| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Rob Adelman wrote in message ...
ryanm wrote: My keyboard player buys a pound a month. And he's usually out before the end of the month. You might not want to be saying that on the internet. He ain't smoking that by himself. I would imagine that an experienced stoner like Chong could go through a pound in a few weeks. Smoking a pound in a few weeks? Yeah, is someone confusing a pound with an ounce? I mean, a ****ing pound a month? That's 128 eigths, dude. Even all my stoner friends and me together would have to really work to get through that much in a month and our lungs would hurt. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
x-no archive: yes
Andrew Leavitt wrote: Yeah, is someone confusing a pound with an ounce? I mean, a ****ing pound a month? That's 128 eigths, dude. Even all my stoner friends and me together would have to really work to get through that much in a month and our lungs would hurt. j Wimps. /j -- ha |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"ryanm" wrote in message ... "Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message ... then we've got a problem. We're seeing a large-scale government crackdown on something that we collectively (the public or its congressional representatives) have never given the go-ahead to crack down on quite so hard. This is what happens when you let a crackpot appoint his crackpot friends to positions high in the Federal government. "If you can't find Osama, bring us some other freaky bearded wierdos to hang." Right? I'm afraid it goes back quite a bit further than that. What we have here is a system that allows a self-appointed committee with no congressional oversight make certain chemicals/substances illegal without any kind of review. ryanm Don't kid yourself It is heavily reviewed by Big Tobacco and Big achohol George |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
... You might not want to be saying that on the internet. He ain't smoking that by himself. Well, he and his girlfriend. We's a wake and bake programmer. A bowl or two in the morning, to wake him up, a bowl or two around 10:30 for brunch, a little before and a little after lunch, then there's the mid-afternoon smoke, oh, and the "it's 5:00 and work is done" smoke, and then you know, the just before dinner snoke and the just after dinner smoke. Then of course it's time to get down to some serious pot smoking. Trust me, a pound a month can easily be done by one person who shares with whoever is with them at the time. Incidentally, we have a no pot smoking during gigs rule in our band, because it has a tendency to make people lose time and has adverse side affects on vocalists, but he's exempt. The reason he's exempt is because we've never heard him play sober and we're kind of nervous about how he might sound if he *wasn't* stoned. ryanm |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
|
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
From: Rob
At least Cheech and Chong made us laugh, and that's gotta be worth something in my books 6 months in jail, fine, and loss of business. --Tom Paterson |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
... then we've got a problem. We're seeing a large-scale government crackdown on something that we collectively (the public or its congressional representatives) have never given the go-ahead to crack down on quite so hard. This is what happens when you let a crackpot appoint his crackpot friends to positions high in the Federal government. "If you can't find Osama, bring us some other freaky bearded wierdos to hang." Right? I'm afraid it goes back quite a bit further than that. What we have here is a system that allows a self-appointed committee with no congressional oversight make certain chemicals/substances illegal without any kind of review. ryanm |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Rob wrote: Speaking of crime what's happenoing to those scuzzballs at Enron that stole billions of pension money and people's whole life savings ?? Why is the justice dept. spending money going after a guy selling pipes when they should be going after the real criminals?? Actually someone fairly high up at Enron just plead guilty to some serious charges. In his plea agreement there is talk that he will finger some of those at the top. We'll see. In my opinion Ken Lay is the biggest scumbag criminal in the history of corporate crime. Something tells me his name will be coming up plenty in the next presidential election. Bush will be in a pickle for sure. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Rob Adelman wrote:
In my opinion Ken Lay is the biggest scumbag criminal in the history of corporate crime. Something tells me his name will be coming up plenty in the next presidential election. Bush will be in a pickle for sure. Yeah, he'll have to borrow some other scumbag's jet to get to the campaign stops. -- ha |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Rob wrote:
Speaking of crime what's happenoing to those scuzzballs at Enron that stole billions of pension money and people's whole life savings ?? I think they just stole another $87 billion. Why is the justice dept. spending money going after a guy selling pipes when they should be going after the real criminals?? Because they *work for* the real criminals. ulysses |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message
... And it might behoove plenty of people to learn when, why and how marijuana was made illegal in the US. One might also review the opinion delivered to Nixon in the late '60's by his BLue Ribbon Committee, which he formed to look into the situation in the US with marijuana. In short a panel of conservative business men told him to legalize it. Of course he didn't, knowing who his real friends were, like Meyer Lansky et al. It's worse than you think. This is long, but worth the read. The first US anti-drug law was in California in 1875 to prohibit opium dens, which was ineffective until 1883, when congress passed a heavy tax on imported opium. This law was passed ostensibly to protect our children from the evils of chinese opium dens, while actually being a blatantly racist law that echoed the popular sentiments of the time. It did effectively close down the opium dens, which couldn't afford to stay open under the new taxes. However, there was only a very small tax on local "medicinal" opium, and housewives continued to dope themselves unconcious with laudinum and a thousand other available "remedies", and white folks continued to make money on opium for decades after that. The second anti-drug law in the US was passed in Florida, and was touted to the people as a safeguard against, and I quote, "an uprising of cocainized negroes". If you don't find that offensive, I question your sensibilities ("your" being in a general sense, not directed at Mr. Alrich). Harry Anslinger had marijuana added to the narcotics list in 1937 because of a personal agenda, and he was the one responsible for the ridiculous works like Reefer Madness. Maybe he just wanted to be a hero in the Hearst papers. Or maybe he was on the take from DuPont. Either way, both had interests in aligning Anslinger and the public against pot. In the 1930's, new machinery was developed to allow hemp fiber to be easily and economically seperated from the plant, meaning paper, clothing, and a thousand other products could be produced more cheaply than before. So what's the problem? Hearst not only printed papers, he made the paper they were printed on. Not only would all of his machinery become obsolete, but all of the forests he had just bought would be useless except as photo backdrops. DuPont, meanwhile, had just patented a new process for making paper from wood pulp. The process relied heavily on DuPont chemicals, which were unnecessary for making paper from hemp. They had also just perfected nylon, and inexpensive, readily grown hemp fiber would've thrown a wrench in DuPont's future money makers, paper production and textiles. You can make of that what you will, but the fact remains, both Hearst and DuPont made a fortune thanks to the timely prohibition of hemp. The following is mostly quoted from a book by Peter McWilliams ("Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do"), interspersed with my comments and additions... On April 14, 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was introduced to Congress. The testimony before the congressional committee was, for the most part, provided by Anslinger, Anslinger employees, and Anslinger reading Hearst newspaper articles, some of which he had written. The hearings were reminiscent of the scene from John Huston's film, The Bible, in which John Huston, playing Noah, has a conversation with God, also played by John Huston. The film was produced and directed by John Huston. The narrator: John Huston. And how many doctors were heard in the congressional hearings in 1937? Precisely one. He represented the American Medical Association. The AMA opposed the bill. At least twenty-eight medicinal products containing marijuana were on the market in 1937, the doctor pointed out; drugs containing marijuana were manufactured and distributed by the leading pharmaceutical firms; and marijuana was recognized as a medicine in good standing by the AMA. In testifying before the congressional committee, the doctor sent by the AMA said the AMA had only realized "two days before" the hearings that the "killer weed from Mexico" was indeed cannabis, the benign drug used and prescribed by the medical profession for more than a hundred years. Said Dr. Woodward, "We cannot understand, yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the [medical] profession, that it was being prepared." Anslinger and the committee chairman, Robert L. Doughton (Robert Doughton was a key DuPont supporter in Congress), denounced and curtly excused Dr.Woodward. When the marijuana tax bill came before Congress, one pertinent question was asked from the floor: "Did anyone consult with the AMA and get their opinion?" Representative Vinson answered for the committee, "Yes, we have . . . and they are in complete agreement." The bill passed, and became law in September 1937. Anslinger was furious with the AMA for opposing him before the congressional committee. As the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, he could prosecute any doctors who prescribed narcotics for "illegal purposes." Which purposes were "illegal" was pretty much Anslinger's call. From mid-1937 through 1939, more than 3,000 doctors were prosecuted. In 1939, the AMA made peace with Anslinger and came out in opposition to marijuana. From 1939 to 1949, only three doctors were prosecuted by the FBN for drug activity of any kind. In 1944, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia and the New York Academy of Medicine released the La Guardia Marijuana Report, which, after seven years of research, claimed that marijuana caused no violence and had certain positive medical benefits. In a rage, Anslinger banned all marijuana research in the United States. He attacked La Guardia vehemently. In 1948, however, Anslinger dropped the "marijuana causes violence" argument. He made, in fact, a complete about-face when he testified before Congress in 1948 that marijuana made one so tranquil and so pacifistic that the communists were making abundant supplies available to the military, government employees, and key citizens. Marijuana was now part of a Communist Plot aimed at weakening America's will to fight. That this statement was a complete reversal of his congressional testimony only eleven years before went unnoticed. Anti-communism put Anslinger back in the public eye, along with his good friend Senator Joseph McCarthy. It was later revealed by Anslinger in his book, The Murderers, and also by Dean Latimer in his book, Flowers in the Blood, that Anslinger supplied morphine to McCarthy on a regular basis for years. Anslinger's justification? To prevent the communists from blackmailing such a fine American just because he had a "minor drug problem." In 1970, in passing the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government shifted its constitutional loophole for jailing drug users and providers from taxation to the federal government's obligation to regulate interstate traffic. This is as dramatic a violation of the Constitution as the taxation excuse, but it fit the government's plan better. Under this law a bureaucrat-usually not elected-decides whether or not a substance is dangerous and how dangerous that substance is. There's no more messing around with legislatures, presidents, or other bothersome formalities. When MDMA (ecstasy) was made illegal in 1986, no elected official voted on that. It was done "in house." People are now in jail because they did something that an administrator declared was wrong. The Controlled Substances Act was circulated to the states where it was enthusiastically received; most states have modeled their programs on the federal plan. There is no longer a need, then, to deceive legislators: the agency heads and their minions simply decide what the law is, and that's that. Today, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics is, like its former director Anslinger, no more. How's this for a bureaucratic shuffle: In 1968, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was transferred from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department, where it was merged with the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC) to form the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD). In 1973, during the early skirmishes of the war against drugs, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE), and the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) all combined to form the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). (I hope you're paying attention: there will be a quiz.) As the war against drugs escalated, one agency was not enough. In 1988, the National Drug Enforcement Policy Board (NDEPB) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) were formed. The director of ONDCP-now a cabinet-level position-was given the title that Mr. Anslinger (anti-communist sentiments notwithstanding) would have killed for: The Drug Czar. End McWilliams quotes... "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes." ~Abraham Lincoln If you want to really see me get going, ask me what I think about the tax money we spend on the drug war. ryanm |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"George Gleason" wrote in message
... Don't kid yourself It is heavily reviewed by Big Tobacco and Big achohol Well, yeah. And organized crime, the DEA, the ONDCP and others whose jobs depend on these things staying illegal. I wonder how many people who support the war on drugs ever thought about what would happen to organized crime if drugs, gambling and prostitution were suddenly made legal? I mean, no drug dealer or mob boss in the world can compete with RJ Reynolds and 7-11 for production, distribution, and retail sales, so the prices would drop drastically, undercutting every black market dealer in the country. What would the Sopranos do then? Not to mention the reduction in crime, because people could use legal channels for collection and recourse when deals go bad, and the immense mountains of tax revenue that could be collected from it. I bet that with 10 minutes of putting my mind to it I could turn a tens-to-hundreds of billions of dollars a year expenditure into a hundreds of billions of dollars a year revenue source just by making all drugs legal tomorrow (as an exercise, obviously). Make drugs legal and pay off the national debt in less than a decade! ryanm |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
This was interesting. Thanks for posting it.
"ryanm" wrote in message ... "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message ... And it might behoove plenty of people to learn when, why and how marijuana was made illegal in the US. One might also review the opinion delivered to Nixon in the late '60's by his BLue Ribbon Committee, which he formed to look into the situation in the US with marijuana. In short a panel of conservative business men told him to legalize it. Of course he didn't, knowing who his real friends were, like Meyer Lansky et al. It's worse than you think. This is long, but worth the read. The first US anti-drug law was in California in 1875 to prohibit opium dens, which was ineffective until 1883, when congress passed a heavy tax on imported opium. This law was passed ostensibly to protect our children from the evils of chinese opium dens, while actually being a blatantly racist law that echoed the popular sentiments of the time. It did effectively close down the opium dens, which couldn't afford to stay open under the new taxes. However, there was only a very small tax on local "medicinal" opium, and housewives continued to dope themselves unconcious with laudinum and a thousand other available "remedies", and white folks continued to make money on opium for decades after that. The second anti-drug law in the US was passed in Florida, and was touted to the people as a safeguard against, and I quote, "an uprising of cocainized negroes". If you don't find that offensive, I question your sensibilities ("your" being in a general sense, not directed at Mr. Alrich). Harry Anslinger had marijuana added to the narcotics list in 1937 because of a personal agenda, and he was the one responsible for the ridiculous works like Reefer Madness. Maybe he just wanted to be a hero in the Hearst papers. Or maybe he was on the take from DuPont. Either way, both had interests in aligning Anslinger and the public against pot. In the 1930's, new machinery was developed to allow hemp fiber to be easily and economically seperated from the plant, meaning paper, clothing, and a thousand other products could be produced more cheaply than before. So what's the problem? Hearst not only printed papers, he made the paper they were printed on. Not only would all of his machinery become obsolete, but all of the forests he had just bought would be useless except as photo backdrops. DuPont, meanwhile, had just patented a new process for making paper from wood pulp. The process relied heavily on DuPont chemicals, which were unnecessary for making paper from hemp. They had also just perfected nylon, and inexpensive, readily grown hemp fiber would've thrown a wrench in DuPont's future money makers, paper production and textiles. You can make of that what you will, but the fact remains, both Hearst and DuPont made a fortune thanks to the timely prohibition of hemp. The following is mostly quoted from a book by Peter McWilliams ("Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do"), interspersed with my comments and additions... On April 14, 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was introduced to Congress. The testimony before the congressional committee was, for the most part, provided by Anslinger, Anslinger employees, and Anslinger reading Hearst newspaper articles, some of which he had written. The hearings were reminiscent of the scene from John Huston's film, The Bible, in which John Huston, playing Noah, has a conversation with God, also played by John Huston. The film was produced and directed by John Huston. The narrator: John Huston. And how many doctors were heard in the congressional hearings in 1937? Precisely one. He represented the American Medical Association. The AMA opposed the bill. At least twenty-eight medicinal products containing marijuana were on the market in 1937, the doctor pointed out; drugs containing marijuana were manufactured and distributed by the leading pharmaceutical firms; and marijuana was recognized as a medicine in good standing by the AMA. In testifying before the congressional committee, the doctor sent by the AMA said the AMA had only realized "two days before" the hearings that the "killer weed from Mexico" was indeed cannabis, the benign drug used and prescribed by the medical profession for more than a hundred years. Said Dr. Woodward, "We cannot understand, yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the [medical] profession, that it was being prepared." Anslinger and the committee chairman, Robert L. Doughton (Robert Doughton was a key DuPont supporter in Congress), denounced and curtly excused Dr.Woodward. When the marijuana tax bill came before Congress, one pertinent question was asked from the floor: "Did anyone consult with the AMA and get their opinion?" Representative Vinson answered for the committee, "Yes, we have . . . and they are in complete agreement." The bill passed, and became law in September 1937. Anslinger was furious with the AMA for opposing him before the congressional committee. As the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, he could prosecute any doctors who prescribed narcotics for "illegal purposes." Which purposes were "illegal" was pretty much Anslinger's call. From mid-1937 through 1939, more than 3,000 doctors were prosecuted. In 1939, the AMA made peace with Anslinger and came out in opposition to marijuana. From 1939 to 1949, only three doctors were prosecuted by the FBN for drug activity of any kind. In 1944, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia and the New York Academy of Medicine released the La Guardia Marijuana Report, which, after seven years of research, claimed that marijuana caused no violence and had certain positive medical benefits. In a rage, Anslinger banned all marijuana research in the United States. He attacked La Guardia vehemently. In 1948, however, Anslinger dropped the "marijuana causes violence" argument. He made, in fact, a complete about-face when he testified before Congress in 1948 that marijuana made one so tranquil and so pacifistic that the communists were making abundant supplies available to the military, government employees, and key citizens. Marijuana was now part of a Communist Plot aimed at weakening America's will to fight. That this statement was a complete reversal of his congressional testimony only eleven years before went unnoticed. Anti-communism put Anslinger back in the public eye, along with his good friend Senator Joseph McCarthy. It was later revealed by Anslinger in his book, The Murderers, and also by Dean Latimer in his book, Flowers in the Blood, that Anslinger supplied morphine to McCarthy on a regular basis for years. Anslinger's justification? To prevent the communists from blackmailing such a fine American just because he had a "minor drug problem." In 1970, in passing the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government shifted its constitutional loophole for jailing drug users and providers from taxation to the federal government's obligation to regulate interstate traffic. This is as dramatic a violation of the Constitution as the taxation excuse, but it fit the government's plan better. Under this law a bureaucrat-usually not elected-decides whether or not a substance is dangerous and how dangerous that substance is. There's no more messing around with legislatures, presidents, or other bothersome formalities. When MDMA (ecstasy) was made illegal in 1986, no elected official voted on that. It was done "in house." People are now in jail because they did something that an administrator declared was wrong. The Controlled Substances Act was circulated to the states where it was enthusiastically received; most states have modeled their programs on the federal plan. There is no longer a need, then, to deceive legislators: the agency heads and their minions simply decide what the law is, and that's that. Today, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics is, like its former director Anslinger, no more. How's this for a bureaucratic shuffle: In 1968, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was transferred from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department, where it was merged with the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC) to form the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD). In 1973, during the early skirmishes of the war against drugs, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE), and the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) all combined to form the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). (I hope you're paying attention: there will be a quiz.) As the war against drugs escalated, one agency was not enough. In 1988, the National Drug Enforcement Policy Board (NDEPB) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) were formed. The director of ONDCP-now a cabinet-level position-was given the title that Mr. Anslinger (anti-communist sentiments notwithstanding) would have killed for: The Drug Czar. End McWilliams quotes... "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes." ~Abraham Lincoln If you want to really see me get going, ask me what I think about the tax money we spend on the drug war. ryanm |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
|
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:47:24 -0600, "ryanm"
wrote: Well, yeah. And organized crime, the DEA, the ONDCP and others whose jobs depend on these things staying illegal. I wonder how many people who support the war on drugs ever thought about what would happen to organized crime if drugs, gambling and prostitution were suddenly made legal? I mean, no drug dealer or mob boss in the world can compete with RJ Reynolds and 7-11 for production, distribution, and retail sales, so the prices would drop drastically, undercutting every black market dealer in the country. What would the Sopranos do then? I don't know if this argument holds water. Organized crime did quite well in Las Vegas. They 're savvy businessmen. If only they used there power for GoodG. Paul Gitlitz Glitchless Productions www.glitchless.net |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
Rob Adelman wrote: Johnston West wrote: You know, 20 years ago or whatever it was, I thought this Al Franken guy on SNL was pretty wierd. What with that "me, Al Franken" bit 20 times a skit. It was pretty obvious early on that Al Franken has but one agenda. "The Al Franken Decade". It was a response to the end of the '70's, aka "The Me Decade". The '80's would also be the "Me Decade" for "me, Al Franken". Comic genius in my opinion. And then there was "Trading Places" and "Stuart Saves His Family". Some funny stuff. I'm glad that Franken can now use his humor "for good", now that we need it. Plus, he's fair and balanced! ; ) Don |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"Rob Adelman" wrote in message ... Johnston West wrote: If you beleive that it's just fine for people to be jailed for idiotic and unconstitutional laws, then you really don't feel very stongly about personal rights. Well you couldn't be more wrong. What about personal responsibility? Are YOU going to be the one to decide which laws are idiotic Better me than some right wing christian zealot I would err on the side of allowing rather than restricting Just a throw away question If you were GOD, would you be a tightass? George |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
"Don Cooper" wrote in message
... I'm glad that Franken can now use his humor "for good", now that we need it. Plus, he's fair and balanced! ; ) It's frightening that the only news programs who can truthfully use "fair and balanced" are comedy productions. dtk |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
Rob Adelman wrote: I never thought it was funny. Just that here is a guy really full of himself. I still think so. He knows the hot buttons. Him and Michael Moore. That's why there's vanilla, chocolate, and macadamia nut! Remember, some people *really* like Journey. ; ) Don |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
I really like Journey, have everything they have ever recorded plus
solo albums and think Steve Perry may be the best rock vocalist of all time. On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:02:02 -0400, Don Cooper wrote: Rob Adelman wrote: I never thought it was funny. Just that here is a guy really full of himself. I still think so. He knows the hot buttons. Him and Michael Moore. That's why there's vanilla, chocolate, and macadamia nut! Remember, some people *really* like Journey. ; ) Don |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
Gene Pool wrote: I really like Journey, have everything they have ever recorded plus solo albums and think Steve Perry may be the best rock vocalist of all time. I only saw them once, before he joined. They sounded like Santana. They were cool. What do you think of them now that he's gone? It was a joke, by the way. And I'm even less funny than Al Franken. Don |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Personally, I don't support using any type of mind-altering drug, and I
include alcohol in that category. However, I think part of the reason that alcohol, which is a very harmful substance (take an honest look at the behavior of people when using it) is legal, and marijuana is not, is that marijuana is very easy to grow at home, and therefore would be very difficult to tax. Alcohol is much harder to produce, especially in a palatable form, so must be manufactured in factories, and distributed through easily taxable channels. -- Bill L "Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:bk4lo6 Don't ask me, ask the Virginia State Senate. Not only is it illegal to sell pipes with bowls of particular diameters here, it's also illegal to sell spoons of particular sizes. Then again, oral sex is illegal here too. --scott What a bummer . Are they a bunch of some sort of fundamentalists there ? Religous ? geoff |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
dt king wrote:
It's frightening that the only news programs who can truthfully use "fair and balanced" are comedy productions. I hadn't thought of Fox in that way until now, but I guess you're right. ulysses |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
In article "Bill Lorentzen"
writes: Personally, I don't support using any type of mind-altering drug, and I include alcohol in that category. However, I think part of the reason that alcohol, which is a very harmful substance (take an honest look at the behavior of people when using it) is legal, and marijuana is not, is that marijuana is very easy to grow at home, and therefore would be very difficult to tax. Alcohol is much harder to produce, especially in a palatable form, so must be manufactured in factories, and distributed through easily taxable channels. -- Bill L Alcohol is plenty easy to make at home. And it is a component of beer and wine, two tasty food substances which are enjoyed in moderation by much of the world. What should be targetted legally is bad behavior, regardless of any connection to various substances. Prohibition is an ineffective backdoor approach to the real problem: lack of personal responsibility. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
Ah, but do you have the video game...?
Gene Pool wrote... I really like Journey, have everything they have ever recorded plus solo albums and think Steve Perry may be the best rock vocalist of all time. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
It is an unhappy truth that, despite its obvious left-leaning bias, "The Daily
Show" cuts closer to "the truth" (?) than just about any "straight" news program. It's frightening that the only news programs who can truthfully use "fair and balanced" are comedy productions. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message .. . What a bummer . Are they a bunch of some sort of fundamentalists there ? Religous ? How about a billboard outside of Knoxville TN proclaiming: "Honor the true sabbath, Saturday. Believe in Sunday & receive the mark of the beast." ??? "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message .. . What a bummer . Are they a bunch of some sort of fundamentalists there ? Religous ? How about a billboard outside of Knoxville TN proclaiming: "Honor the true sabbath, Saturday. Believe in Sunday & receive the mark of the beast." ??? Well, to discuss the Sabbath this way naturally requires using the Bible as the source. Nowhere in the Bible is the Sabbath day changed from the seventh day of the week. Like so many other supposed Biblical beliefs, it ain't in there. The change to Sunday was made by the Roman Catholic Church, as chronicled in excruciating and thumbs-up-by-the-Roman-Church detail in the book, "From Sabbath to Sunday". As for "the mark", I believe that's an accurate description, given that the Sabbath day is a sign between God and His people, and the "mark" is described as a sign, also. You can pretty well hide your observance of any of the other nine commandments, but the fourth one is pretty much hard to hide one way or another. You know, the only problem with true Christianity is that precious few people have ever really tried it. That includes many self-proclaimed Christians. Anti-Christian sentiments are largely the fault of idiots who, in the name of Christianity, behave in ways that are anything but Christian. Religious leaders cause the greatest damage. Bennan Manning is credited with this quote, used by DC Talk at the beginning of the song "What If I Stumble". I think it's accurate: "The single greatest cause of atheism today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Rob Adelman wrote:
someone fairly high up at Enron just plead guilty to some serious charges. In his plea agreement there is talk that he will finger some of those at the top. We'll see. Which one? Glisan just plead guilty last week and was sentenced to five years. He "will not take part in the government's ongoing investigation" according to the report I saw. In my opinion Ken Lay is the biggest scumbag criminal in the history of corporate crime. He's got a lot of company, actually. Check into the actions of Standard Oil, Goodyear, and General Motors (hiding behind their shell company National City Lines) during the '30s, '40s, and '50s for a start. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Bill Lorentzen wrote:
part of the reason that alcohol, which is a very harmful substance (take an honest look at the behavior of people when using it) is legal, and marijuana is not, is that marijuana is very easy to grow at home, and therefore would be very difficult to tax. Alcohol is much harder to produce, especially in a palatable form, so must be manufactured in factories, and distributed through easily taxable channels. Check your history a bit--look into the real story behind John Chapman (aka Johnny Appleseed) and also the tankerloads of grape juice shipped around the country during prohibition for legal home winemaking. "Sacramental wine" had special exemptions and the business kept CA wineries alive during the period... |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
America's drug laws are obscene. In a country that values personal
freedom, people should be able to do what they want. Especially when it comes to such a mild intoxicant as marijuana. ************************************************** ***************** ** The only good velocity-switch is an inaudible velocity-switch ** ************************************************** ***************** |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
thanks for this - I've been looking for this info
Gary ryanm wrote: "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message ... And it might behoove plenty of people to learn when, why and how marijuana was made illegal in the US. One might also review the opinion delivered to Nixon in the late '60's by his BLue Ribbon Committee, which he formed to look into the situation in the US with marijuana. In short a panel of conservative business men told him to legalize it. Of course he didn't, knowing who his real friends were, like Meyer Lansky et al. It's worse than you think. This is long, but worth the read. The first US anti-drug law was in California in 1875 to prohibit opium dens, which was ineffective until 1883, when congress passed a heavy tax on imported opium. This law was passed ostensibly to protect our children from the evils of chinese opium dens, while actually being a blatantly racist law that echoed the popular sentiments of the time. It did effectively close down the opium dens, which couldn't afford to stay open under the new taxes. However, there was only a very small tax on local "medicinal" opium, and housewives continued to dope themselves unconcious with laudinum and a thousand other available "remedies", and white folks continued to make money on opium for decades after that. The second anti-drug law in the US was passed in Florida, and was touted to the people as a safeguard against, and I quote, "an uprising of cocainized negroes". If you don't find that offensive, I question your sensibilities ("your" being in a general sense, not directed at Mr. Alrich). Harry Anslinger had marijuana added to the narcotics list in 1937 because of a personal agenda, and he was the one responsible for the ridiculous works like Reefer Madness. Maybe he just wanted to be a hero in the Hearst papers. Or maybe he was on the take from DuPont. Either way, both had interests in aligning Anslinger and the public against pot. In the 1930's, new machinery was developed to allow hemp fiber to be easily and economically seperated from the plant, meaning paper, clothing, and a thousand other products could be produced more cheaply than before. So what's the problem? Hearst not only printed papers, he made the paper they were printed on. Not only would all of his machinery become obsolete, but all of the forests he had just bought would be useless except as photo backdrops. DuPont, meanwhile, had just patented a new process for making paper from wood pulp. The process relied heavily on DuPont chemicals, which were unnecessary for making paper from hemp. They had also just perfected nylon, and inexpensive, readily grown hemp fiber would've thrown a wrench in DuPont's future money makers, paper production and textiles. You can make of that what you will, but the fact remains, both Hearst and DuPont made a fortune thanks to the timely prohibition of hemp. The following is mostly quoted from a book by Peter McWilliams ("Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do"), interspersed with my comments and additions... On April 14, 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was introduced to Congress. The testimony before the congressional committee was, for the most part, provided by Anslinger, Anslinger employees, and Anslinger reading Hearst newspaper articles, some of which he had written. The hearings were reminiscent of the scene from John Huston's film, The Bible, in which John Huston, playing Noah, has a conversation with God, also played by John Huston. The film was produced and directed by John Huston. The narrator: John Huston. And how many doctors were heard in the congressional hearings in 1937? Precisely one. He represented the American Medical Association. The AMA opposed the bill. At least twenty-eight medicinal products containing marijuana were on the market in 1937, the doctor pointed out; drugs containing marijuana were manufactured and distributed by the leading pharmaceutical firms; and marijuana was recognized as a medicine in good standing by the AMA. In testifying before the congressional committee, the doctor sent by the AMA said the AMA had only realized "two days before" the hearings that the "killer weed from Mexico" was indeed cannabis, the benign drug used and prescribed by the medical profession for more than a hundred years. Said Dr. Woodward, "We cannot understand, yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the [medical] profession, that it was being prepared." Anslinger and the committee chairman, Robert L. Doughton (Robert Doughton was a key DuPont supporter in Congress), denounced and curtly excused Dr.Woodward. When the marijuana tax bill came before Congress, one pertinent question was asked from the floor: "Did anyone consult with the AMA and get their opinion?" Representative Vinson answered for the committee, "Yes, we have . . . and they are in complete agreement." The bill passed, and became law in September 1937. Anslinger was furious with the AMA for opposing him before the congressional committee. As the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, he could prosecute any doctors who prescribed narcotics for "illegal purposes." Which purposes were "illegal" was pretty much Anslinger's call. From mid-1937 through 1939, more than 3,000 doctors were prosecuted. In 1939, the AMA made peace with Anslinger and came out in opposition to marijuana. From 1939 to 1949, only three doctors were prosecuted by the FBN for drug activity of any kind. In 1944, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia and the New York Academy of Medicine released the La Guardia Marijuana Report, which, after seven years of research, claimed that marijuana caused no violence and had certain positive medical benefits. In a rage, Anslinger banned all marijuana research in the United States. He attacked La Guardia vehemently. In 1948, however, Anslinger dropped the "marijuana causes violence" argument. He made, in fact, a complete about-face when he testified before Congress in 1948 that marijuana made one so tranquil and so pacifistic that the communists were making abundant supplies available to the military, government employees, and key citizens. Marijuana was now part of a Communist Plot aimed at weakening America's will to fight. That this statement was a complete reversal of his congressional testimony only eleven years before went unnoticed. Anti-communism put Anslinger back in the public eye, along with his good friend Senator Joseph McCarthy. It was later revealed by Anslinger in his book, The Murderers, and also by Dean Latimer in his book, Flowers in the Blood, that Anslinger supplied morphine to McCarthy on a regular basis for years. Anslinger's justification? To prevent the communists from blackmailing such a fine American just because he had a "minor drug problem." In 1970, in passing the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government shifted its constitutional loophole for jailing drug users and providers from taxation to the federal government's obligation to regulate interstate traffic. This is as dramatic a violation of the Constitution as the taxation excuse, but it fit the government's plan better. Under this law a bureaucrat-usually not elected-decides whether or not a substance is dangerous and how dangerous that substance is. There's no more messing around with legislatures, presidents, or other bothersome formalities. When MDMA (ecstasy) was made illegal in 1986, no elected official voted on that. It was done "in house." People are now in jail because they did something that an administrator declared was wrong. The Controlled Substances Act was circulated to the states where it was enthusiastically received; most states have modeled their programs on the federal plan. There is no longer a need, then, to deceive legislators: the agency heads and their minions simply decide what the law is, and that's that. Today, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics is, like its former director Anslinger, no more. How's this for a bureaucratic shuffle: In 1968, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was transferred from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department, where it was merged with the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC) to form the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD). In 1973, during the early skirmishes of the war against drugs, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE), and the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) all combined to form the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). (I hope you're paying attention: there will be a quiz.) As the war against drugs escalated, one agency was not enough. In 1988, the National Drug Enforcement Policy Board (NDEPB) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) were formed. The director of ONDCP-now a cabinet-level position-was given the title that Mr. Anslinger (anti-communist sentiments notwithstanding) would have killed for: The Drug Czar. End McWilliams quotes... "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes." ~Abraham Lincoln If you want to really see me get going, ask me what I think about the tax money we spend on the drug war. ryanm |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
"SomeGuyOnTheInternet" wrote in message ... America's drug laws are obscene. In a country that values personal freedom, people should be able to do what they want. Especially when it comes to such a mild intoxicant as marijuana. If it were possible that people would grow their own stuff, for their own purposes, in the privacy of their own home, and not venture out intoxicated, this probably wouldn't be an issue. But that's just not the reality of things. For one thing, retail sales in the USA are taxed. On a product as "popular" as the subject is, easy to manufacture, harvest and sell, taxing the massive sales of it is virtually impossible. On the other hand, alcohol which, in my estimation does far more damage to society, is legally obtainable and consumed precisely because the manufacture of it can be largely controlled and sales taxed. The illegality of marijuana in the United States of America has had virtually the same affect on "the street" as the prohibition on alcohol did eighty years ago. As for "doing what you want" are you suggesting you are happy about the life you have north of our border? I just read an interesting story yesterday about the legal sale of medical-use marijuana in Canada. You are at CBC Broadcasting, I'm sure you saw it: http://www.cjad.com/content/cjad_new...sp?id=n091543A John John |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Tell that to the Canadian government - they gave a contract for 5.75 million to
some guys in northern Manitoba who grew several tons of **** they called pot in an old DND bunker - the resulting abomination was then distributed to Canadians who hold medical permits to use pot for $150/ounce + tax - the people who needed the stuff for pain, nausea control, glaucoma, Symptoms of MS etc.... reported that they had to smoke so much to get a little releif from their symptoms that they became ill from oxygen deprivation and suffered coughing and nausea anyway - one guy is suing for his $150+tax - Christ - I could've done it for half the price (a mantras of mine on this board) Gary Bill Lorentzen wrote: Personally, I don't support using any type of mind-altering drug, and I include alcohol in that category. However, I think part of the reason that alcohol, which is a very harmful substance (take an honest look at the behavior of people when using it) is legal, and marijuana is not, is that marijuana is very easy to grow at home, and therefore would be very difficult to tax. Alcohol is much harder to produce, especially in a palatable form, so must be manufactured in factories, and distributed through easily taxable channels. -- Bill L "Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news:bk4lo6 Don't ask me, ask the Virginia State Senate. Not only is it illegal to sell pipes with bowls of particular diameters here, it's also illegal to sell spoons of particular sizes. Then again, oral sex is illegal here too. --scott What a bummer . Are they a bunch of some sort of fundamentalists there ? Religous ? geoff |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: Ah, but do you have the [Journey] video game...? Is it available somewhere? I used to go play it on occasion (back in 1982 or so?) and really liked it. It was a very fun video game and also had some good music too. Pretty inventive. Those were the days of my mis-spent youth. CT |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Al Franken Decade
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: It is an unhappy truth that, despite its obvious left-leaning bias, "The Daily Show" cuts closer to "the truth" (?) than just about any "straight" news program. I'm not sure it's so much a "left-leaning bias" as it is an "anti-establishment" bias. When Clinton was in office they hammered him and his administration pretty hard too. It's more along the lines of "toss rocks at whomever is in charge". But I agree with your assessment totally as to their journalistic relevance vis-a-vis the standard news channels. CT |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
Dave Martin wrote:
"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote: How about a billboard outside of Knoxville TN proclaiming: "Honor the true sabbath, Saturday. Believe in Sunday & receive the mark of the beast." We have one of those in Nashville, near Berry Hill - I saw it last Saturday on my way to a session... Bet you were quaking in yer boots. -- ha |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence
John LeBlanc wrote: As well they should, wouldn't you agree? I no more want to share the road with someone stoned on pot than I would want to share the road with someone stoned on Jim Beam. Cannot agree with that. I would much rather share the road with someone stoned on pot. Much less dangerous. |
Linear Mode
