Prostitution: Everyone Has an Opinion, Everyone is Wrong (Final Comments)

When I was in corporate security with a major company, I was having dinner with one of the company’s facility managers.  Nice guy.  He was asking me about my previous experience in the FBI; and the topic of Margo St. James and prostitution came up.  He said that he wanted to ask me something – kind of personal.

He went on to say that his wife had, for the most part, lost interest in sex – and, in fact, she never had much interest, although they had conceived two children together.  He said that about every six months he and his wife would drive to Nevada and visit the casinos.  In addition, they would usually take a drive to one of the adjacent counties where prostitution is legal; and visit a business like the Mustang Ranch.  While his wife read a book in the car, he would go inside and hire a prostitute.  He asked me if I thought this was weird.  Although at the time I did think that our conversation had taken an odd turn, and that it was really more than I cared to know about his personal life, I responded:  “No, not at all.”  And, I was being truthful.  If that arrangement was fine with his wife, why would or should anyone else care?

And, why is most of the public, apparently, against prostitution (sex exchanged for money), when it’s all around us in various guises?  I’m really not quite sure.  Let’s be clear.  I’m not referring to pimping, violence or exploiting minors.  I’m talking about two consenting adults.

Oregon law reads as follows:

§ 167.007¹

Prostitution

A person commits the crime of prostitution if the person engages in, or offers or agrees to engage in, sexual conduct or sexual contact in return for a fee.

§ 167.008¹ 

Patronizing a prostitute

A person commits the crime of patronizing a prostitute if the person pays, or offers or agrees to pay, a fee to engage in sexual conduct or sexual contact.

Both are misdemeanors under Oregon law.

Pretty straightforward description of what constitutes the crime of ‘prostitution’ and ‘patronizing a prostitute,’ isn’t it?  And, I might add, it’s very cleverly worded.  If, for example, you were to remove the word ‘fee’ and replace it with the word ‘money’ or ‘gratuity’: well, you can see the problems that might jump out.  You would have opened Pandora’s Box.  This could then apply to many marriages, cohabitating couples, girlfriends and ‘one-night-stands.’  Unless the woman, in such a relationship, could prove that she was self-supporting or did not actually have sex with her partner, paramour or date; and if the more intimate circumstances were to become known, than we might have a prima facie case for prostitution.

Said law, ambiguous at best, victimless perhaps, begs the question; don’t our law enforcement agencies have something better to occupy their time?

The folks in Tigard should pose that question to the Chief of Police.

Tigard, Oregon Police Make Major Prostitution Bust!

Part 2

Part 3

Everyone is Wrong

Margo St. James / COYOTE

True Nelson

Prostitution / Everyone Has an Opinion / Everyone is Wrong (Margo St. James / COYOTE)

This post is a continuation of my post of 9/29/14 (Prostitution / Everyone Has an Opinion / Everyone is Wrong).

Margo St. James was the principal organizer of COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics); which was considered to be, in late 70s San Francisco, to be the prostitutes’ union (association).

I was an FBI Special Agent assigned to the Organized Crime Squad in San Francisco.  The Bureau, at the time, expected all Agents to cultivate ‘sources’ that potentially could have information of value to the FBI.  It was actually more than an expectation.  Part of an Agent’s performance evaluation was based on his ability to establish mission-related sources-of-information in the local community or the state.  Margo was something of a Bay Area celebrity with potentially all kinds of contacts, some with possible criminal connections.  I decided that I would attempt to meet her.

I read everything I could find on Margo St. James relating to her background, her current activities, and her expressed opinions.  Having committed much of that information to memory, I approached her at the offices of COYOTE.  I showed her my credentials and introduced myself.  I had brought with me photos of missing women and girls – a pretext of sorts.  San Francisco, in those days, was a magnet for girls and young women.  Pimps often roamed the bus terminals looking for runaways and naïve young women seeking the hippy lifestyle.  And, as might be expected, many young women simply disappeared; and more than a few ended-up as Jane Does in the local morgues.  When I first contacted Margo, she seemed receptive to talking – apparently curious as to what I was doing there.  From that initial contact, a somewhat friendly relationship gradually evolved.

As was customary (required in the Bureau), I formally opened a file on Margo as a potential source.  This allowed me some protection against compromise, as well as allowed me to buy her lunch on a few occasions – at Bureau expense.  It should be understood that I never paid Margo as an informant, nor would she have expected that.

Our meetings, unbeknownst to Margo, were monitored.  For example, another Agent was always in close proximity when I took Margo to lunch.  When I visited her, the other Agent waited discreetly outside, monitoring my demeanor when I entered her offices, how long I was in there, and my demeanor when I came out.  Margo would not have been above compromising an FBI Agent – and everything was done to prevent that possibility.  She once asked me if I wanted to meet ‘a woman.’  “Just describe her,” she said.  “And I’ll have her here in thirty minutes.”  Was she serious?  She appeared to be.  Although, I think her comment was meant more as a test than an actual offer.  If I had showed the slightest interest in meeting a ‘working girl,’ she probably would have quickly written me off as just one more sleazy cop on the ‘make.’  In her extensive career, I’m sure that she had met a few.  However, I made it clear that she was the one I wanted to talk to; and she ultimately accepted that arrangement.  In retrospect, I think that she welcomed, for what it’s worth, the possibility of having a perceived contact (a source) in the Bureau.

What was Margo St. James like?  It’s hard to describe.  She was intelligent, articulate, interesting, bizarre, outlandish, outspoken, profane and obscene.  Everything I expected her to be, and then some.  No longer, at that point, a practicing prostitute (to my knowledge), she described her early years, often plying her trade dressed as a Catholic nun.  Apparently, according to her, this had a particular appeal to many Catholic men.

Unfortunately, our relationship ended when, under The Freedom of Information Act, she requested any information the Bureau might possess on her.  Ridiculous as this might sound, the Bureau told her that she was currently a ‘source’ of Special Agent Nelson.  Upon learning this information, she called me and chewed-me-out, telling me in no uncertain terms that she wanted no further contacts with me.  That ended our relationship.

About a year after that, I resigned from the Bureau to pursue other endeavors.

I have sometimes wondered if I owed Margo an apology.  The status, as a ‘Bureau source,’ to which she strongly stated her objection, must have smarted just a bit.  It was, nonetheless, the only way I could justify my association with her; and, furthermore, allow me to discuss with her the many subjects that often had more to do with the protection of prostitutes and young women from criminality, rather than the criminality of prostitution.  Prostitution can be a dangerous, dirty business, a magnet for crime and criminals; and it is especially dangerous for young women or girls unfamiliar with all the aspects of the prostitution business.  In some respects, Margo and I had similar goals.  Anyway, in her own way, she was quite the educator.

Regarding FBI ‘sources’ or ‘informants,’ many might have a misconception as to how that works.  The FBI’s philosophy, at the time, was to have their Agents get out of the office, get into the local community and cultivate contacts.  Some might believe that the FBI only developed relationships with members of organizations like the Mafia or the Hell’s Angels.  This is, of course, sometimes possible and desirable, but very rare.  In attempting to gain information about Mafia members’ activities or movements, an Agent might want to build a relationship with someone close to a Mafia member, such as someone in his family or someone who works in a restaurant he owns where money laundering was suspected.  With the Hell’s Angels, who in the 70s were considered to be involved in several variations of organized crime, someone who worked on their motorcycles might be a good source.  How so?  Well, a motorcycle mechanic could furnish you names, information on leadership, banking information, club member personalities, etc.

As far as someone like Margo is concerned, it was a given that participants in criminal activities also frequented prostitutes.  For the Mafia, it was one of their passions.

Anyway, during the period that I knew her, she never gave me any information that directly related to my cases, or organized crime with any specificity.  I came to doubt she knew much about that sort of thing.  We did, occasionally, discuss lost or missing girls.  We discussed the prostitution business, and the reasons some women and some men enter that business.  When talking about adults, who are not coerced in some manner to enter prostitution, Margo’s description of the business was fairly straightforward and matter-of-fact.  Some women like the trade, but most are there for the money.  She did, nonetheless, acknowledge the many dangers involved.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Prostitution / Everyone Has an Opinion / Everyone is Wrong

Money for sex – a bad thing – I’m not sure.  I suppose it depends on the circumstances.  In some instances, many might even consider marriage a form of prostitution; a ubiquitous form of prostitution which was undoubtedly more prevalent a generation or two back.  Sex for security:  Isn’t security a synonym for money?

Currently, we have a society where the very rich use prostitutes and even sometimes brag about it:  athletes, actors, business tycoons.  Consider for a moment Hugh Hefner (Playboy Enterprises) who has cohabitated with a bevy of beautiful women (often several at the same time), aka trophy wives, girlfriends or partners.  A form of prostitution, I think so.  And, Charlie Sheen who has openly discussed his many dalliances with women who love you more and with more vigor if you have considerable resources.  “A rose by any other name…”

However, the ‘Common Joe’ is expected to walk a fine line.  Obey the laws.  However, if, when and how those laws will be enforced is anyone’s guess?  In contrast, for those who are not students of the law, some crimes are self-evident like murder, burglary or car theft.  A five-year-old understands that you don’t do those things; and, if you do, you will very likely be punished.

The crime of prostitution or soliciting for prostitution, on the other hand, is more obscure.  As I’ve mentioned before, sometimes you have to stretch the imagination to define the crime, determine the victim or the perpetrator, as well as ascertain the genesis of the crime (mens rea).  Is it the man (or sometimes the woman) who is interested in paying someone for sex?  Is it the woman who voluntarily makes herself available to exchange money for sex?  Is it the man who forces a woman or convinces a woman to prostitute herself?  Or is it, perhaps, the police agency that creates a fictitious scenario to entice the unwary or the unsophisticated to participate in a crime like soliciting prostitution?

As an aside, there is a famous quote attributed to Winston Churchill, or was he paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw:

Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

But, as promised, I planned to talk a bit about my personal experience with prostitution.

In the later 70s, I was a Special Agent with the FBI and stationed in San Francisco.  I was on the Organized Crime Squad.  The sexual revolution was in full bloom, especially in the Bay Area.  A significant organizer and player in the prostitution industry was a woman named Margo St. James.  Margo, a former prostitute, founded the organization COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics).

Margo turned out to be one of the more interesting people that I’ve ever met.  And, for a brief period, one might even say that we were friends.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Tigard, Oregon Police Department Makes Major Prostitution Bust! Say What? (Part 3)

I’m going to discuss the subject of prostitution further, subsequent to this post – relating some of my own experiences.  And, you might find that interesting.

However, I have some final comments on the Tigard prostitution ‘sting.’

Soliciting Prostitution is usually considered to be a misdemeanor.  The ‘sting’ set up by the Tigard PD would take time, some intensive preparation, and resources that I am a little surprised the Tigard department can afford to squander.

Some may wonder, ‘Who exactly was the victim in this type of crime?’  There weren’t any frayed, forcibly coerced ladies-of-the-night to save or rehabilitate.

The answer, of course, as the prosecutor would opine, is that the State of Oregon is the victim.  Now, to most of us in the public, who are constantly bombarded with internet solicitations and readily available porn of any description (movies, TV and internet), this seems just a bit of a stretch.  And, we might, therefore, ask the Tigard Police and the Washington County Prosecutor, ‘Don’t you have something more important to do?’

Now, the Chief of Police might counter with, ‘We had a complaint from a hotel!’ (Which makes little or no sense – even though that premise was mentioned in The Oregonian).  Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what hotel he is talking about; and whether or not the same hotel was used on the internet to summon potential ‘johns’ to their ultimately aborted liaison with a prostitute.

Perhaps, there is a legitimate reason to have a law against prostitution – especially in the currently unregulated social climate.  Many women and sometimes children are victimized by this trade.  But, Tigard PD's use of the law seems somewhat ‘juvenile,’ for lack of a better word - certainly not what the public would expect of professionals.

So, I looked up the Tigard Chief of Police.  He is Alan Orr.  Not exactly a new guy in law enforcement, he spent decades with the Portland Police Bureau.  OK.  That reminds me of the Portland Police Bureau's proclivity to dress their female officers like prostitutes and have them parade up and down 82nd Ave.  How they get their women officers to actually do that, I have no idea.  Real police work?  I don’t think so.  Portland Police apparently think so.  And, I suppose Chief Orr agrees.

PS:  I purposely have not discussed the Eugene, Oregon ‘sting’ referred to in my initial post.  Eugene PD had one of their detectives, on the internet, pretending to be a teenage girl available for sex.  That PD's focus was child predators.  I do, whole-heartedly, support Eugene PD's efforts.  Those that responded to that internet come-on truly are ‘scumbags.’

True Nelson

Click on 'Older Posts' below to see previous articles.

Tigard, Oregon Police Department Makes Major Prostitution Bust! Say What? (Part 2)

Before we continue on, I think we should define (as best we can) what constitutes ‘entrapment’ in a ‘soliciting for prostitution’ case.

Basically, ‘entrapment’ is when law enforcement encourages someone to commit a crime that said individual would not have ordinarily committed.  Entrapment is difficult to prove.  Generally the courts will side with law enforcement, not the defendant.  For the layman or a typical law enforcement investigator ‘entrapment’ is a difficult concept.  Police, in jurisdictions promoting prosecutions for soliciting prostitution, are usually coached by prosecutors in what the police can and cannot do.  There are some myths associated with this process.  Many believe that a female police officer, in an undercover role, is obligated to acknowledge that she is in law enforcement if specifically asked that question by a ‘john.’  Not true.

A typical conversation between a ‘john’ and an undercover female police officer might go something like this:  John:  “You’re very pretty.  How about going somewhere where we can be alone, or would you like to go for a drive?”  Undercover Officer:  “Why would I want to do that?”  John:  “How about a hundred dollars.”  

Bingo.  Such a brief conversation coupled with the stage presentation – youngish, overly made-up woman in short dress or low cut blouse will probably land you in jail.

The Tigard PD utilized the internet; and it would be very interesting to know how they posed their ‘come-on.’  Sexual ‘come-ons’ are so prevalent on the internet that your local minister probably gets one or two a month.  If you are a bit less discriminating in your internet searches, you might get one or two offers for sex a day.

So, speculating now, what would the Tigard PD use as their internet ‘come-on?’  How about:  “Young, attractive college girl loves good time with older men.  Let’s party.  If you’ve got the money honey, I’ve got the time.”

Shoot, maybe that’s too obvious.  Remember, we’ve got a very smart lawyer (prosecutor) figuring out this wording.  Whatever he comes up with, it’s bound to be clever.

So, a young, maybe middle-aged, (and probably not too smart) guy goes to the motel room as directed.  As he enters, he sees that sitting on the bed is a pretty (maybe not so pretty, but heck you drove clear across town) woman who looks longingly at him.  She seems a little nervous and you interpret this as impatience.  You get right to the point.  "How much is this going to cost me?’"  You’re concerned about this, because you only brought a hundred in cash and you doubt that she will take MasterCard.  At that point, two overweight police officers come charging out of the closet and pin you to the bed, jerk your arms around behind your back and handcuff you.

The police consider you a ‘low-life scumbag.’  Even though chances are that one or both of these cops has seriously considered a roll in the hay with a really good looking prostitute – especially if they could get it as a ‘freebie.’

The officers advise you that you’re under arrest, that you have a right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law, that you have a right to an attorney; and that, if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided.

Then it’s off to the lock-up.

As far as the police woman, the object of your misdirected desire, she subsequently goes home for a late dinner with her husband.  She informs her husband that five men would have paid her for sex today.  Her husband, who has actually had sex with her, is somewhat amused; but tries not to show it.

To be continued...

True Nelson

Tigard, Oregon Police Department Makes Major Prostitution Bust! Say What?

Somehow, I feel compelled to walk out on the thin ice – figuratively speaking that is.

My topic is interesting to me; but is no doubt controversial and one that almost everyone has a strong opinion about.  The subject is prostitution.  And, I have an opinion that may surprise you.

Recently, there have been a couple of articles in the Oregonian newspaper regarding prostitution ‘sting’ operations conducted by local police agencies.  One article was concerning the investigative activities of the Tigard, Oregon PD.  The other article referred to the Eugene, Oregon PD.

To establish a common reference point, and for the sake of framing this discussion, I will need to quote from the Oregonian’s article, dated:  September 8, 2014:

“When Tigard police recently received a plea from a local hotel about problems with prostitution, the force knew just what to do:  turn to the internet.”

“Within 10 minutes of placing ads on websites known to be popular with people seeking prostitutes, investigators received multiple responses.”

“So investigators invited the customers to show up at the hotel and… instead of meeting a prostitute, they met officers who arrested them, eight in all.”

“They were taken into custody, accused of patronizing a prostitute and held in the Washington County Jail.”

“(PD spokesperson) said the sting was a good example of businesses cooperating with police.”

Some in the public are probably thinking, ‘Good for the police department.  Go get those perverted bastards.’

On the other hand, some in the public are undoubtedly of the opinion that the Tigard PD’s action sounds a little like entrapment.  Generally speaking, it does to me too.  However, police departments know the guidelines.  They know the game they must play to circumvent legal entrapment allegations.  It is a game, nonetheless.

Personally, I say the Tigard PDs actions are an example of law enforcement indulging their own prurient interests; potentially harming, if not destroying, the lives of otherwise ordinary, basically honest men; and a classic waste of taxpayers’ money.

Before you judge me as some sort of crackpot, let me explain.  I’ve had some experience with the prostitution profession.  No, it's not what you’re thinking.

To be continued…

True Nelson

British Citizen, David Haines, Beheaded while Obama and Cameron Twiddle

The Islamic Terrorists called, interchangeably, ISIS or ISIL, have apparently beheaded the British aid-worker, David Haines.  The British Prime Minister, David Cameron and our President, Barack Obama, have condemned this outrageous act.

Isn't it about time that the American public, as well as the British public, decided that ‘talk’ is cheap and will only perpetuate this evil?  Both Obama and Cameron our strong on rhetoric; but weak on action – and the world knows it.   Talk, talk, talk and bomb, bomb, bomb.  It’s not going to work.  An effective bombing strategy will only create unacceptable collateral damage, and the resulting news footage will ultimately turn off the American and British public.

Our Army and Marines need to establish a base of operations in Iraq near the Syrian border and launch operations from there.  In conjunction with our formidable air-power, our military needs to destroy the enemy on the ground.

But you say, the American public does not want another ground war.  And, moreover, what about Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian President?

Regarding al-Assad, an American emissary should be sent to meet with him.  He should be informed that we are not invading his country to threaten his regime; and we should make that same announcement to the world.  But, al-Assad must understand that he is to stay out of our way and that our intention, our only intention, is to destroy ISIS.

Regarding a coalition of international forces, coalition be damned.  We will be waiting until the cows come home for the weak-willed and all the governmental hypocrites to act.

Regarding the American public not wanting another ground war, I think Thomas Paine summed it up best:

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

                                                               Thomas Paine 1737-1809



True Nelson

'Boots on the Ground' / It's time to retire that term - don't you think?

Yes, I am straying somewhat from the theme of my blog; but sometimes I just like to write about what’s on my mind.

Am I the only one who is getting kind of tired of the continually used cliché:  “Boots on the Ground?”  The President persistently uses the term, as well as his spokespeople.  I guess they think it makes them look like one of the boys – tough guys.  I don’t think so.  How about switching to ‘ground troops’ or something similar?

I’m no artist, although I wish I was; but I imagined a cartoon-like drawing showing hard-boiled combat troops, preparing for deployment, fitting themselves with pink ballet slippers.  Well, I googled ‘images’ and I couldn’t find a drawing exactly like that.  However, I did find one that was on topic.  Hope you enjoy it.  And, I extend a kind thank you to the artist.

And, for our ground troops who are on the ground, even though the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t like to admit it, stay safe and God bless.

True Nelson

Joseph Charlton and Karl Deickmiller / Felon in Possession of a Firearm vs. Indecent Exposure

I’ve been waiting for the final disposition in the Joseph Charlton case as it slowly wound its way through our court system.  This is, unfortunately, how justice generally works in our society.  In the meantime, since his arrest, Charlton has attended various self-improvement classes, probably at taxpayer expense, like:  parenting classes, therapy with his children, drug and alcohol treatment, “and has made a tremendous effort to keep his family together” says his attorney.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.  So much obfuscation and extraneous ‘smoke’ that it makes my eyes water.

In 2012, Charlton’s eleven year old son used a pistol, obtained from his father’s vehicle, to threaten to rob and shoot a young woman while she sat in her pickup which was parked in a lot adjacent to the woman’s church.  Charlton later confessed to law enforcement that the gun was his, and that he customarily kept the loaded gun in the glove box of his vehicle; but that he had not given his son permission to take the gun.  Charlton was a convicted felon and convicted felons are not allowed to possess guns.  He was charged with ‘a Felon in Possession of a Firearm’ and was recently sentenced on that charge.

Karl Deickmiller, a few months back, was observed ‘exposing’ himself to a five-year-old girl who was riding on Tri-Met with her mother.  When confronted by the mother, he ran; but was subsequently identified from a video obtained by the police.  Four days later, Deickmiller ‘overdosed’ on illegal drugs.  When the police arrived, they identified him as the suspect in the indecent exposure investigation.  He was recently sentenced on the ‘indecent exposure’ charge.

These cases are completely unrelated, but I think a comparison of their sentencing is important.  Both Charlton and Deickmiller ultimately entered a plea of guilty.  They did not appear before the same judge in that the gun violation is a federal crime.  And, Deickmiller’s offense is a State violation.  Charlton was given one year and nine months in a federal penitentiary.   Deickmiller, on the other hand, was given two years and nine months in State prison.

‘Public Indecency,’ sometimes referred to as ‘indecent exposure,’ is a misdemeanor.  However, Deickmiller had a conviction twenty years back for ‘First Degree Sodomy,’ which automatically bumped his current charge up to a felony.  Therefore, this made him eligible for an extended stay at the State Penitentiary.  Now, I’m not particularly sympathetic to Deickmiller.  He sounds like a creep with some serious mental problems.  Whether or not the State Penitentiary will change any of his perverted tendencies, I seriously doubt.

Charlton, on the other hand, deserved a longer sentence.  The best gun control measure is when law enforcement and prosecutors crack-down hard on convicted felons.  The woman in the parking lot could have easily been shot by the boy.  And, I think the father of the boy was directly responsible for this near tragedy; and should, therefore, suffer severe consequences.  Not only was Charlton a felon in possession of a handgun, but said gun was loaded and sequestered in the glove box of Charlton’s truck.  That is where his son obtained the gun.  Where Charlton normally kept the gun has not been given much attention other than the gun was not properly secured.  However, a loaded gun in the glove box of a vehicle is also a violation of State law – particularly when you are an x-felon.  Technically speaking, Charlton wasn’t caught driving with the gun in the glove box; so, perhaps, that is why he was not charged with another felony.  But, makes you wonder doesn’t it?  Why does a convicted felon feel it is necessary to keep a loaded handgun in the glove box of his vehicle?

And, why is a loaded gun in the glove box of a vehicle a violation of the law?  Because of the obvious danger it poses for law enforcement should they stop the vehicle.  Criminals usually place guns under the front seat or in the glove box - for easy access.  Is this something that the judge should have considered?  Yes.

Well, maybe the next time.

The Judge gave Charlton until November to check-in at the federal facility.  Let’s see if he can stay out of trouble until then.

Oh, incidentally, it should be noted that he was recently arrested for shoplifting.

True Nelson

The Oregonian, this State’s leading Newspaper, Supports Legalized Recreational Marijuana (Bad Idea! – Conclusion)

OK, stick with me.  The best is yet to come.  I would like to discuss arguments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 referenced and and then enumerated by me in The Oregonian Editorial Board’s justification for passage of Measure 91 (the legalization of recreational marijuana in our State).  As follows…

The Oregonian’s Editorial Board (This was previously referenced and quoted as justification #4.):

“The potential increase in intoxicated driving is, again, a reason for concern, and the measure directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to recommend appropriate changes to the vehicle code by 2017.”

True’s Comment:  2017?  The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) requires two to three years to make some recommendations in our vehicle code?  Now, I realize the OLCC has had their problems in the past; and I understand that they are a governmental agency that is used to a more leisurely approach to carrying out their duties, but isn’t that a little too leisurely?  How about six months?

The Oregonian Editorial Board (I am combining three of the Board’s more astute justifications – referenced and quoted as #5, #7 and #8):

“A completely legal high is only a short drive away for anyone in the Portland Metro area.”

“As of July 1, almost 65,000 Oregonians had medical marijuana cards, and many of those 65,000 have friends with whom – just a guess – they share the fruits of the system.”

“And then, there’s the big pot shop across the river – aka Washington.”

True’s Comment:  This reminds me of Mom’s often stated advice.  There are many variations of this, but I’m sure we’ve all heard something similar from our parents.  ‘Just because your friends are jumping off a bridge that doesn’t mean you have to.’

Washington and Colorado have made their own choice.  That doesn’t mean that choice is necessarily a good one.  Why do we simply have to follow along?  Maybe, it is so that no one thinks we are unsophisticated or ‘uncool’?  Why can’t we make our own decision based on our own best interests for our families?  Why don’t we let Washington and Colorado experiment with their own citizens, their own children?  Why can’t we, at the very least, wait to see how it works out in Washington and Colorado?

Regarding the regulation and control of medical marijuana in Oregon, what makes one think that recreational marijuana will be controlled any better?

The Oregonian Editorial Board (This was previously referenced and quoted as justification #6):

“The Measure appropriately leaves the task of regulating the new industry to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which knows a thing or two about the distribution and sale of intoxicants.  The OLCC would adopt the necessary rules by 2016”

True’s Comment:  Those of us in Oregon know that the OLCC has been on ‘life-support’ for some time.  That organization is just one referendum vote away from practically being put out of business.  The OLCC, as it is currently structured, is outdated and unnecessary.  The OLCC has, in other words, been hanging-on by a string.  I’m sure the administrators at the OLCC are praying that Measure 91 will pass and give them some hope for a future.

Furthermore, lest we forget, the OLCC is the same agency that hired Doitchin Krastev, aka Jason Robert Evers.  Krastev, a Bulgarian in the U.S. illegally, assumed the name of a murdered child (Jason Robert Evers) to fabricate his new, fraudulent identity.  Krastev, using the Evers name, was hired by the OLCC’s Enforcement Division and later was promoted to a supervisory position.  Krastev was, years later, ‘outed’ by a federal agency when he applied for a passport under the Evers name.  He was subsequently sentenced to prison.  OLCC’s explanation:  Whoops!

The OLCC is, obviously, not very good at vetting their applicants in a timely manner which may also explain why they need until sometime in 2016 to figure out how they will regulate marijuana.

CONCLUSION:  Some may feel that I am a little overwrought about this marijuana issue.  I suppose what got me going was The Oregonian’s endorsement of legalized recreational marijuana, and the casual or ‘flip’ manner in which they presented their endorsement.  I believe this is a serious issue.  I believe that the voters in Oregon need to seriously think about Measure 91.  Is it something they really want?  Is it something that is in the best interest of their children and grandchildren?  And, why is it that almost every law enforcement agency in this state is against Measure 91?

For all of you who took the time to read my posts on this subject, thank you for your valuable time and your kind consideration.  If I convinced one person that Measure 91 was not a good idea, not now anyway, I feel my time was well spent.

True Nelson

The Oregonian, this State’s leading Newspaper, Supports Legalized Recreational Marijuana (Bad Idea – Part 4)

Moving along on my critique of The Oregonian’s published endorsement in support of Measure 91, legalized recreational marijuana in the State of Oregon, brings me to their 3rd premise:

The Editorial stated:  “Opponents of the measure are right about a couple of things.  Allowing retail sales of recreational marijuana inevitably will make it easier for kids to get their hands on the stuff, as will Measure 91’s provision allowing Oregonians to grow their own.  It’s also true that outright legalization will increase the number of people driving under the influence, which is particularly problematic given the absence of a simple and reliable test for intoxication.  There is no bong Breathalyzer.”

True’s Comment:  In a sort of roundabout, unintentional way, the Editorial Board has made a good argument against Measure 91.  It is about the “kids.”  It really is.  It’s about our children and our grandchildren.  Most of us don’t much give a damn about what adults inhale or drink or inject in their veins.  Except that when those adults get in trouble, the taxpayers always have to foot the bill.

Of course, we nonsmokers, non-inhalers, and non-injectors will have to be especially cautious when we drive.  Make sure you buckle-up.  And, the moderns who bought small cars to conserve fuel may want to reconsider the possibility of being hit head-on by a driver, under the influence of yet another legal intoxicant, in his 4X4 truck.

But, the part of this argument by the Oregonian that really got me was the last sentence.  “There is no bong Breathalyzer.”  Bong?  Was that supposed to be funny, a joke?  Or was that the Editorial Board’s attempt to show they know the ‘street’ terminology?  I didn't think it was funny.  I thought it was stupid.

True Nelson

The Oregonian, this State’s leading Newspaper, Supports Legalized Recreational Marijuana (Bad Idea – Part 3)

I was glancing through today’s Oregonian (Portland’s major newspaper) and the Editorial Board has issued another ‘pick for the November 2014 election.’  This particular editorial, however, covers a subject matter that pertains to Lake Oswego voters and an issue which I know little or nothing about.

But, and I’ll be darned, the Editorial Board has decided to start identifying themselves.  I wonder if they read my previous blog post.  And, who are these esteemed and very knowledgeable individuals?

They are N. Christian Anderson III, Mark Hester, Len Reed and Erik Lukens.  Well, I googled them.  Interesting.  Nonetheless, what I found does not explain why their editorial on Legalized Recreational Marijuana appears to have been written by an eighteen-year-old, first year journalism student.  Could there be a young, ambitious ghost writer involved?

Before I continue with my critique of their support for the legalization of marijuana, I want to introduce you to the Editorial Board:

N. Christian Anderson III:  He is Chris Anderson, the Oregonian’s publisher.  His entire career has been in the newspaper business.  Before coming to the Oregonian, he was a consultant for media companies and, prior to that, the publisher and CEO of the Orange County Register.  Reportedly, he was raised in Heppner, Oregon where he delivered the Oregonian newspaper as a boy?  OK, sounds like a nice guy, but probably too busy to read and approve, much less research and write, the editorial on legalized marijuana.  Although, of course, he may have offered his off-the-cuff personal opinion; which would have held considerable sway with his subordinates.

Mark Hester:  Mark is an Associate Editor for the Oregonian – started with the Oregonian in 1996, Business Editor until 2005 when he became the Sports Editor.  Entire career in journalism.  Grew up in the South, BA from Mississippi College and an MBA from University of Texas.  Previously, he worked for the Spokesman-Review in Spokane.

Len Reed:  Len is an Associate Editor – joined the Editorial Board in 2010.  He writes on the environment, energy, education, science and culture subjects.  He was formerly with the Los Angeles Times.  He is a graduate of Trinity College in Connecticut, and is a former John S. Knight Fellow at Stamford (I’m not sure what that is, but sounds impressive).

Erik Lukens:  Erik is The Oregonian’s editorial and commentary editor.  Does that mean he actually writes the editorials?  Anyway, he worked at the Bulletin in Bend from 1998 to 2012.  Prior to that, he worked at the Trentonian in Trenton, NJ.  “He and his wife have three boys and a dog.”

Well, so now we know.  These are the gentlemen who advise you on how to vote on the question of legalized recreational marijuana.  Are you OK with that?

That said, in addition to my previous stated background, I, too, have a dog.  And, Watson happens to agree with me about the marijuana issue.

To be continued… but not tomorrow.  Tomorrow is a special day for me.

True Nelson