the argument of someone with a vested interest in banning the shops & supply.  

Similar arguments can and have been made about tattoo parlors in many neighborhoods where the residents don't want them because they will attract "undesirables" to the area.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2010)

Nomad said:


> I'm not even saying it couldn't be true, just that it sounds like the argument of someone with a vested interest in banning the shops & supply.



Nope.  I have left my own personal feelings about medical marijuana at the door for this thread.



> Similar arguments can and have been made about tattoo parlors in many neighborhoods where the residents don't want them because they will attract "undesirables" to the area.



Ahem.  Are you saying that this does not happen?  I live in the Detroit area.  I can tell you that many tattoo parlors, strip joints, and other such 'adult' businesses do indeed attract a great deal of crime to those areas.  And you're talking to a guy who has tattoos and has nothing against strip bars.  But yeah, you get them, you get a certain clientele in the neighborhood.  Goes with the territory, and sometimes neighbors aren't happy about it, especially if the neighborhood didn't always have such businesses nearby.


----------



## Nomad (Oct 15, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nope.  I have left my own personal feelings about medical marijuana at the door for this thread.



My suggestion was actually leaning more towards the possible slant of the media that chose to focus on these specific incidents rather than any other robberies or muggings that didn't happen to be pot related.  Tying an article into any controversy gets bigger headlines and sells more papers, and given the current arguments on medical marijuana (and legalization in general) in several states, this counts as a controversial topic.



> Ahem.  Are you saying that this does not happen?  I live in the Detroit area.  I can tell you that many tattoo parlors, strip joints, and other such 'adult' businesses do indeed attract a great deal of crime to those areas.  And you're talking to a guy who has tattoos and has nothing against strip bars.  But yeah, you get them, you get a certain clientele in the neighborhood.  Goes with the territory, and sometimes neighbors aren't happy about it, especially if the neighborhood didn't always have such businesses nearby.



No, I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but that it is a specious argument, since these are in fact, legal activities.  What I'm saying is that a statistic of increased crime in the area (real or invented) can and has been used to prevent legal businesses of many types, including medical marijuana stores, from opening.  But that really is a completely different argument.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2010)

Nomad said:


> My suggestion was actually leaning more towards the possible slant of the media that chose to focus on these specific incidents rather than any other robberies or muggings that didn't happen to be pot related.  Tying an article into any controversy gets bigger headlines and sells more papers, and given the current arguments on medical marijuana (and legalization in general) in several states, this counts as a controversial topic.



Really?  I've always thought that the media was pretty much behind the idea of medical marijuana.  They make great noise when the feds raid MM establishments.

What you may not know is that I am a news junkie.  I keep news search agents active that let me know about home invasion news reports.  You may have noticed I post a lot of stories about people who defend themselves from predators who invade their homes.  Well, it was this that informed me of the rising trend of home invasions by people specifically looking for medical marijuana.



> No, I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but that it is a specious argument, since these are in fact, legal activities.  What I'm saying is that a statistic of increased crime in the area (real or invented) can and has been used to prevent legal businesses of many types, including medical marijuana stores, from opening.  But that really is a completely different argument.



If it is a real effect and the cause is established, then I don't think it is specious.  But I have to go, ice cream is ready.


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then all these news stories I'm reading about people being robbed for their MM is just lies, I guess.  Or maybe I'm the liar.  Whatever.



_All _these? Well, you posted one, in which it specifically said they werent sure if MM was the reason for the burglary, but ok. A quick search of google doesnt show up many, the stories are more about the MM dispensaries being hit. Like I said I dont know the statistics, but over here it just doesnt happen.


----------



## geezer (Oct 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't get where you can 'not see it' when I'm posting links to it actually happening.  I mean, it's happening.  Period.  Fact.  In what way is it not happening?  Is this just something you don't want to accept?



Just the opposite, Bill. I'm saying that _I accept it as an unavoidable reality_ in today's world. Crime is a fact of life, but honestly as pot becomes more available either through opening "medical marijuana" dispensaries or through outright legalization, the price will drop and the motivation to steal it will decrease. I mean, when was the last time you heard of someone breaking into a house_ to steal a bottle of aspirin_. Pardon me if this point has already been made several times. I haven't had a chance to read all the new posts since I made that last post, but since you quoted it, I felt a response was in order.

BTW, here's another example of accepting _the reality_ of drug-motivated burglary and robbery. My father is a retired MD. When I was a young teen, my father's car was broken into, right in our carport, and his instrument bag was taken out of the trunk and dumped out in the driveway. The cops said it was a typical drug motivated burglary. Thieves would identify an MD's vehicle, track it to the doctor's residence or other secluded location, and bust in looking for drugs. In this case, they didn't find any, but that's not the point. The point is, we don't have laws prohibiting people from having legitimate prescription drugs in their homes just because thieves might break in and steal them! Instead we have cops, and laws protecting our right to defend our homes!


----------

