RE: O/T, Largest Cash Crop

Page 2 of 4  


OK, then, release him into the shrink's neighborhood, instead of his household. Same principle applies, from my POV.

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)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:31:06 GMT, "Leon"

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tax Stamp or not, it was still illegal to posess marijuana even if you had the stamp.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:22:40 -0600, "Leon"

I actually have some, bought as collectable after the tax acts demise.
Mark (sixoneeight) = 618
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's fair enough. But when you add the 'abuse' factor, the parallel reappears.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:53:59 -0700, Mark & Juanita

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]

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)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or as some of us came to call it: Drugs Are Real Expensive
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:39:23 -0600, "New Wave Dave"

Legal or Illegal kind?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 2:02am (EST-1) snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMcharter.net (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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:50:07 -0800, "Rod & Betty Jo"

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.

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 6:09am (EST-3) snipped-for-privacy@topworks.ca (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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.