It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop,
about $35 billion yearly.
Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
Somehow, I'm missing something.
Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged
with taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
They certainly are missing something.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, "jtpr" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Joe Bemier wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> ><SNIP>
>> >> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
>> >> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather
> have
>> >> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't make sense.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
>> >loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
>> >in jail?
>>
>>
>> I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
>> are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
>> lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.
>
>Actually, possession of ANY amount in NH is a misdemeanor. I don't
>know how or why but you must have other circumstances to push it to
>felony.
It varies widely from state to state.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>You mean taking lye off the shelves didn't solve the drug problem?
>
>Perhaps we should take away fertilizer, soil, air, water, heat and light. That
>oughtta slow them down.
>
>Oh wait... they all ready took away fertilizer.. forget that one.
Yep. And they made it difficult for me to get allergy medicine as
well- without it, my sinuses often get infected badly enough to end up
in the hospital, but now it can only be got during certain hours, and
with a photo ID. Sure, they made newer versions of the stuff, but it
doesn't work as well, and costs 3-4 times as much.
Far as I'm concerned, they should just let the meth-heads go on and
destroy themselves, and leave our products where they are. I know
that doesn't have much to do with marijuana, but methamphetamine is
the big crusade in my area. Next thing you know, a guy won't be able
to get a propane tank for the grill or starter fluid for the car,
either.
"can't . . .tax it. So it is illegal"
Indeed, when England decided to do something about the opiates and MJ
problems they turned it over to their equivalent of our Department of Health
We (U.S.A.) decided to tax it and that is why the Department of the
Treasury is deeply involved in our "War on Drugs (& Terrorism)"
Your average Police Department spends a good deal of its budget maintaining
a "drug task force" by some name or another and regularly confiscates goods
and cash without probable cause by suggesting that the goods or cash is
somehow connected to criminal activity.
No Knock searches by black clad masked men in the middle of the night (or
early morning hours) have become the norm in America. Ostensibly to protect
us from druggies.
More of our rights went out the window with the Patriot Acts. Ostensibly to
protect us from the blowback we get by supporting a state of Israel in order
to keep a presence in the Oil-rich Middle East.
Solution: Smoke a little pot each day and fahgetddaboutit.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>>
>> For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
>> alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
>
> That answer is simple, marijuana is too easy to grow and the government
> can't control it closely enough to tax it. So it is illegal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Doug Miller wrote:
<SNIP>
> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>
> It doesn't make sense.
>
Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
in jail?
Joe Bemier wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> ><SNIP>
> >> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
> >> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
> >> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
> >>
> >> It doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >
> >Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
> >loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
> >in jail?
>
>
> I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
> are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
> lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.
Having an ounce or more of pot doesn't make the person
a dealer, but it may well make him a felon which, I think
is one of the problems Mr Miller was addressing.
--
FF
Joe Bemier wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> ><SNIP>
> >> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
> >> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
> >> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
> >>
> >> It doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >
> >Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
> >loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
> >in jail?
>
>
> I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
> are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
> lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.
Actually, possession of ANY amount in NH is a misdemeanor. I don't
know how or why but you must have other circumstances to push it to
felony.
-Jim
[email protected] wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> >
> > Clearly, the "War on Drugs" isn't working.........
>
>
>
>
>
> MmmmmHmmmmm.
> anytime the gubmint declares a "war" on some abstract concept, watch
> out. either your wallet or your civil liberties, or probably both are
> soon to be under assault.
I agree, the 'war' we have been fighting for over 40 years has cost us
all plenty
http://tinyurl.com/v7vgf
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop,
> about $35 billion yearly.
>
> Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>
> Somehow, I'm missing something.
>
> Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged
> with taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>
> They certainly are missing something.
>
> Lew
It is a tough one. Has been since the time I lived 20 kms away from
Amsterdam. That was the mid-60's.
People who have decided for themselves that they can't handle life as
it is coming to them, will find an escape. From a brisk walk in the
woods all the way to sticking their faces into a bag full of solvents.
Escape all you want, just don't take anybody down with you.
The most readily available products kill the most people. Tobacco,
alcohol, McDonald's fries, etc... not necessarily in that order.
People who have a propensity to hurt themselves, will.
For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
I don't think any guy has ever killed his family whilst under the
influence of pot. I have enjoyed a few giggles and angel-food cakes
wrapped in bacon in my day. Now, I simply don't have the time...besides
I'm happy the way things are.
Legalize the shit already and allow the users to grow a couple of
plants for themselves. That will take the greed out of the equation.
Only asshole cops bust kids for simple possession.
George wrote:
> "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I agree, the 'war' we have been fighting for over 40 years has cost us
> > all plenty
> > http://tinyurl.com/v7vgf
> >
>
> Whatta ya think it would have cost to have all the druggies driving,
> grooving and stealing to support their habit, not to mention those dumb
> enough to say "it's legal, so what can it harm" so try it and become driven
> by their addiction?
Why do you suppose he illegal drugs are so expensive?
Imagine how much revenue organized crime would loose if they
were not.
>
> You do know that a lot of the drugs used to be legal, right?
One of the most popular was illegal for a while, how'd that work out?
> Some feel
> goods, the most prescribed drugs being "antidepressants," still are.
Antidepressants are no more "feel good" drugs than are antifebrile
or antibiotic drugs.
>
> You are right, though. Prohibitions against murder, rape and theft have
> been largely ineffective....
Uh, when you let them out of prison early, yes.
--
FF
George wrote:
> ...
> >
> Read for information not justification. Hydrocodone is far from Tylenol,
> and when you add up the antidepressant numbers, you'll probably get it
> right. Neat thing is with doctor-shopping, you often encounter two or three
> varieties from different physicians. Polypharmacy is probably the number
> one reason for "feeling bad" calls with the elderly.
>
> Not to mention number one treats no medical condition, just as the
> antidepressants treat none.
You base that on what, exactly?
--
FF
On Dec 19, 7:41 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just like most of the other news, my guess is that this is "made up
> facts", kind of that "fake but accurate" thing. Especially in this case,
> who can truly dispute the number? Why not $50 billion yearly, or only $5
> billion.
I always get a kick out of the way they calculate 'street value' of
drugs confiscated during a bust. Here, at the border between the US and
Canada, we get regular news reports of confiscations and their
associated 'values'.
The numbers are incredibly overblown, nay, superinflated to show the
good people (tax payers) that the boys in blue are ON THE JOB!!
Just recently they busted a trucker with 2 pounds of pot. Street value
of $30,000 dollars. (That's around 30 dollars per 1 gram joint ... for
pressed Mexican ditch-weed. (Photo showed two highly compressed brown
bricks). OVER $ 900 per ounce!
Who-the-hell are they kidding?
Those numbers are for public consumption, to make themselves look way
better than they are. They are "doing one heck of job."
On Dec 19, 7:41 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Lew One of the things that always gets me about these statistics, as well as
> statistics regarding things like software piracy: How the heck do they
> know? Where do these figures come from?
The figures come from DOMUS (Department of Made Up Statistics) or DOMB
(Department of Make Believe)
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >
> > There's an easy solution to that problem: if a shrink says that Jack Felon is
> > rehabilitated and should be released, release Jack into the shrink's custody,
> > to rent a room in the shrink's house for six months or a year.
>
> I don't think that is fair. It is highly unlikely that enough shrinks
> would cooperate with your suggestion.
Exactly. Shrinks can sign off that someone is cured or rehabilitated
without a care in the world. If the shrinks had to do more than file
the paperwork afterwards I'm betting that the number of child molestors
and rapists that were cured would be reduced.
I DO NOT understand why this subject is in a Wood Working group.
I myself do Wood Working for enjoyment,to relax & to keep my mind off
things like this.
I had a daughter murderd about three years ago & this is not some thing
I care to read about in a wood group.
So PLEASE take this kind of crap & post it where it belongs.
Sorry but this postF--- up the rest of my day.
JP
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Joe Bemier wrote:
> >> On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> ><SNIP>
> >> >> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
> >> >> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather
> > have
> >> >> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't make sense.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
> >> >loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
> >> >in jail?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
> >> are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
> >> lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.
> >
> >Having an ounce or more of pot doesn't make the person
> >a dealer, but it may well make him a felon which, I think
> >is one of the problems Mr Miller was addressing.
> >
> Correct -- and in a more general sense, even drug *dealers* are IMO much less
> danger to society than rapists, child molesters, and murderers. And it makes
> no sense to imprison the former, and release the latter. Recently, in northern
> Indiana, a 16-year-old girl was murdered by a co-worker, a convicted murderer
> who had been released early on parole from a Kansas prison just last spring.
> I'm sure her family would much prefer that Kansas had turned a heroin dealer
> loose instead.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:02:19 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
>Wed, Dec 20, 2006, 8:07am (EST-3) [email protected] (JP) doth
>lament:
>I DO NOT understand why this subject is in a Wood Working group.
>PLEASE take this kind of crap & post it where it belongs.
>If you're too thin-skinned
>you won't be very happy here - and this is one of the most polite
>newsgroups.
Wow - what must a harsh group be like ;) ha!
Wed, Dec 20, 2006, 8:07am (EST-3) [email protected] (JP) doth
lament:
I DO NOT understand why this subject is in a Wood Working group.
<snip>So PLEASE take this kind of crap & post it where it belongs. Sorry
but this postF--- up the rest of my day. JP
If you need it explained to you, then you won't understand it
anyway.
Or, you could just go to one of the woodworking forums, that only
cover woodworking. Because, sure as anything, sooner or later, there'll
be something else you won't be happy with. If you're too thin-skinned
you won't be very happy here - and this is one of the most polite
newsgroups.
JOAT
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer
J T wrote:
> I haven't visited there, but yeah, that would be an example of a
> harsh group. If any of you wonder about rec.woodworking being one of
> the politest newsgroups, go cruise a few newsgroups, and participate.
They've gotten better over time but the Linux groups, here and on the
local BBS's, used to peel your skin off if you got a semi-colon wrong in
a 30 character command.
If they liked you, they'd simply respond with "RTFM". But most of the
time, they didn't like you.
This group can get rough, but I've gotten a lot quicker at plonking.
Besides which, responding to flame fests CAN make you think better and
WILL make you type faster. ;-)
Bill
--
When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt.
Henry J. Kaiser (1882 - 1967)
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0662-0, 12/22/2006
Tested on: 12/23/2006 1:32:12 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 1:46am [email protected] (Wayne=A0K)
Try Alt.hvac to see what a harsh group is like. Ask a simple or complex
question and get called every name in the book. Makes me feel embarrased
to say I'm in the HVAC field with people representing it like those
asses.
I haven't visited there, but yeah, that would be an example of a
harsh group. If any of you wonder about rec.woodworking being one of
the politest newsgroups, go cruise a few newsgroups, and participate.
JOAT
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:14:43 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
>Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 1:46am [email protected] (Wayne K)
>Try Alt.hvac to see what a harsh group is like. Ask a simple or complex
>question and get called every name in the book. Makes me feel embarrased
>to say I'm in the HVAC field with people representing it like those
>asses.
>
> I haven't visited there, but yeah, that would be an example of a
>harsh group. If any of you wonder about rec.woodworking being one of
>the politest newsgroups, go cruise a few newsgroups, and participate.
>
>
>
rec.travel is pretty harsh. Go over there and ask them (in separate
messages) about reclining your airline seat, and what about all those
nice children on board the airplane with you.
I hope you've got one of those silver protective suits that people
that fight serious fires wear.
On Dec 20, 10:35 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote in message
> > Zero here... but I do hang with a few musicians...The voice _from_ experience playing the following different types of music
> ... strictly from observation, you understand:
>
> Jazz - "tea" (aka pot)
> Country - beer
> Rock - assorted (at the same time)
> Bluegrass - whisky (out in the parking lot)
> Folk - Pot pre '80/Green tea post '80's
> Blues - assorted
> Western Swing - water (most too old to drink)
>
> Not in any particular chronilogical order ...
>
LOL.. so true. I have observed similar things. Observed.
My granma's knitting club - brandy soaked raisins. They weren't
'drinking', but they sure got loud after a couple of mason jars of the
stuff.
Those old bitties, singing, are amongst some of my favourite childhood
memories.
We should think in terms of regulation rather than legalization. Let's
American companies produce it, package it, and sell it. We'd then take
the business out of the hands of Mexican thugs and murderers. The US
government would collect taxes and regulate the sale much like
cigarette and alchohol. Not perfect but a vast improvement over what we
do now.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2006 13:30:06 GMT, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:17:28 -0600, Prometheus wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>You mean taking lye off the shelves didn't solve the drug problem?
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps we should take away fertilizer, soil, air, water, heat and light. That
> >>>oughtta slow them down.
> >>>
> >>>Oh wait... they all ready took away fertilizer.. forget that one.
> >>
> >> Yep. And they made it difficult for me to get allergy medicine as
> >> well- without it, my sinuses often get infected badly enough to end up
> >> in the hospital, but now it can only be got during certain hours, and
> >> with a photo ID. Sure, they made newer versions of the stuff, but it
> >> doesn't work as well, and costs 3-4 times as much.
> >>
> >> Far as I'm concerned, they should just let the meth-heads go on and
> >> destroy themselves, and leave our products where they are. I know
> >> that doesn't have much to do with marijuana, but methamphetamine is
> >> the big crusade in my area. Next thing you know, a guy won't be able
> >> to get a propane tank for the grill or starter fluid for the car,
> >> either.
> >
> >This whole business of "freedom from the consequences of our own
> >stupidity" being made a "right" by the do-gooders is just getting scarier
> >and scarier.
>
> The only problem I see with this is that our society is (unfortunately)
> not "wired" for this kind of attitude towards holding people accountable
> for consequences of their own actions. Sure, drug legalization could occur
> with this expressed intention and maybe for a few years would work that
> way. However, the responsibility part will be slowly eroded. It will
> start with good intentions, "What about the *children*, we can't hold
> *them* responsible for their irresponsible parents' actions, can we?" So
> we'll get some form of parental aid for children of parents of addicts.
> Then, "but they can't afford rehab, we have to *help* so they can
> re-establish their lives", and voila!, another $100B + government program
> will be born.
>
> As a strict constructionist, the approach to drug enforcement bothers me.
> The abuses of constitutional freedoms in pursuit of this enforcement are
> frightening and, IMHO, are what civil libertarians should be focusing on
> rather than the actions being taken to protect our country from the
> terrorists who would kill or maim as many as possible if given the
> opportunity. At the same time, having seen the devastation drug addiction
> causes, simple legalization is also frightening. Trying to draw a moral
> equivalence between drugs and alcohol is nonsense. One can partake of
> alcohol with no intent of getting drunk -- the same is not true of any use
> of drugs. In addition, while it is true that some are genetically
> pre-disposed toward alcoholism, there are drugs for which addiction
> following only a few "doses" is a near certainty for anyone trying those
> substance, thus making them readily available is likely to ensnare many who
> only experiment with them once.
>
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Dec 22, 3:20 am, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then remember that
> half the people are even dumber than that."
>
Then there's the one, and I don't recall who said it but: "Whatever
doesn't kill you makes you stronger..unless it kills you."
How many times has it happened that decades after extensive use of a
drug, it is found to be causing bad side effects? Vioxx comes to mind.
Look at Limbaugh to see how stupid you can get from Oxycontin.
Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 6:09am (EST-3) [email protected] (Robatoy) doth
quoteth:
Then there's the one, and I don't recall who said it but: "Whatever
doesn't kill you makes you stronger..unless it kills you." <snip>
I go with, "Whatever doesn't kill you usually hurts ike Hell".
JOAT
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:37:46 -0500, J T wrote:
> Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 6:09am (EST-3) [email protected] (Robatoy) doth
> quoteth:
> Then there's the one, and I don't recall who said it but: "Whatever
> doesn't kill you makes you stronger..unless it kills you." <snip>
>
> I go with, "Whatever doesn't kill you usually hurts ike Hell".
>
Whoever said "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" has never been
seasick.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
My comments embedded....
Ol Pete wrote:
> On 2006-12-20 09:50:56 -0600, Mark & Juanita
[snip]
> > Sure, drug legalization could occur
> > with this expressed intention and maybe for a few years would work that
> > way. However, the responsibility part will be slowly eroded. It will
> > start with good intentions, "What about the *children*, we can't hold
> > *them* responsible for their irresponsible parents' actions, can we?"
>
> Gak, more interventionist nonsense to justify the concept that people's
> lives belong to the state. Drugs are wildly legal and more widespread
> than ever. Responsibility for anti-individual rights and
> anti-capitalist legislation from republicans like their elimination of
> responsibility for drug manufacturers and physicians as well as
> monstrously huge welfare payments to drug companies and hospitals have
> all made things much worse.
Mark & Juanita's statement above doesn't seem to be advocating
"interventionist nonsense." I think they are arguing AGAINST
intervention. Did I miss something?
>
> I wonder what the chances are that you would ever take responsibility
> for your life.
>
> > So
> > we'll get some form of parental aid for children of parents of addicts.
> > Then, "but they can't afford rehab, we have to *help* so they can
> > re-establish their lives", and voila!, another $100B + government program
> > will be born.
>
> Yawn... not only is it a silly hypothetical founded on the myths of the
> RNC, but the RNC program costs MUCH MORE. Putting people in prison for
> their lives for not harming anyone is expensive and immoral.
Exactly which myths? The RNC "myths" seem to be truths to me. Hmmm.
Putting criminals in prison or not? I choose prison. If the laws are
broken, fix the laws, don't allow them to be broken because respect for
the law is extremely important. I have a feeling the "$100B program"
that mark & Juanita mentioned that triggered your vitriole, was
probably a little different than the one you imagine.
>
> But you dodge the truth completely. The reason people aren't allowed to
> self-medicate and the republicans and quasi-republican democrats push
> forced medication in various forms is because they benefit financially
> from it. Marijuana is used by such wild, crazy liberal organizations
> like the Israeli military to treat soldiers with PTSD. It was
> originally illegal because it was popular among the darkies, and now
> because it is such an effective medicine.
That sounds like bovine feces to me. Ecomonic gain is not the reason
anyone pushes forced medication.
>
> > As a strict constructionist,
>
> I've read hundreds of your posts, and like this one you demonstrate
> that you are the opposite of a strict constructionist. I suppose it is
> a label and a word that has had its meaning reversed like "left" and
> "right." Today's right wingers have more in common with marxism than
> anything else although it remains politically incorrect as a label.
Funny, I thought today's liberals were closer to Marxist.
>
>
> > the approach to drug enforcement bothers me.
> > The abuses of constitutional freedoms in pursuit of this enforcement are
> > frightening and, IMHO, are what civil libertarians should be focusing on
> > rather than the actions being taken to protect our country from the
> > terrorists who would kill or maim as many as possible if given the
> > opportunity.
>
> LMAO. Yeah, don't worry, they're not bothering you right? Selfish and a
> hypocrite of the lowest order. Great advice: don't follow principles
> except against a threat that is close to meaningless that is other
> than helping totalitarians take power. I sure am worried about
> "terrorists." What a yawner.
As a matter of fact they are bothering me. I'm offended you think of my
party as totalitarian. It simply is not true. I do think your hyperbole
and extreme passion is a problem, though.
>
> > At the same time, having seen the devastation drug addiction
> > causes, simple legalization is also frightening. Trying to draw a moral
> > equivalence between drugs and alcohol is nonsense.
> > One can partake of
> > alcohol with no intent of getting drunk -- the same is not true of any use
> > of drugs.
>
> Yo, simpleton, ALCOHOL IS A DRUG. Alcohol is the most devastating and
> harmful drug in the US and probably the world. Your doltish, retarded
> logic about "getting drunk" is contradicted by every piece of anecdotal
> and medical literature in the world. Every person who has ever taken a
> painkiller or used marijuana knows it is a grossly dishonest statement,
> but I bet you don't give a damn. I bet it is just a convenient
> rationalization to justify your immorality while you parade around
> calling yourself a "strict constructionist." What monstrous bullshit.
I don't even know mark or Juanita but your response is unfair to them.
If you take the problems created by alchohol per drinker, it's less
than th eproblems created by users of other drugs, per user. The only
reason you can claim that alchohol is the world's most harmful drug is
because far far more peopel use it so in absolute numbers you're
correct. However, if all those people swithed to another drug, problems
would increase.
I like your academic adjectives and terms: "montrous bullshit." That's
constructive.
>
>
> > In addition, while it is true that some are genetically
> > pre-disposed toward alcoholism, there are drugs for which addiction
> > following only a few "doses" is a near certainty for anyone trying those
> > substance, thus making them readily available is likely to ensnare many who
> > only experiment with them once.
>
> Yawn... you sound like you are posting drunk.
Oh come on. They don't sound drunk. You do. Mark & Juanita have a good
point there. It is consistent with thigs I've seen on the discovery
channel, news, magazines, etc. Are you saying all of them are
incorrect. Oh wait, it's a giant conspiracy of the RNC to make more
money. You didn't have a good response so you accuse them of being
drunk?
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop, about
> $35 billion yearly.
>
> Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>
> Somehow, I'm missing something.
>
> Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged with
> taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>
> They certainly are missing something.
>
> Lew
You ever consider the methodology used to come up with such figures? A WAG
or wild assed guess is most likely used here.... I don't recall a 300
million member audit on the subject lately. If my math is correct it comes
to $116.66 for every man, women and child in the country. Average heavy
users would fit a fairly narrow age range and a reasonably narrow slice of
that group would routinely use heavily to boot. Many pot heads are
reasonably easy to identify....they are often lazy and intellectually
shallow. When a life achievement revolves around ingesting a substance
things like ambition, achievement, learning and discipline fall by the
wayside....... Shall we conduct a WREC poll on how much "we" spend per year
on pot?.....zero here Rod
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So here's my theory, for what it's worth. I'm young enough to have
> been through a D.A.R.E. anti-drug program in school. It was a joke to
> everyone in the class, and was more of an education in identifying
> drugs than anything else. But one thing it did do was very clearly
> equate marijuana and mild hallucinogenics with harder and more
> addictive substances like injected heroin and cocaine. I know- for a
> fact, that many of the people I knew growing up who developed
> addictions to hard drugs later in life felt like they had been lied to
> by everyone about drugs generally. A lot of them fell into trying
> pot, and when they found that it didn't do anything particularly
> frightening to them, they assumed (incorrectly) that everything they
> had been told about all drugs had been incorrect to the same degree-
> so they tried one or several of the others, and ended up with a monkey
> on their back.
A bit too simplistic......While I can claim no personal knowledge of what or
what not the DARE program teaches (other than my three former teens didn't
seem really exited about it one way or another). However most of a kids
"knowledge" and experience with illicit drugs comes from their peer group
and not from a school classroom.....regrettably many will have even observed
devastating effects from drug use in others but usually suffer from "NOT ME"
itis...the invincible youth syndrome. Regrettably as well if grass was legal
other more dangerous drug use would most likely soar since part of the
initial appeal is THRILL seeking or tasting the forbidden fruit.....
And different substances impact people in entirely different ways....Tobacco
for one is not appealing to at least half the population (at its heyday just
under half smoked by choice)....now with ever higher taxes and strong
societal pressure against it ....use has dropped below 25%, One can safely
assume that about 25% of the population can have a difficult tobacco
addiction...the other 75% will not. Pretty much 90% of the population will
not have a particular alcohol problem.... now the other 10% can or will
without discipline or avoidance
Drugs behave much the same way..legal or otherwise. I for one because of
serious medical issues (7years) have used and do use narcotics...going on or
off morphine in the past or presently hydrocodone creates little difficulty.
While others can and do build tolerances, addiction and need ever increasing
doses etc......I have not. However Tobacco has been a consistent problem, 13
years after quitting ciggs those cigars (to get me over the initial hump)
are a multiple daily occurrence.
Addiction aside in the world of illicit drugs serious users eventually
migrate to primarily one drug ...once the experiments are over they largely
settle on a "drug of choice"...... if not everyone would stick with
booze(easy) or grass (less legal trouble) but yet heroin, coke. meth
etc.....all have their following.
> If they (the government and educational system) would just stop the
> nonsense and admit that smoking a joint won't turn a person into a
> raving lunatic who is going to steal and kill to get his next fix, but
> is rather less dangerous than drinking alcohol, they'd gain a whole
> lot more credibility about the drugs that are *truly* dangerous, and
> that alone would go a long way towards reducing the drug problem.
Well their web site presents a little different picture that what you
suggest...do you have a source where this "reefer madness" message is being
taught? Rod
http://www.dea.gov/concern/marijuana.html
SHORT TERM EFFECTS
When marijuana is smoked, its effects begin immediately after the drug
enters the brain and last from 1 to 3 hours. If marijuana is consumed in
food or drink, the short-term effects begin more slowly, usually in 1/2 to 1
hour, and last longer, for as long as 4 hours. Smoking marijuana deposits
several times more THC into the blood than does eating or drinking the
drug.(4)
Within a few minutes after inhaling marijuana smoke, an individual's heart
begins beating more rapidly, the bronchial passages relax and become
enlarged, and blood vessels in the eyes expand, making the eyes look red.
The heart rate, normally 70 to 80 beats per minute, may increase by 20 to 50
beats per minute or, in some cases, even double. This effect can be greater
if other drugs are taken with marijuana.(5)
As THC enters the brain, it causes a user to feel euphoric- or "high"-by
acting in the brain's reward system, areas of the brain that respond to
stimuli such as food and drink as well as most drugs of abuse. THC activates
the reward system in the same way that nearly all drugs of abuse do, by
stimulating brain cells to release the chemical dopamine.(6)
A marijuana user may experience pleasant sensations, colors and sounds may
seem more intense, and time appears to pass very slowly. The user's mouth
feels dry, and he or she may suddenly become very hungry and thirsty. His or
her hands may tremble and grow cold. The euphoria passes after awhile, and
then the user may feel sleepy or depressed. Occasionally, marijuana use
produces anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.(7)
back to top
LONG-TERM EFFECTS
Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory
problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production,
more frequent acute chest illnesses, a heightened risk of lung infections,
and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. Cancer of the respiratory
tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke. Marijuana has the
potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory
tract because marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more
carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.(8)
Marijuana's damage to short-term memory seems to occur because THC alters
the way in which information is processed by the hippocampus, a brain area
responsible for memory formation. In one study, researchers compared
marijuana smoking and nonsmoking 12th-graders' scores on standardized tests
of verbal and mathematical skills. Although all of the students had scored
equally well in 4th grade, those who were heavy marijuana smokers, i.e.,
those who used marijuana seven or more times per week, scored significantly
lower in 12th grade than nonsmokers. Another study of 129 college students
found that among heavy users of marijuana critical skills related to
attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired, even after they
had not used the drug for at least 24 hours.(9)
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> : Look at Limbaugh to see how stupid you can get from Oxycontin.
>
> I'm pretty sure he was that way before the Oxycontin.
>
> -- Andy Barss
One of my finest days occurred when the ACLU came to his aid with
keeping his medical records secret. Doesn't get much better than that.
mahalo,
jo4hn
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> As I mentioned in another part of this thread; I find the attempt to draw
> a moral equivalence between alcohol and drugs, including mirijuana
> puzzling. One can partake in alcohol without becoming drunk (i.e, wine
> with dinner, etc); there is no equivalent for drug use. One uses those
> substances for the sole express purpose of altering one's conscious state.
With all due deference, that's what the wine with dinner is for, too.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0662-0, 12/22/2006
Tested on: 12/23/2006 1:47:38 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> wayside....... Shall we conduct a WREC poll on how much "we" spend per year
> on pot?.....zero here Rod
$23.00 here.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant for the little peat things for the
tomatoes.
If you mean Mara Ja Wanna, yeah $0.00
Ut-oh ... between you and me, somebody is going to have to go around
swacked an awful lot to keep the averages up.
People who spend their spare time using fast, sharp, mechanized blades
seldom have a large marijuana bill.
Bill
--
There are two kinds of light--the glow that illuminates, and the glare
that obscures.
James Thurber
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0662-0, 12/22/2006
Tested on: 12/23/2006 2:00:50 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Dave Hall wrote:
> Yeah, but how much do "we" spend on booze, a much more mind rotting
> drug than pot and probably more likely to result in lazy,
> intellectually shallow, drunken slob-like behavior.
>
> Dave Hall
>
Ditto.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0662-0, 12/22/2006
Tested on: 12/23/2006 2:01:33 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Dave Hall wrote:
> Dave Hall
>
> (Who, by the way, spends zero dollars per year on either and doesn't
> ingest either if offered for free)
>
Oops ... ditto to the ABOVE.
Bill
--
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0662-0, 12/22/2006
Tested on: 12/23/2006 2:02:27 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Who-the-hell are they kidding?
> Those numbers are for public consumption, to make themselves look way
> better than they are. They are "doing one heck of job."
>
Sort of like telling us how many homeless or how many without medical
insurance to jolt us into action? Or one of my favorites, the cost per day
per inmate. The cost difference between one and two is the price of the
chow. In our case, it was about six bucks. The twenty-first was another
matter, because that required another body on shift.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:53:59 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
>>> alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
>>
>>That answer is simple, marijuana is too easy to grow and the government
>>can't control it closely enough to tax it. So it is illegal.
>>
>
> As I mentioned in another part of this thread; I find the attempt to draw
>a moral equivalence between alcohol and drugs, including mirijuana
>puzzling. One can partake in alcohol without becoming drunk (i.e, wine
>with dinner, etc); there is no equivalent for drug use. One uses those
>substances for the sole express purpose of altering one's conscious state.
How does something like a glass of wine *not* alter your concious
state? At the least, it will cause a mild warmth and feeling of
relaxation. What you're saying is that a person can drink but not
binge, and that is true of anything. There have been plenty of times
where I have seen a person take one hit off a joint and then refrain
from any further smoking- and they certainly didn't turn into the
characters from reefer madness after that.
I'll preface the following with the statement that I have used
absolutely no drugs in over five years, with the exception of the
occasional couple of beers or a glass of wine now and then, usually in
social situations.
I, like a lot of folks (if they're being honest) experimented with a
number of drugs between the ages of 18-22. Nothing hard like heroin
or cocaine, but I smoked my fair share of pot and even used LSD and
mushrooms a couple of times. And I've seen plenty of other folks
using far harder drugs on more than a few occasions. While you're
right that they're used to change a person's mental state, there are
all sorts of mental states that different substances cause in
different people. I've never felt or seen any level of agression
associated with marijuana- but I know damn well that if I even look at
tequila sideways, I'm going to be picking a fight (so I don't drink
it- ever.) A guy on LSD can freak out and cause himself or others a
lot of harm, but a person who ate some funny mushrooms is likely to
just sit under a tree and giggle. A meth addict will age twenty years
in six weeks and become mentally retarded and loose their teeth before
they die, and a cocaine user will steal from his own mother to get a
fix (sometimes- not always.)
So here's my theory, for what it's worth. I'm young enough to have
been through a D.A.R.E. anti-drug program in school. It was a joke to
everyone in the class, and was more of an education in identifying
drugs than anything else. But one thing it did do was very clearly
equate marijuana and mild hallucinogenics with harder and more
addictive substances like injected heroin and cocaine. I know- for a
fact, that many of the people I knew growing up who developed
addictions to hard drugs later in life felt like they had been lied to
by everyone about drugs generally. A lot of them fell into trying
pot, and when they found that it didn't do anything particularly
frightening to them, they assumed (incorrectly) that everything they
had been told about all drugs had been incorrect to the same degree-
so they tried one or several of the others, and ended up with a monkey
on their back.
If they (the government and educational system) would just stop the
nonsense and admit that smoking a joint won't turn a person into a
raving lunatic who is going to steal and kill to get his next fix, but
is rather less dangerous than drinking alcohol, they'd gain a whole
lot more credibility about the drugs that are *truly* dangerous, and
that alone would go a long way towards reducing the drug problem.
On 20 Dec 2006 13:30:06 GMT, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:17:28 -0600, Prometheus wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>You mean taking lye off the shelves didn't solve the drug problem?
>>>
>>>Perhaps we should take away fertilizer, soil, air, water, heat and light. That
>>>oughtta slow them down.
>>>
>>>Oh wait... they all ready took away fertilizer.. forget that one.
>>
>> Yep. And they made it difficult for me to get allergy medicine as
>> well- without it, my sinuses often get infected badly enough to end up
>> in the hospital, but now it can only be got during certain hours, and
>> with a photo ID. Sure, they made newer versions of the stuff, but it
>> doesn't work as well, and costs 3-4 times as much.
>>
>> Far as I'm concerned, they should just let the meth-heads go on and
>> destroy themselves, and leave our products where they are. I know
>> that doesn't have much to do with marijuana, but methamphetamine is
>> the big crusade in my area. Next thing you know, a guy won't be able
>> to get a propane tank for the grill or starter fluid for the car,
>> either.
>
>This whole business of "freedom from the consequences of our own
>stupidity" being made a "right" by the do-gooders is just getting scarier
>and scarier.
The only problem I see with this is that our society is (unfortunately)
not "wired" for this kind of attitude towards holding people accountable
for consequences of their own actions. Sure, drug legalization could occur
with this expressed intention and maybe for a few years would work that
way. However, the responsibility part will be slowly eroded. It will
start with good intentions, "What about the *children*, we can't hold
*them* responsible for their irresponsible parents' actions, can we?" So
we'll get some form of parental aid for children of parents of addicts.
Then, "but they can't afford rehab, we have to *help* so they can
re-establish their lives", and voila!, another $100B + government program
will be born.
As a strict constructionist, the approach to drug enforcement bothers me.
The abuses of constitutional freedoms in pursuit of this enforcement are
frightening and, IMHO, are what civil libertarians should be focusing on
rather than the actions being taken to protect our country from the
terrorists who would kill or maim as many as possible if given the
opportunity. At the same time, having seen the devastation drug addiction
causes, simple legalization is also frightening. Trying to draw a moral
equivalence between drugs and alcohol is nonsense. One can partake of
alcohol with no intent of getting drunk -- the same is not true of any use
of drugs. In addition, while it is true that some are genetically
pre-disposed toward alcoholism, there are drugs for which addiction
following only a few "doses" is a near certainty for anyone trying those
substance, thus making them readily available is likely to ensnare many who
only experiment with them once.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:41:39 GMT, Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Look at Limbaugh to see how stupid you can get from Oxycontin.
>
>He doesn't need any help from Oxycontin.
Agreed-
But, Oxycontin will mess a guy up just fine, regardless of the person.
My dad has been addicted to it (with prescription) for about 10 years
now, and he's well down the road of senility, even though he's not
even 50 yet. It's a real chore even trying to talk to the guy at this
point, he's so disconnected from reality.
These restrictions are not about doing anything about the drug problem. They
are about looking like they are doing something about the drug problem.
Actually doing something would be far more difficult and relatively few
people would know about it as it does not effect the majority. If they put
restrictions on products, it will do little to nothing about the problem but
it will appear they are working hard at it. Appearances are everything.
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >You mean taking lye off the shelves didn't solve the drug problem?
> >
> >Perhaps we should take away fertilizer, soil, air, water, heat and light.
That
> >oughtta slow them down.
> >
> >Oh wait... they all ready took away fertilizer.. forget that one.
>
> Yep. And they made it difficult for me to get allergy medicine as
> well- without it, my sinuses often get infected badly enough to end up
> in the hospital, but now it can only be got during certain hours, and
> with a photo ID. Sure, they made newer versions of the stuff, but it
> doesn't work as well, and costs 3-4 times as much.
>
> Far as I'm concerned, they should just let the meth-heads go on and
> destroy themselves, and leave our products where they are. I know
> that doesn't have much to do with marijuana, but methamphetamine is
> the big crusade in my area. Next thing you know, a guy won't be able
> to get a propane tank for the grill or starter fluid for the car,
> either.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:36:46 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>These restrictions are not about doing anything about the drug problem. They
>are about looking like they are doing something about the drug problem.
>Actually doing something would be far more difficult and relatively few
>people would know about it as it does not effect the majority. If they put
>restrictions on products, it will do little to nothing about the problem but
>it will appear they are working hard at it. Appearances are everything.
>
In a similar vein, this sounds just like the security measures taken
at airports by the TSA. Take your shoes off. No bottles of water
(from home.) I feel safer already.
Therefore I must surmise that real action must be difficult and the
results may go unnoticed by the majority.
What is so difficult about law enforcement & security?
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm young enough to have been through a D.A.R.E. anti-drug program . .
> .
Or as some of us came to call it: Drugs Are Real Expensive
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
On 2006-12-20 09:50:56 -0600, Mark & Juanita
> The only problem I see with this is that our society is (unfortunately)
> not "wired" for this kind of attitude towards holding people accountable
> for consequences of their own actions.
Society is not "wired"?
> Sure, drug legalization could occur
> with this expressed intention and maybe for a few years would work that
> way. However, the responsibility part will be slowly eroded. It will
> start with good intentions, "What about the *children*, we can't hold
> *them* responsible for their irresponsible parents' actions, can we?"
Gak, more interventionist nonsense to justify the concept that people's
lives belong to the state. Drugs are wildly legal and more widespread
than ever. Responsibility for anti-individual rights and
anti-capitalist legislation from republicans like their elimination of
responsibility for drug manufacturers and physicians as well as
monstrously huge welfare payments to drug companies and hospitals have
all made things much worse.
I wonder what the chances are that you would ever take responsibility
for your life.
> So
> we'll get some form of parental aid for children of parents of addicts.
> Then, "but they can't afford rehab, we have to *help* so they can
> re-establish their lives", and voila!, another $100B + government program
> will be born.
Yawn... not only is it a silly hypothetical founded on the myths of the
RNC, but the RNC program costs MUCH MORE. Putting people in prison for
their lives for not harming anyone is expensive and immoral.
But you dodge the truth completely. The reason people aren't allowed to
self-medicate and the republicans and quasi-republican democrats push
forced medication in various forms is because they benefit financially
from it. Marijuana is used by such wild, crazy liberal organizations
like the Israeli military to treat soldiers with PTSD. It was
originally illegal because it was popular among the darkies, and now
because it is such an effective medicine.
> As a strict constructionist,
I've read hundreds of your posts, and like this one you demonstrate
that you are the opposite of a strict constructionist. I suppose it is
a label and a word that has had its meaning reversed like "left" and
"right." Today's right wingers have more in common with marxism than
anything else although it remains politically incorrect as a label.
> the approach to drug enforcement bothers me.
> The abuses of constitutional freedoms in pursuit of this enforcement are
> frightening and, IMHO, are what civil libertarians should be focusing on
> rather than the actions being taken to protect our country from the
> terrorists who would kill or maim as many as possible if given the
> opportunity.
LMAO. Yeah, don't worry, they're not bothering you right? Selfish and a
hypocrite of the lowest order. Great advice: don't follow principles
except against a threat that is close to meaningless that is other
than helping totalitarians take power. I sure am worried about
"terrorists." What a yawner.
> At the same time, having seen the devastation drug addiction
> causes, simple legalization is also frightening. Trying to draw a moral
> equivalence between drugs and alcohol is nonsense.
> One can partake of
> alcohol with no intent of getting drunk -- the same is not true of any use
> of drugs.
Yo, simpleton, ALCOHOL IS A DRUG. Alcohol is the most devastating and
harmful drug in the US and probably the world. Your doltish, retarded
logic about "getting drunk" is contradicted by every piece of anecdotal
and medical literature in the world. Every person who has ever taken a
painkiller or used marijuana knows it is a grossly dishonest statement,
but I bet you don't give a damn. I bet it is just a convenient
rationalization to justify your immorality while you parade around
calling yourself a "strict constructionist." What monstrous bullshit.
> In addition, while it is true that some are genetically
> pre-disposed toward alcoholism, there are drugs for which addiction
> following only a few "doses" is a near certainty for anyone trying those
> substance, thus making them readily available is likely to ensnare many who
> only experiment with them once.
Yawn... you sound like you are posting drunk.
Tue, Dec 19, 2006, 6:30am (EST+5) [email protected]
(Lew=A0Hodgett) did thusly post:
It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop,
about $35 billion yearly.
Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California. <snip>
Well, that goes a long ways toward explaining California politics
then. Anold is smoking blunts.
JOAT
Chubby had not demanded much out of life, and had got it.
Sat, Dec 23, 2006, 1:10am (EST-3) [email protected] (Lare=A0S) doth
mumble:
Lew my good fellow, what the fuck does marijuana have to do with
woodworking. Lighten up man and get your mind straight. Think sawdust
!!!!
When you're responding to someone, it's considered polite to say
who.
When you've been here for awhile, you'll know what it has to do
with woodworking.
If you don't know, this IS a family group, surely you can get your
point across without language like that in front of the women and kids.
I am thinking sawdust.
JOAT
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:22:40 -0600, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Markem" <markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Me I look at the history of the 20th century, Anslinger (sp?) just
>> built himself a little bureaucratic kingdom, and needed a dragon to
>> slay. Using racial prejudice against Mexican Americans and that evil
>> reefer, they taxed it but was a Catch 22, you had to have the reefer
>> to get the stamp and to have it without the stamp was illegal.
>
>Tax Stamp or not, it was still illegal to posess marijuana even if you had
>the stamp.
I actually have some, bought as collectable after the tax acts demise.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:50:07 -0800, "Rod & Betty Jo"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>A bit too simplistic......While I can claim no personal knowledge of what or
>what not the DARE program teaches (other than my three former teens didn't
>seem really exited about it one way or another). However most of a kids
>"knowledge" and experience with illicit drugs comes from their peer group
>and not from a school classroom.....regrettably many will have even observed
>devastating effects from drug use in others but usually suffer from "NOT ME"
>itis...the invincible youth syndrome. Regrettably as well if grass was legal
>other more dangerous drug use would most likely soar since part of the
>initial appeal is THRILL seeking or tasting the forbidden fruit.....
Simplistic is the name of the game with this one- from what I remember
about 20 years ago, we got a magazine-style book with a lot of glossy
pictures with disturbing images next to pictures of drugs. There was
no seperation made between different types of drugs on those pages,
unless you count the fact that you had to turn a page to get to the
next one. There were technical write-ups as you'd expect, but far
more quotations from rehab patients who would go on about how
substance X ruined thier lives. Every one had the same format and
style, and in sixth or seventh grade, that's a more compelling
argument that they are all the same than a dry write-up from a
commission's report.
>Addiction aside in the world of illicit drugs serious users eventually
>migrate to primarily one drug ...once the experiments are over they largely
>settle on a "drug of choice"...... if not everyone would stick with
>booze(easy) or grass (less legal trouble) but yet heroin, coke. meth
>etc.....all have their following.
Sure. You *can't* entirely stop that from happening. But we could
make a clearer distinction between the hard and soft drugs to get some
percentage of people to understand that there is a sort of line in the
sand that they should never cross. That's won't work for everyone,
but it's an improvement. Right now, the waters are terribly muddied
about the whole situation. A reasonably smart person can figure it
out, but remember what George Carlin says...
"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then remember that
half the people are even dumber than that."
There are plenty of folks in the world who I wouldn't trust to use a
toaster unsupervised, and I don't think leaving them to try and figure
out which information is straight and which is colored by political
machinations is a very fair or intellegent thing to do.
>Well their web site presents a little different picture that what you
>suggest...do you have a source where this "reefer madness" message is being
>taught? Rod
See above- I don't have that old handout, but I do recall it being
used as a vehicle to describe how each and every drug leads to violent
crime and addiction. That may have changed by now, I'm remembering
the drug war from Reagan's time.
In article <[email protected]>, Group wrote:
>Another part of this issue-
>Psychologists psychiatrists, etc are involved in rehab programs. These
>same *doctors* are the ones who make a determination as to whether an
>individual is rehabilitated.
>Their function requires that they declare success in some cases. If
>you install an individual to rehabilitate then they would never come
>back and say *we failed*.
>This system puts dangerous people back on the streets.
There's an easy solution to that problem: if a shrink says that Jack Felon is
rehabilitated and should be released, release Jack into the shrink's custody,
to rent a room in the shrink's house for six months or a year.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>>
>> For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
>> alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
>
>That answer is simple, marijuana is too easy to grow and the government
>can't control it closely enough to tax it. So it is illegal.
Me I look at the history of the 20th century, Anslinger (sp?) just
built himself a little bureaucratic kingdom, and needed a dragon to
slay. Using racial prejudice against Mexican Americans and that evil
reefer, they taxed it but was a Catch 22, you had to have the reefer
to get the stamp and to have it without the stamp was illegal.
Our drug laws are borne of stupidity and political blackmailing
bureaucratics.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So would you support applying the same standard to alcohol and tobacco?
>
Don't we? And then there's the deadly "trans-fats...."
>>You do know that a lot of the drugs used to be legal, right? Some feel
>>goods, the most prescribed drugs being "antidepressants," still are.
>
> Seems to me that the addicts didn't cause as many problems then as they do
> now. Wonder why that is.
>>
Not much of a History student, are you? BIG problems back when.
>>You are right, though. Prohibitions against murder, rape and theft have
>>been largely ineffective....
>>
> And part of the reason -- not the only part, or even the larger part, but
> a
> part nonetheless -- is that jails are overcrowded with nonviolent drug
> offenders, leading to the early release of the violent. I submit that's
> backwards.
>
That's it. My idea to end the whole problem is to fence off Nebraska, put
'em all in there and let the Lord of the Flies take charge....
"If they (the government and educational system) would just stop the
nonsense"
"They" is us. Well, not you and I, of course, but "us" collectively.
As one can see from this list, "we" all hold rather strong opinions
regardless the topic. And, as we live in a society that allows us to convert
opinion into legislation (not withstanding, it appears, deference to the
constitution) "we" regularly infringe on one another's liberties.
Once the laws are enacted and the mechanism's of enforcement are in place,
each has its own "lobby" within the government whose existence depends upon
"staying the course."
The government entities (and sub-entities) that have formed about the "war
on drugs" are large, diverse and well-paid. [In our town, for instance, the
D.A.R.E. officers received a weekly bonus for participating in the program
and driving the confiscated corvette with all the D.A.R.E. labels upon it.]
In essence, we have created a funding mechanism for supporting the
continuation and support of the initial legislation whereby the taxes of all
of us contribute to the promotion of continuing the program(s).
Next time an anti-smoking proposal comes up in your town, will you actively
oppose it (as your Libertarian comments would indicate) or simply vote
against it?
In Florida one of these efforts got the protection of pigs into the state
constitution. How can you vote against pregnant pigs!
One problem is that a significant number of folks who might spend hours on a
list serve arguing over such an issue may not even be registered to vote
(or, if registered, fail to participate in the election process as
vigorously as their comments here would indicate).
Election results show that the majority of laws enacted by referendum and
the majority of those elected to office are elected by a minority of the
eligible (and often by a scant minority of the registered )voters.
Hardly what one might predict after perusing this list serv a week or so.
But a fact none the less.
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:53:59 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
>>>> alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
>>>
>>>That answer is simple, marijuana is too easy to grow and the government
>>>can't control it closely enough to tax it. So it is illegal.
>>>
>>
>> As I mentioned in another part of this thread; I find the attempt to
>> draw
>>a moral equivalence between alcohol and drugs, including mirijuana
>>puzzling. One can partake in alcohol without becoming drunk (i.e, wine
>>with dinner, etc); there is no equivalent for drug use. One uses those
>>substances for the sole express purpose of altering one's conscious state.
>
> How does something like a glass of wine *not* alter your concious
> state? At the least, it will cause a mild warmth and feeling of
> relaxation. What you're saying is that a person can drink but not
> binge, and that is true of anything. There have been plenty of times
> where I have seen a person take one hit off a joint and then refrain
> from any further smoking- and they certainly didn't turn into the
> characters from reefer madness after that.
>
> I'll preface the following with the statement that I have used
> absolutely no drugs in over five years, with the exception of the
> occasional couple of beers or a glass of wine now and then, usually in
> social situations.
>
> I, like a lot of folks (if they're being honest) experimented with a
> number of drugs between the ages of 18-22. Nothing hard like heroin
> or cocaine, but I smoked my fair share of pot and even used LSD and
> mushrooms a couple of times. And I've seen plenty of other folks
> using far harder drugs on more than a few occasions. While you're
> right that they're used to change a person's mental state, there are
> all sorts of mental states that different substances cause in
> different people. I've never felt or seen any level of agression
> associated with marijuana- but I know damn well that if I even look at
> tequila sideways, I'm going to be picking a fight (so I don't drink
> it- ever.) A guy on LSD can freak out and cause himself or others a
> lot of harm, but a person who ate some funny mushrooms is likely to
> just sit under a tree and giggle. A meth addict will age twenty years
> in six weeks and become mentally retarded and loose their teeth before
> they die, and a cocaine user will steal from his own mother to get a
> fix (sometimes- not always.)
>
> So here's my theory, for what it's worth. I'm young enough to have
> been through a D.A.R.E. anti-drug program in school. It was a joke to
> everyone in the class, and was more of an education in identifying
> drugs than anything else. But one thing it did do was very clearly
> equate marijuana and mild hallucinogenics with harder and more
> addictive substances like injected heroin and cocaine. I know- for a
> fact, that many of the people I knew growing up who developed
> addictions to hard drugs later in life felt like they had been lied to
> by everyone about drugs generally. A lot of them fell into trying
> pot, and when they found that it didn't do anything particularly
> frightening to them, they assumed (incorrectly) that everything they
> had been told about all drugs had been incorrect to the same degree-
> so they tried one or several of the others, and ended up with a monkey
> on their back.
>
> If they (the government and educational system) would just stop the
> nonsense and admit that smoking a joint won't turn a person into a
> raving lunatic who is going to steal and kill to get his next fix, but
> is rather less dangerous than drinking alcohol, they'd gain a whole
> lot more credibility about the drugs that are *truly* dangerous, and
> that alone would go a long way towards reducing the drug problem.
In article <[email protected]>, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
><SNIP>
>> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
>> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
>> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>>
>> It doesn't make sense.
>>
>Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
>loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
>in jail?
>
Right here in Indianapolis. It's happened several times in the last couple of
years. Our jail is under a Federal court order to reduce the overcrowding,
most of which is due to drug offenders, and this has led to the early release
of several violent felons. There have been at least one rape, and at least one
murder, committed by men who have been released early under these
circumstances within the last year or two.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I always get a kick out of the way they calculate 'street value' of
> drugs confiscated during a bust. Here, at the border between the US and
> Canada, we get regular news reports of confiscations and their
> associated 'values'.
> The numbers are incredibly overblown, nay, superinflated to show the
> good people (tax payers) that the boys in blue are ON THE JOB!!
> Just recently they busted a trucker with 2 pounds of pot. Street value
> of $30,000 dollars. (That's around 30 dollars per 1 gram joint ... for
> pressed Mexican ditch-weed. (Photo showed two highly compressed brown
> bricks). OVER $ 900 per ounce!
> Who-the-hell are they kidding?
> Those numbers are for public consumption, to make themselves look way
> better than they are. They are "doing one heck of job."
>
No wonder they are loosing the war on drugs. They make it look sooooo
profitable.
"RayV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> MmmmmHmmmmm.
>> anytime the gubmint declares a "war" on some abstract concept, watch
>> out. either your wallet or your civil liberties, or probably both are
>> soon to be under assault.
>
> I agree, the 'war' we have been fighting for over 40 years has cost us
> all plenty
> http://tinyurl.com/v7vgf
>
Whatta ya think it would have cost to have all the druggies driving,
grooving and stealing to support their habit, not to mention those dumb
enough to say "it's legal, so what can it harm" so try it and become driven
by their addiction?
You do know that a lot of the drugs used to be legal, right? Some feel
goods, the most prescribed drugs being "antidepressants," still are.
You are right, though. Prohibitions against murder, rape and theft have
been largely ineffective....
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Joe Bemier wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> ><SNIP>
>> >> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
>> >> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather
> have
>> >> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't make sense.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
>> >loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
>> >in jail?
>>
>>
>> I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
>> are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
>> lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.
>
>Having an ounce or more of pot doesn't make the person
>a dealer, but it may well make him a felon which, I think
>is one of the problems Mr Miller was addressing.
>
Correct -- and in a more general sense, even drug *dealers* are IMO much less
danger to society than rapists, child molesters, and murderers. And it makes
no sense to imprison the former, and release the latter. Recently, in northern
Indiana, a 16-year-old girl was murdered by a co-worker, a convicted murderer
who had been released early on parole from a Kansas prison just last spring.
I'm sure her family would much prefer that Kansas had turned a heroin dealer
loose instead.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Markem" <markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Me I look at the history of the 20th century, Anslinger (sp?) just
> built himself a little bureaucratic kingdom, and needed a dragon to
> slay. Using racial prejudice against Mexican Americans and that evil
> reefer, they taxed it but was a Catch 22, you had to have the reefer
> to get the stamp and to have it without the stamp was illegal.
Tax Stamp or not, it was still illegal to posess marijuana even if you had
the stamp.
Since they can't beat them, they ought to tax them. There's a lotta gold in
them thar hills!
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop, about
> $35 billion yearly.
>
> Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>
> Somehow, I'm missing something.
>
> Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged with
> taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>
> They certainly are missing something.
>
> Lew
In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Group wrote:
>>
>> >Another part of this issue-
>> >Psychologists psychiatrists, etc are involved in rehab programs. These
>> >same *doctors* are the ones who make a determination as to whether an
>> >individual is rehabilitated.
>> >Their function requires that they declare success in some cases. If
>> >you install an individual to rehabilitate then they would never come
>> >back and say *we failed*.
>> >This system puts dangerous people back on the streets.
>>
>> There's an easy solution to that problem: if a shrink says that Jack Felon is
>> rehabilitated and should be released, release Jack into the shrink's custody,
>> to rent a room in the shrink's house for six months or a year.
>
>I don't think that is fair. It is highly unlikely that enough shrinks
>would cooperate with your suggestion. Your idea is a wash.
If the shrinks won't cooperate, I think it's legitimate to wonder why... If
the guy is truly rehabilitated, there's nothing to fear from him, right?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Group wrote:
>On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>><SNIP>
>>> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
>>> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
>>> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>>>
>>> It doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>
>>Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
>>loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
>>in jail?
>
>
>I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
>are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
>lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.
Indeed. Please note that I did *not* say that felons were being turned loose
to make room for misdemeanants [although that may be the case sometimes], but
rather that violent felons were being turned loose to make room for drug
offenders.
IMO that's bass-ackwards.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop,
>about $35 billion yearly.
As far as I know, it's been that way for a long time.
>
>Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>
>Somehow, I'm missing something.
>
>Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged
>with taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>
>They certainly are missing something.
Clearly, the "War on Drugs" isn't working any better than Prohibition did, and
for much the same reasons: attacking the supply side, while doing nothing (or
next to nothing) to address demand, only serves to drive up the price; and,
just as any idiot with sugar and yeast can make alcohol, any idiot with common
household products can make meth, and any idiot can grow marijuana.
IMO it's difficult to make the case, either scientifically or legally, for
regulating marijuana any differently from alcohol.
And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
It doesn't make sense.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Not to mention number one treats no medical condition, just as the
>antidepressants treat none.
Speaking as one who has several family members with chronic depression, I can
assure you that antidepressants definitely *do* treat a medical condition.
If you Google on "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor" you will learn some
things that you apparently are unaware of now.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Tue, Dec 19, 2006, 10:23pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Doug=A0Miller)
doth sayeth:
Speaking as one who has several family members with chronic depression,
I can assure you that antidepressants definitely *do* treat a medical
condition. <snip>
I've had a headache since 1980. NOT headaches plural, headache
singular 24/7. Went to the top headache doctor in the state. It was
determined nothing physical causing it. So he put me on some
prescription drug. All it did was make my brain feel like it was
stuffed with cotton. So, tried another. And another. After about six
he asked if I ever ben on prozac. I dold him no, that's for menal
patients. He proceeded to tell me that it was also used to tread
headaches. Turned out he'd been prescribing antidepdressants for me all
along. That's when he dold me I was depressed, and that was why he was
prescribing them. And hat wass the stage where I quit the sumbitch.
Depressed I am not, I just have children. Went back to using meditation
to deal with the headache. Works for me. Or, if it gets bad enough, I
go to bed and go to sleep. That works too. Later heard he was caught
doing bad things with a female patient, and his medical license pulled -
I can't verify that tho..
JOAT
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:10:47 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
>Tue, Dec 19, 2006, 10:23pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>doth sayeth:
>Speaking as one who has several family members with chronic depression,
>I can assure you that antidepressants definitely *do* treat a medical
>condition. <snip>
>
> I've had a headache since 1980. NOT headaches plural, headache
>singular 24/7. Went to the top headache doctor in the state. It was
>determined nothing physical causing it. So he put me on some
>prescription drug. All it did was make my brain feel like it was
>stuffed with cotton. So, tried another. And another. After about six
>he asked if I ever ben on prozac. I dold him no, that's for menal
>patients. He proceeded to tell me that it was also used to tread
>headaches. Turned out he'd been prescribing antidepdressants for me all
>along. That's when he dold me I was depressed, and that was why he was
>prescribing them. And hat wass the stage where I quit the sumbitch.
>Depressed I am not, I just have children. Went back to using meditation
>to deal with the headache. Works for me. Or, if it gets bad enough, I
>go to bed and go to sleep. That works too. Later heard he was caught
>doing bad things with a female patient, and his medical license pulled -
>I can't verify that tho..
Headaches (or headache, in your case) are a bitch. I get periodic
migraines, and a doc tried to put me on blood pressure medication for
them. Stupid thing was, I have normal-to-low BP. The meds didn't do
anything, but they sure were expensive. He tried to give me something
rediculous like Vikadin (sp?) to go with it, but I stuck that one back
in his jacket pocket and told him to forget it (bad track record in my
family with prescription pain-killer addiction, so I avoid them like
the plague.)
Don't know if you've tried it, but what usually gets the suckers down
to a dull roar for me is taking three Excedrine (or generic equiv.)
waiting a half hour, then taking two more. That's probably not great
for a person, but it's better than the alternative.
Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 2:28am (EST-1) [email protected]
(Prometheus) doth sayeth:
Headaches (or headache, in your case) are a bitch. <snip> prescription
pain-killer addiction, so I avoid them like the plague.)
Don't know if you've tried it, but what usually gets the suckers down to
a dull roar for me is taking three Excedrine (or generic equiv.) waiting
a half hour, then taking two more. That's probably not great for a
person, but it's better than the alternative.
Yeah, I've been told I have a migraine. Been told it's caused by
stress - but no one can tell me what the stress is. I avoid
prescription meds of any type, if I can. Pain meds I avoid mainly
because I don't want to develop a tolerence for them, I want to reserve
them for when I may really need them.
Not tried Excedrine. Nor will I. The headache is better now,
which I put down to meditation. Most of the time I can just ignore it,
but if I think about it it's always there. Had a doctor tell me once
that I "couldn't" have a continuous headache, because I couldn't go to
sleep with it. Hah. I think I ignore it better now, because of the
meditation. But, if it gets worse, I sit down, get comfortable, and do
some of my style of meditation. Normally this will do it. If it
doesn't I'll go to bed, and go to sleep. So far that will make it
tolerable.
As an aside, when I go to a dentist, and the novocaine starts to
wear off before he's done drilling, and I start feeling it. I can
concentrate, and push the pain aside. Too often tho, the assistant
comes along and asks if I'm doing OK, breaking the concentration. Then
I usually can't concentrate enough again to drive the pain back again.
The good part is is's about over by that time, so don't have long to
suffer.
What I call meditation is a result of a lot of reading, a lot of
thinking, and a lot of trying. I figure there's some bio-feedback
involved somewhere too. Part of the reading was on relgions, which also
lead to my personal distaste for organized religions - for myself, I
have no problems with other people following one - and lead to my being
spiritual now, rather than religious. Which lead to the Woodworking
Gods too. LMAO Personally I think if more people would try some type
of meditaiton I think it could well help them in various ways.
JOAT
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer
"J T" wrote in message
> Turned out he'd been prescribing antidepdressants for me all
> along.
With the advent of drug companies and a failing education system, doctors
can be dangerous to your health if you don't get involved in your own health
care.
Not a bad idea to keep an updated copy of "The Pill Book" around.
I do because a good friend is a pharmaceutical representative for a big drug
company and I live in a neighborhood full of doctors. Taking both into
account, no way in hell I'm going to take _any_ prescribed medication
without checking it out thoroughly myself beforehand.
Besides, most of the time what I want is a good lab technician ... they're
the one's who ultimately make the diagnosis.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/19/06
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>>
>> For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
>> alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
>
>That answer is simple, marijuana is too easy to grow and the government
>can't control it closely enough to tax it. So it is illegal.
>
As I mentioned in another part of this thread; I find the attempt to draw
a moral equivalence between alcohol and drugs, including mirijuana
puzzling. One can partake in alcohol without becoming drunk (i.e, wine
with dinner, etc); there is no equivalent for drug use. One uses those
substances for the sole express purpose of altering one's conscious state.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
You mean taking lye off the shelves didn't solve the drug problem?
Perhaps we should take away fertilizer, soil, air, water, heat and light. That
oughtta slow them down.
Oh wait... they all ready took away fertilizer.. forget that one.
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop,
> about $35 billion yearly.
>
> Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>
> Somehow, I'm missing something.
>
> Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged
> with taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>
> They certainly are missing something.
>
> Lew
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:02:17 -0500, Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >I don't think that is fair. It is highly unlikely that enough shrinks
>> >would cooperate with your suggestion. Your idea is a wash.
>>
>> If the shrinks won't cooperate, I think it's legitimate to wonder why... If
>> the guy is truly rehabilitated, there's nothing to fear from him, right?
>
>This, of course, would only apply to shrinks who run Bed & Breakfast
>establishments. Then again, maybe the fear isn't about physical harm,
>but the smell of the rehabilitated armpits? Maybe the shrink has a dog
>that doesn't like strangers? Aside from 'lack-of-fear', I can think of
>many reasons why a shrink wouldn't want any guests.
>The whole idea is silly.
Maybe not so silly. The point is less about having the reformed perp
actually living inside your house, but very close by and putting the
shrinks family at risk if the perp isn't so rehabilitated.
Armpits and dogs indeed. Who's being silly?
It's very easy for the shrink to decide to let the perp go when the
individual in question won't be living anywhere near the good doctor.
Joe Bemier wrote:
> OK, Lew - call me dumb but I don't get it.
>
> Missing What?
Think about it.
How about the continued stupidity of government to fail to recognize a
failed policy and change it?
How about a $35 billion piece of the gross national product that
operates as part of the under ground economy?
Lew
Lew
On 19 Dec 2006 08:05:23 -0800, "jtpr" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Joe Bemier wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> ><SNIP>
>> >> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
>> >> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
>> >> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't make sense.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
>> >loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
>> >in jail?
>>
>>
>> I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
>> are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
>> lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.
>
>Actually, possession of ANY amount in NH is a misdemeanor. I don't
>know how or why but you must have other circumstances to push it to
>felony.
>
>-Jim
A misdemeanor that calls for incarceration so what difference does it
make in the context of this debate?
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:56:07 -0600, Ol Pete <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2006-12-20 09:50:56 -0600, Mark & Juanita
>
>> The only problem I see with this is that our society is (unfortunately)
>> not "wired" for this kind of attitude towards holding people accountable
>> for consequences of their own actions.
>
>Society is not "wired"?
Was a bit quicker than typing the fact that socialist "do-gooders"
utilize the power of the state to implement "feel-good" solutions for
perceived problems under the guise of "charity". Unfortunately, it's other
peoples' money they use for that "charity".
... snip
>> As a strict constructionist,
>
>I've read hundreds of your posts, and like this one you demonstrate
>that you are the opposite of a strict constructionist. I suppose it is
>a label and a word that has had its meaning reversed like "left" and
>"right." Today's right wingers have more in common with marxism than
>anything else although it remains politically incorrect as a label.
>
Suggest you look up and truly digest the meanings of the words,
"capitalism, totalitarianism, and marxism". Then study some historical
context: study the history of the October revolution, the expropriation of
private property, the gulags, the WWII era, and the various actions of
those marxist totalitarian states. Then spend some time reading and
understanding the events that transpired on 9/11, the various teachings of
the Taliban, Al Queda, and Iran's little re-incarnation of a certain German
dictator. After you have educated yourself on the historical context of
the various phrases you throw around with abandon in your post above, get
back with us here and we can have a meaningful discussion. Until that
point, any further conversation would be useless as you seem to want to
throw out terms as invectives, giving those words whatever meaning you
intend them to have.
... snip of more meaningless yapping.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>Joe Bemier wrote:
>
>
>> OK, Lew - call me dumb but I don't get it.
>>
>> Missing What?
>
>Think about it.
>
>How about the continued stupidity of government to fail to recognize a
>failed policy and change it?
>
>How about a $35 billion piece of the gross national product that
>operates as part of the under ground economy?
And therefore isn't taxed... which is the best argument I can think of for
abolishing the income tax, and replacing it with a sales tax: it's the only
way there is, to tax illegally earned income. Sure, there might be one or two
drug dealers or marijuana growers who report that income on their 1040s, but
obviously most of them don't. The money does them no good unless they spend
it, though. So tax it when they spend it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >I don't think that is fair. It is highly unlikely that enough shrinks
>> >would cooperate with your suggestion. Your idea is a wash.
>>
>> If the shrinks won't cooperate, I think it's legitimate to wonder why... If
>> the guy is truly rehabilitated, there's nothing to fear from him, right?
>
>This, of course, would only apply to shrinks who run Bed & Breakfast
>establishments. Then again, maybe the fear isn't about physical harm,
>but the smell of the rehabilitated armpits? Maybe the shrink has a dog
>that doesn't like strangers? Aside from 'lack-of-fear', I can think of
>many reasons why a shrink wouldn't want any guests.
OK, then, release him into the shrink's neighborhood, instead of his
household. Same principle applies, from my POV.
>The whole idea is silly.
Perhaps, but IMO it's no sillier than having the shrinks decide who gets
released, and who stays inside -- there's plenty of empirical evidence to
suggest that they often get the decision wrong. (Google "Jack Abbott" for one
particularly ugly example.)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:31:24 -0800, "Rod & Betty Jo"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop, about
>> $35 billion yearly.
>>
>> Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>>
>> Somehow, I'm missing something.
>>
>> Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged with
>> taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>>
>> They certainly are missing something.
>>
>> Lew
>
>You ever consider the methodology used to come up with such figures? A WAG
>or wild assed guess is most likely used here.... I don't recall a 300
>million member audit on the subject lately. If my math is correct it comes
>to $116.66 for every man, women and child in the country. Average heavy
>users would fit a fairly narrow age range and a reasonably narrow slice of
>that group would routinely use heavily to boot. Many pot heads are
>reasonably easy to identify....they are often lazy and intellectually
>shallow. When a life achievement revolves around ingesting a substance
>things like ambition, achievement, learning and discipline fall by the
>wayside....... Shall we conduct a WREC poll on how much "we" spend per year
>on pot?.....zero here Rod
>
Yeah, but how much do "we" spend on booze, a much more mind rotting
drug than pot and probably more likely to result in lazy,
intellectually shallow, drunken slob-like behavior.
Dave Hall
(Who, by the way, spends zero dollars per year on either and doesn't
ingest either if offered for free)
In article <[email protected]>,
"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
Shall we conduct a WREC poll on how much "we" spend per year
> on pot?.....zero here Rod
Zero here... but I do hang with a few musicians...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Group wrote:
>
> >Another part of this issue-
> >Psychologists psychiatrists, etc are involved in rehab programs. These
> >same *doctors* are the ones who make a determination as to whether an
> >individual is rehabilitated.
> >Their function requires that they declare success in some cases. If
> >you install an individual to rehabilitate then they would never come
> >back and say *we failed*.
> >This system puts dangerous people back on the streets.
>
> There's an easy solution to that problem: if a shrink says that Jack Felon is
> rehabilitated and should be released, release Jack into the shrink's custody,
> to rent a room in the shrink's house for six months or a year.
I don't think that is fair. It is highly unlikely that enough shrinks
would cooperate with your suggestion. Your idea is a wash.
You also assume that there would be a room for rent. We don't know that.
Cite your source please.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I don't think that is fair. It is highly unlikely that enough shrinks
> >would cooperate with your suggestion. Your idea is a wash.
>
> If the shrinks won't cooperate, I think it's legitimate to wonder why... If
> the guy is truly rehabilitated, there's nothing to fear from him, right?
This, of course, would only apply to shrinks who run Bed & Breakfast
establishments. Then again, maybe the fear isn't about physical harm,
but the smell of the rehabilitated armpits? Maybe the shrink has a dog
that doesn't like strangers? Aside from 'lack-of-fear', I can think of
many reasons why a shrink wouldn't want any guests.
The whole idea is silly.
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
> >> alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
> >
> >That answer is simple, marijuana is too easy to grow and the government
> >can't control it closely enough to tax it. So it is illegal.
> >
>
> As I mentioned in another part of this thread; I find the attempt to draw
> a moral equivalence between alcohol and drugs, including mirijuana
> puzzling. One can partake in alcohol without becoming drunk (i.e, wine
> with dinner, etc); there is no equivalent for drug use. One uses those
> substances for the sole express purpose of altering one's conscious state.
>
That's fair enough.
But when you add the 'abuse' factor, the parallel reappears.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:17:28 -0600, Prometheus wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>You mean taking lye off the shelves didn't solve the drug problem?
>>
>>Perhaps we should take away fertilizer, soil, air, water, heat and light. That
>>oughtta slow them down.
>>
>>Oh wait... they all ready took away fertilizer.. forget that one.
>
> Yep. And they made it difficult for me to get allergy medicine as
> well- without it, my sinuses often get infected badly enough to end up
> in the hospital, but now it can only be got during certain hours, and
> with a photo ID. Sure, they made newer versions of the stuff, but it
> doesn't work as well, and costs 3-4 times as much.
>
> Far as I'm concerned, they should just let the meth-heads go on and
> destroy themselves, and leave our products where they are. I know
> that doesn't have much to do with marijuana, but methamphetamine is
> the big crusade in my area. Next thing you know, a guy won't be able
> to get a propane tank for the grill or starter fluid for the car,
> either.
This whole business of "freedom from the consequences of our own
stupidity" being made a "right" by the do-gooders is just getting scarier
and scarier.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
: Look at Limbaugh to see how stupid you can get from Oxycontin.
I'm pretty sure he was that way before the Oxycontin.
-- Andy Barss
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:39:23 -0600, "New Wave Dave"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I'm young enough to have been through a D.A.R.E. anti-drug program . .
>> .
>
> Or as some of us came to call it: Drugs Are Real Expensive
Legal or Illegal kind?
In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>
>If they (the government and educational system) would just stop the
>nonsense and admit that smoking a joint won't turn a person into a
>raving lunatic who is going to steal and kill to get his next fix, but
>is rather less dangerous than drinking alcohol, they'd gain a whole
>lot more credibility about the drugs that are *truly* dangerous, and
>that alone would go a long way towards reducing the drug problem.
I hereby nominate Prometheus as the nation's next "drug czar". This makes far
more sense than anything coming out of Washington, for sure.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"RayV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George wrote:
>>
>> You do know that a lot of the drugs used to be legal, right? Some feel
>> goods, the most prescribed drugs being "antidepressants," still are.
>>
>
> I'm not a doctor but I don't think Tylenol is used to treat depression.
> http://www.rxlist.com/top200.htm
>
Read for information not justification. Hydrocodone is far from Tylenol,
and when you add up the antidepressant numbers, you'll probably get it
right. Neat thing is with doctor-shopping, you often encounter two or three
varieties from different physicians. Polypharmacy is probably the number
one reason for "feeling bad" calls with the elderly.
Not to mention number one treats no medical condition, just as the
antidepressants treat none.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:33:38 GMT, "resrfglc" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Next time an anti-smoking proposal comes up in your town, will you actively
>oppose it (as your Libertarian comments would indicate) or simply vote
>against it?
I'll actively oppose it to the extent that that is possible for me- I
do write letters to my representatives, and vote in every election.
If you're asking whether I'll stand on a street corner with a sign,
then no. I have too many other things to do, and not enough time to
do them as is.
>Election results show that the majority of laws enacted by referendum and
>the majority of those elected to office are elected by a minority of the
>eligible (and often by a scant minority of the registered )voters.
>
>Hardly what one might predict after perusing this list serv a week or so.
>But a fact none the less.
See above, I do vote in every election, and spend as much time as I
can actively researching the candidates in every race prior to doing
so. I also make a point of bringing specific pieces of legistlation
up for discussion with friends and family to attempt to convince them
to do the same.
Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 2:02am (EST-1) [email protected]
(Prometheus) doth sayeth:
<snip> I do vote in every election, and spend as much time as I can
actively researching the candidates in every race prior to doing so.
<snip>
Likewise. However my research is NOT for who to vote for, rather
who to vote against, as I generally am not very satisfied with either
candidate - especially those runing for federal offices. I just try to
vote against the one I consider the worst person to be in office. I
probably won't be needing a lot of research if Clinton runs, hard to
think of a worse choice - and for the weenies, no it's not because she's
a woman, it's because of her as a person. I think she is morally
corrupt, and not qualified for the position in the first place. It
would be a terrible dillema tho if she were to run against someone like
Kerry, or Kennedy. Then it would be a lose lose situation, no matter
who lost.
JOAT
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
- Eric Hoffer
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> So would you support applying the same standard to alcohol and tobacco?
>>
>
>Don't we? And then there's the deadly "trans-fats...."
No, obviously we do *not* apply the same standards to alcohol and tobacco that
we do to marijuana and other illegal drugs. What made you think that we do?
>
>>>You do know that a lot of the drugs used to be legal, right? Some feel
>>>goods, the most prescribed drugs being "antidepressants," still are.
>>
>> Seems to me that the addicts didn't cause as many problems then as they do
>> now. Wonder why that is.
>>>
>Not much of a History student, are you? BIG problems back when.
Not much of a reader, are you? I didn't say there were *no* problems. Go back
and read what I said -- it's right there, just above your remark. Then address
what I said, not what you thought I said.
>
>>>You are right, though. Prohibitions against murder, rape and theft have
>>>been largely ineffective....
>>>
>> And part of the reason -- not the only part, or even the larger part, but a
>> part nonetheless -- is that jails are overcrowded with nonviolent drug
>> offenders, leading to the early release of the violent. I submit that's
>> backwards.
>>
>That's it. My idea to end the whole problem is to fence off Nebraska, put
>'em all in there and let the Lord of the Flies take charge....
What do you have against Nebraska?
On a more serious note, it's not clear which group you're referring to when
you say "put 'em all in there": the violent felons, the nonviolent drug
offenders, or all of the above.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I DO NOT understand why this subject is in a Wood Working group.
>I myself do Wood Working for enjoyment,to relax & to keep my mind off
>things like this.
>I had a daughter murderd about three years ago & this is not some thing
>I care to read about in a wood group.
>So PLEASE take this kind of crap & post it where it belongs.
>Sorry but this postF--- up the rest of my day.
>JP
I'm a parent myself, and I can only begin to imagine what kind of pain you
must still be going through. I'm truly sorry for your loss, and for any
additional pain that my post inadvertently caused you.
Just the same -- the thread *is* clearly labelled as off-topic, and surely
there had been enough posts here, prior to the one that upset you, to have
alerted you to the fact that the subject matter was not something you would
find pleasant reading.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On 20 Dec 2006 05:29:13 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 19, 7:41 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Lew One of the things that always gets me about these statistics, as well as
>> statistics regarding things like software piracy: How the heck do they
>> know? Where do these figures come from?
>
>The figures come from DOMUS (Department of Made Up Statistics) or DOMB
>(Department of Make Believe)
LOL
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> This whole business of "freedom from the consequences of our own
> stupidity" being made a "right" by the do-gooders is just getting scarier
> and scarier.
>
Yep. But let's just make one more drug legal, and then one more....
That'll allow us to concentrate on outlawing the important stuff like French
fries and preservatives....
What do you think, call off the war on drugs and concentrate on something
winnable, like the war on poverty?
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:30:08 GMT, Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop,
>about $35 billion yearly.
>
>Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>
>Somehow, I'm missing something.
>
>Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged
>with taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>
>They certainly are missing something.
>
>Lew
OK, Lew - call me dumb but I don't get it.
Missing What?
On 20 Dec 2006 08:07:37 -0800, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
>So PLEASE take this kind of crap & post it where it belongs.
Get a real newsreader and use a killfile.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Whatta ya think it would have cost to have all the druggies driving,
>grooving and stealing to support their habit,
Probably not nearly as much as it were, had the drugs been legal. Compared to
heroin or meth addicts, the number of alcohol or tobacco addicts who steal to
support their habits is surely much lower.
>not to mention those dumb
>enough to say "it's legal, so what can it harm" so try it and become driven
>by their addiction?
So would you support applying the same standard to alcohol and tobacco?
>You do know that a lot of the drugs used to be legal, right? Some feel
>goods, the most prescribed drugs being "antidepressants," still are.
Seems to me that the addicts didn't cause as many problems then as they do
now. Wonder why that is.
>
>You are right, though. Prohibitions against murder, rape and theft have
>been largely ineffective....
>
And part of the reason -- not the only part, or even the larger part, but a
part nonetheless -- is that jails are overcrowded with nonviolent drug
offenders, leading to the early release of the violent. I submit that's
backwards.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:30:08 GMT, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]>
wrote:
>It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop,
>about $35 billion yearly.
>
>Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
>
>Somehow, I'm missing something.
>
>Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged
>with taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
>
>They certainly are missing something.
>
>Lew
One of the things that always gets me about these statistics, as well as
statistics regarding things like software piracy: How the heck do they
know? Where do these figures come from? The druglords aren't reporting
it, and if the authorities know the amount that is being sold and grown,
they ought to know where it is and therefore they ought to be able to stop
it. Just like most of the other news, my guess is that this is "made up
facts", kind of that "fake but accurate" thing. Especially in this case,
who can truly dispute the number? Why not $50 billion yearly, or only $5
billion.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:24:53 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>><SNIP>
>>> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
>>> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
>>> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>>>
>>> It doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
>>loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
>>in jail?
>>
>Right here in Indianapolis. It's happened several times in the last couple of
>years. Our jail is under a Federal court order to reduce the overcrowding,
>most of which is due to drug offenders, and this has led to the early release
>of several violent felons. There have been at least one rape, and at least one
>murder, committed by men who have been released early under these
>circumstances within the last year or two.
And that makes me very concerned.
Another part of this issue-
Psychologists psychiatrists, etc are involved in rehab programs. These
same *doctors* are the ones who make a determination as to whether an
individual is rehabilitated.
Their function requires that they declare success in some cases. If
you install an individual to rehabilitate then they would never come
back and say *we failed*.
This system puts dangerous people back on the streets.
[email protected] wrote:
> Why do you suppose he illegal drugs are so expensive?
> Imagine how much revenue organized crime would loose if they
> were not.
Doubt there is anyone on this list who remembers the "Great
Experiment", AKA: Prohibition.
If there is, my 102 year old mother might like to talk to them.
After over a decade of trying to enforce a law few people wanted, it
was repealed.
One thing history teaches us, if we fail to learn from our mistakes,
we are bound to repeat them.
Lew
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> Zero here... but I do hang with a few musicians...
The voice _from_ experience playing the following different types of music
... strictly from observation, you understand:
Jazz - "tea" (aka pot)
Country - beer
Rock - assorted (at the same time)
Bluegrass - whisky (out in the parking lot)
Folk - Pot pre '80/Green tea post '80's
Blues - assorted
Western Swing - water (most too old to drink)
Not in any particular chronilogical order ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/19/06
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> For the life of me, I can not find any justification for the fact that
> alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not.
That answer is simple, marijuana is too easy to grow and the government
can't control it closely enough to tax it. So it is illegal.
On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
><SNIP>
>> And why, in heaven's name, are we turning violent felons loose from our
>> prisons because too much space is being taken up by dopers? I'd rather have
>> ten pot smokers running around loose than one rapist or murderer.
>>
>> It doesn't make sense.
>>
>
>Doug, this is so unlike you. Where/when was a violent felon turned
>loose because someone convicted of a misdemeanor was taking their spot
>in jail?
I think you're confusing arrests of Users as compared with those who
are dealers. States vary but generally having more than an ounce or so
lands one in the latter. And, that is a felony.