Writing Shotgun

WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?

Dave WielengaWed. October 28
 

You knew the question was coming—it’s pretty much de rigueur in any debate over medical marijuana—and about a half-hour into Tuesday night’s Beer & Pot-litics (see how I did that?) forum on the subject, medpot dispensary critic City Prosecutor Tom Reeves posed it during one of his rebuttals to local medpot advocate Greggory Moore, a weller-known-every-day freelance writer:

 “Mr. Moore,” Reeves began, stretching his face into maximum incredulity as he set up the smackdown, “what are you smoking?”

Moore responded as though he’d been waiting for the question along with the rest of us.

“We see the propaganda right there,” Moore said. “The presumption that anybody in favor of marijuana as medicine must be high.”

Good point.

“You drew all kinds of presumptions about me,” Reeves replied, and he had a good point, too—Moore had inferred that Reeves’ position on the issue was compromised by everything from his membership in the Republican party to his staus as a non-partisan elected official. “Your position was, ‘He’s a Republican, so he must be bad.’”

And so it went, and so it goes in the hazy issue of medical marijuana—which has suddenly become high profile in Long Beach as city officials struggle to fashion an ordinance to regulate the dozens of co-ops that have sprung up all around town. Check out today’s stories on LBreport.com and in the Press-Telegram, which chronicle the stalemate between a city council committee and city attorney Robert Shannon.

Meanwhile, up in Los Angeles, Times columnist Steve Lopez checks in today with the story of his visit to a medpot dispensary up in the Big City.

Unfortunately, hardly anybody is dealing with the central issue—that in some situations, marijuana can help alleviate the symptoms of medical conditions and/or the unpleasant side effects of other medications. Everybody pays that lip service, of course, but the real debate is over whether or not medical marijuana is a step toward legalization or at least decriminalization of the herb — and whether that would even be such a bad thing.

Contradictory state and federal laws contribute to the mess—Californians voted to legalize medical marijuana more than a decade ago, and while marijuana is still technically illegal federally, the Obama administration recently indicated it isn’t interested in prosecuting violators. Political and moral opinions and just plain posturing make it even messier—or, if you prefer, sticky-icky. You knew that was coming, too, didn’t you?

Tags: , , ,

  • Mike Ruehle
    Could the only reason be that Reeves is talking about this issue is because it is an election year.

    Tom Reeves is the same City Prosecutor who spoke two years ago at the Belmont Shore Residents Association meeting and told residents he needed their support and assistance in prosecuting bad guys for crimes in our neighborhood. Two weeks later, I called the police and took down the license plate number of the van used by bad guys burglarizing my neighbor’s house. The cops caught the bad guys. The van driver confessed to detectives. Yet it’s been 26 months and still no charges have been filed. Meanwhile, how many more homes do you think these same bad guys have burglarized?

    Two years ago, I was told by City Prosecutor James Young the city likewise does not prosecute code violation misdemeanors submitted by the code enforcement office because the Prosecutor’s office considers code violations a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. Furthermore, Reeves chose to not involve his office in Sean Hitchcock’s illegal bulldozing of the wetlands.

    Rather than focusing his efforts on prosecuting law breaking bad guys, Reeves is now focusing his time as an outspoken opponent of med-pot, something that was made legal. Other than it being a headlines grabber during an election year, why else other than the election would Reeves be spending so much time opposing med-pot while letting bad guys go free?

    Maybe Mr. Reeves needs to be voted out of office and replaced with a City Prosecutor interested in prosecuting misdemeanors and supporting resident's quality of life issues rather than focusing on headlines to make himself look good.
  • Mr. Ruehle: Respectfully, burglary is a felony crime in California and, as such, is beyond Mr. Reeves' authority to prosecute.

    Code enforcement violations most certainly should be prosecuted but when Mr. Reeves' office, like most all other City Offices and Departments, is struggling with fewer and fewer resources, it seems reasonable to me that he seek to prioritize the prosecutorial activities of his employees. The best response for those who may disagree with Mr. Reeves' prosecutorial priorities is to vote for another candidate for that office come election day.

    Having read and listened to all of Mr. Reeves' public offerings concerning medical marijuana Co-ops, Collectives and Dispensaries to date, I am not certain that a reasonable person can conclude that he is "an outspoken opponent of med-pot". The only thing he seems, to me, to be opposed to is unlawful activity in our city. Since he is currently our elected City Prosecutor, I find his opposition to unlawful activity in our city to be entirely fit and proper.

    Mr. Reeves' may indeed be motivated, in part, by a desire to continue to serve as our City Prosecutor nor do I find a single thing wrong with that. But his recent comments seem mostly intended to accomplish two things:

    To try to help the Council to craft medpot regulations for our City that are in full compliance with the various laws and Court decisions that currently exist in California -and- to clearly and publicly advise those in our community that are currently behaving unlawfully in this area to stop doing so.

    And I don't see anything wrong with those either.
  • Mike Ruehle
    I was told by the Detective on this case that a burglary could be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony. In this case, neither occurred. Are you saying what the Detective told me was incorrect......again?
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean by "again", Mr. Ruehle but, no, what I'm saying is that burglary is a felony crime in California and that felony crimes are beyond Mr. Reeves' authority to prosecute.

    There do exist 2 "Degrees" of burglary and 2nd Degree is called a "wobbler". But the crime class remains a felony.

    You say that the case you referenced wasn't prosecuted at all but you don't explain why. Do you know? Did you ask? If it wasn't prosecuted, isn't just as likely that the D.A. was the one to decline to do so?
  • Mike Ruehle
    The police refuse to talk with me about it because I was the witness and not the victim. The DR# is 07-67718. You're a cop. Why don't you look into it and tell us all why the city won't prosecute burglars who were caught and confessed to doing the crime. I can't wait to hear the explanation.
  • Mr. Ruehle: I regret that I cannot assist you with your questions where others that were assigned to a case have already refused. Perhaps there exists confidential information that you, as a witness, are not permitted to be privvy to. I really can't say. I will advise you that few things are what they seem to be in some criminal investigations and what you believe you know could well be neither accurate nor complete.

    In such cases it's always best to avoid assumption if at all possible.
  • Mike Ruehle
    The crime occurred in August 28, 2007. It should have been a "slam dunk." Those are the detective's words. The detective told me one of the burglars broke down crying when he confessed. Originally, the detective told me the city would be filing charges in October. Then the detective PROMISED charges would be filed before the end of November. Then the detective PROMISED again that charges would be filed before Christmas. When charges were not filed in January 2008, the detective told me the city's work load was too large and charges would not be filed unless the city received a grant to pay for the overtime necessary to process and prosecute the crooks. I don't have to make assumptions. This is exactly what I was told.

    The only thing privvy about this is the fact the city talks out of both sides of it's mouth. On one hand, people like City Prosecutor Reeves talk about how tough they are on crime in Long Beach. On the other hand, they don't like being embarrassed by people like me who document how the city repeatedly (multiple times) fails in its law enforcement promises unless it is a high profile situation, crime or media opportunity.

    And I remind you, this August 28, 2007 incident occurred following City Prosecutor Reeves August 9, 2007 appearance at the Belmont Shore Residents Association meeting where he asked residents to help assist the city in fighting crime.

    I exposed myself when taking down the license number. I participated in a police line-up to identify the crooks. Now these gang-bangers know what I look like and where I live. What more could City Prosecutor Reeves have asked of me or any resident? And how were my efforts repayed? The city claims it is too busy to charge the bad guys. Meanwhile, I'm exposed to crooks who are still on the street and know where I live. Thanks a lot Long Beach law enforcement. Bravo. Not exactly what we expect from paying your salaries with our taxes.
  • Mr. Ruehle: You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. But others would be well-reminded to understand and appreciate the difference between opinion and fact.

    I encourage you to re-contact the LBPD Burglary Detail if you still seek clarification on the case in question. If they cannot assist you, and if you believe misconduct to be involved, then you should contact the LBPD Internal Affairs Division and file a formal complaint.

    Every cop and prosecutor I have the privilege of knowing does the very best they can under routinely difficult circumstances. If their best proves insufficient for you, then I suppose that's just the way it's going to have to be.
  • Mike Ruehle
    Yeah right. It's been over two years and nothing has been done about it. Let me repeat, your police department refuses to talk with me about it. Again, how about YOU contact Burglary Detail and get the update. YOU'RE the Cop.
  • I'm not interested in receiving an update, Mr. Ruehle, you are.

    Are you incapable of picking up a phone and making a call or are you simply too busy making excuses?
  • Mike Ruehle
    I've left several messages and NEVER, not ONCE, received a call back on this incident. Par for the course.
  • Mr. Ruehle, based solely upon what you've told us, it seems you've indeed received responses. You just didn't happen to like what they were.

    Try this prayer, for I find it helps me when things happen in my life that I don't happen to like:

    "Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference."
  • howardx
    friend of bill w?
  • Mike Ruehle
    When I received responses, it was only when the detective happened to pick up the phone when I called. Not one time did the detective return my phone call after leaving multiple messages. I gave up after receiving no response to several messages I left this year.

    However, I will take your advice and file complaints with Internal Affairs and the Citizen Police Complaint Commission. Thanks for your help.
  • It rightly remains any person's right to file a formal complaint when they believe police misconduct has occurred. All such complaints are taken very seriously and investigated fully.
  • Mike Ruehle
    And summarily swept under the rug. The police investigating the police makes it certain no outcome will impact the police.
  • Try to sell that to all of the police employees who receive discipline via the Departments Internal Affairs Division! Also, you fail to consider the many complaints that are not initially investigated by IA but, instead, by the CPCC. But you keep whining and making excuses.
  • howardx
    “Your position was, ‘He’s a Republican, so he must be bad.’

    im not finding the problem with that statement myself.
  • lbresident
    Big surprise. I thought we were all about hopey changy post partisan blah blah blah.
  • howardx
    fish on! i hooked the last self identifying republican in long beach!
  • lbresident
    I'm a moderate independent.
  • howardx
    of course, cant say i blame you.
  • Greggory
    To expand and clarify on what I said where my excellent colleague Mr. W did not, I thought it fair to examine Mr. Reeves's lack of objectivity (and started out my remarks by admitting my own (in the sense that no one can ever be truly objective)), one indication of that being his heavy involvement in the Republican Party (e.g., he was Long Beach chair of the "McCain for President" campaign) -- and that, as I said, "the Republican Party, perhaps more than any other organization in the country, has been hell-bent on denying medical marijuana to patients in need." (Look, I quoted me!) Mr. Reeves's later bastardization of what I said was indeed "He's a Republican, so he must be bad" -- a fair representation of Mr. Reeves's disingenuousness.
  • Why can't we all just get a bong?
  • Esteemed Mr. M: Being human, it's difficult, though not by any means impossible, for people to be entirely objective on a given matter. But you'll need a bit more specific ammunition, and far better aimed besides, to convince me that Mr. Reeves is not being objective on this matter.

    I, too, am a registered Republican, and a greater advocate for legalization and legitimate medpot Co-ops and Collectives you will not likely find anywhere.

    What evidence *specific to Mr. Reeves* do you have to support your belief that he is biased against legitmate medpot Co-ops or Collectives? He is on public record several times and in several locations, now, acknowledging that legitimate medpot Co-ops and Collectives are lawful and that he has no desire to prosecute persons legitimately availing themselves of such services.

    Is paraphrasing to be clear evidence of disingenousness now? His doing so in the case of your commenting upon his involvement with the Republican Party seemed accurate to me.

    You made it clear from the beginning that you are pro-legalization. Then you made it clear that you feel the Republican Party to be hell bent on denying medical marijuana to patients in need. Then you identified Mr. Reeves as a Republican.

    Isn't it fair to say that you were representing that Mr. Reeves is a Republican and (because you feel Republicans to be anti-medpot and because you believe this to be a bad thing) therefore "bad"?

    I found it interesting that it was you, and not Mr. Reeves, who felt the need to go there. Mr. Reeves didn't make any assumptions about your own political party affiliations nor did he then allege that you are not being objective in your position as a result of that affiliation. Why was it necessary to even bring it up?

    Can't people simply disagree on an issue without having their personal political beliefs held up to ridicule?

    Please, if you would, cite for me any instance where Mr. Reeves has indicated that he would not fully abide by or otherwise adhere to all statutory and case laws currently controlling on the issue of medical marijuana.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.