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 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 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)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

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 20 Dec 2006 13:30:06 GMT, "J. Clarke" wrote:

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.

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

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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" wrote:

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.

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

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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" wrote in message
...
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 Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:36:46 GMT, "CW" 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?

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?

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

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.

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 , 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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

"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.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.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.

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

"Markem" wrote in message
...

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.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:22:40 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Markem" wrote in message
.. .

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

"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" wrote in message
et...

"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.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.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.


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

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.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.


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 08:53:59 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message
roups.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.


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 , Prometheus 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.