Page 3 of 11
Posted on August 24 at 1:15 a.m.
Don, your comment "Council members Randy Rowse and Frank Hotchkiss still don't get that when there is a conflict of interest officials must abstain." is incorrect for several reasons. I'll stop at 2:
1) Personal beliefs that differ from the applicant are not valid reason for determining a "conflict of interest". Political beliefs and the location of begonias are mutually exclusive.
2) If the ABR felt they just could not be fair because they were raised by people unqualified to teach a human being to navigate society, then they should have recused themselves, not abstained. There's a difference.
Either way, none of them should have allowed their inner-voice to allow their logic to circumvent item #1 on the list. So Rowse and Hotchkiss are, in this extremely rare instance, absolutely correct. This issue should not be over until there is a new ABR. I believe in homosexuals' right to marry, but I feel that the First Amendment trumps it EVERY TIME.
On When Abstinence Is Not the Best Policy
Posted on August 6 at 12:40 a.m.
I have no idea what happened in this case, but I can tell you this with 100% confidence: The SB DA's office is a cesspool. Justice takes a back seat to ego, politics, favoritism, cronyism, and money. Based on my experience with Dudley's administration and her flock of flying apes this is my firm opinion and that of everyone I've spoken to about it.
On Man Convicted of Brutally Beating Stripper
Posted on August 1 at 12:19 p.m.
On SYNERGY Sizzles
Posted on August 1 at 11:13 a.m.
Ironic that those with the least integrity get the most leniency.
On Plea Deals Reached in Medical Marijuana Dispensary Case
Posted on July 29 at 10:31 a.m.
Anyone who paid partial attention knows the stolen electricity had nothing to do with me or Hortipharm, and Mr. Stanley didn't have guns--he had shells. Completely useless without a gun. Try to keep up. Please read articles thoroughly before posting.
On Man Arrested for Reportedly Growing Weed for L.A. Dispensaries
Posted on July 28 at 3:26 p.m.
Hi there Denise,
Haven't seen you around the posts much, so I'll give you a primer that might help you understand why:
"(isn't it ironic that people) feel the need to personally attack me for a simple comment that contained 15 words, none of them being a curse word? How hateful are you people? I wonder how much you set back your causes by acting so childish."
Ok, here is your "15 words" for those just joining us:
"This guy is a previously convicted felon, per the article.... yeah real saint he is...."
Though your comment wasn't, strictly speaking, ad hominem it was essentially the same thing. Besides that, you packed a hefty load of unfounded and unjustified conclusions and personal judgement against the defendant into those "15 words" that were delivered in a snarky and sarcastic tone. The "ironic thing" is that you later defend yourself by calling others childish and defending your own personal attack by accusing others of personally attacking you. So, in a nutshell, that's why you have been generally treated as a fool. You can apply this lesson to basically any internet forum.
Oh, also, this:
"Nope, never a ticket. I have very little use for cars where I prefer my bicycle. It is a lot easier to park, cheaper, and is the best excerise. I don't like the carbon footprint of a car. My how cynical you are Ken. Seems like when you assume... Well you know the saying sweety. Looks like you have pie on your face!"
...is just smug. Have a big whiff of yourself and enjoy!
Posted on July 27 at 5:26 a.m.
My best to you and your family, Seth. I know things are hectic so contact me at email@example.com nothing more at least I can get dinner sent over a couple of nights.
Posted on July 27 at 5:20 a.m.
Previously convicted for what, I wonder? Another non-violent drug offense perhaps?
No, the truth is that this man is probably not a "saint", nor are you, Denise. The truth is also that this man is a good man. He's a family man. He brings his kids into my store and, as a parent of young children myself, I know a kind and loving father when I see one. I don't pretend to know all the details of his case, but I do know that he took numerous steps to follow the law.
There is an assault on patients and providers going on at the hands of local law enforcement. Don't let them fool you by shifting the blame to "the feds". The feds almost never come without a red carpet. The county amd city use your tax dollars to pay cops to violate the law that you enacted. First they claimed they were thinning out dispensaries because "prop 215 was intended for smaller collectives." Then they allow their officers to assist the DEA in raiding three places that all just happen to have pending zoning or criminal cases. Nice little way to clean all the mess off of the DA's shoes after the outcomes of their previous dispensary prosecutions. Now that there are no dispensaries left and men & women like this are operating those "small collectives", which Steve Wiley and Jouce Dudley's office claimed were what the law intended, and they arrested for their efforts.
Will Santa Barbara truly not rest until all of our patients are buying their questionable-quality meds from shady characters in back alleys, who don't check IDs or pay taxes?
And to the liberals who think they are supporting this cause and hate to see these headlines I'd like to point something out: under Bush & a more conservative local DA, patients had safe access. It wasn't until Obama promised to quit using federal funds to target state-legal operations, and Joyce Dudley took office as DA of SB, that collectives were assaulted. Please think at the polls and vote on issues, not party lines.
Posted on July 6 at 8:04 a.m.
Shove that "command presence" up your CamSanchez. You work for me. You're paid by my tax dollars to "protect and serve", not intimidate as a matter of training and practice, with uniforms designed to evoke fear. Reminds me of an old NWA song I live my life by. It rhymes with "tuck the folice".
On Fashion Police or Police Fashion?
Posted on April 4 at 11:15 a.m.
@BTDT: you are confused. You're talking about thieves and burglars, not drug offenders. I think we'd all agree that when drug use leads to property crimes the user has become a criminal, however, that's just a tiny percentage of drug users. Most are normal folks who like to change their consciousness from time-to-time. Don't keep soaking up that drug war propaganda.
On Armendariz Sentenced for DUI Conviction