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 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 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 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:30:08 GMT, 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


OK, Lew - call me dumb but I don't get it.

Missing What?

In article et, Lew Hodgett 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.

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?

On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" 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.

In article . com, "RayV" 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.

In article , Group wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" 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.

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:24:53 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article . com, "RayV" 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.

In article , 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.

Joe Bemier wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" 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

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.

In article . com, wrote:

Joe Bemier wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" 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.

Joe Bemier wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" 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

In article .com, "jtpr" wrote:

Joe Bemier wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" 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.

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

"RayV" wrote in message
ups.com...



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 , "George" 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.

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 **** 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.

On 19 Dec 2006 08:05:23 -0800, "jtpr" wrote:


Joe Bemier wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 05:02:33 -0800, "RayV" 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?

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

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

In article t, Lew Hodgett 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.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
nk.net...
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

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:31:24 -0800, "Rod & Betty Jo"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...
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)

"RayV" wrote in message
ps.com...

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.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news

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....

In article , "George" 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.

In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news

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.

George wrote:
"RayV" wrote in message
ups.com...


...

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

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

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:30:08 GMT, 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

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 Dec 19, 7:41 pm, Mark & Juanita 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 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, 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 Dec 19, 7:41 pm, Mark & Juanita 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)

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:17:28 -0600, Prometheus wrote:

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, 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" wrote in message
ups.com...



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.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ps.com...


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.

Tue, Dec 19, 2006, 6:30am (EST+5)
(Lew*Hodgett) 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.