Re: Tommy Chong Gets 9 Month Jail Sentence

[Ron Capik]

Rob Adelman wrote:

> Bryson wrote:
>
> > < ..snip... >
> "Chong admitted that his company, which operated as Chong Glass and
> employed 25 glass blowers, sold some 7,500 bongs and pipes until Feb.
> 14, when federal drug agents raided his California home and business.
> Authorities also seized about a pound of marijuana."
>
> Hmm. Does he keep a pound for his personal stash? I doubt it. Wonder
> where this pound came from? Maybe Ashcroft's dealer ;)

I'd guess it was used for R&D and quality control. Gotta test those
bongs and pipes... ;-)

Ron Capik <<< cynic in training >>>
--

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:37:26 GMT, Bryson >
wrote:

>http://www.firstcoastnews.com/entertainment/news-article.aspx?storyid=7983

We're not living in a Fascist state. We've got elections here,
and the will of the people, and everything.

Chris Hornbeck

For one swallow does not make a summer,
nor does one day;
And so too one day, or a short time,
Or a great deed, does not make a man
Blessed or happy.
Aristotle, Nicomachaen Ethics

[Rob Adelman]

"Chong said he's been working with youth groups, teaching filmmaking and
speaking against drug use."

You suppose maybe the judge wasn't buying it?

[John LeBlanc]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message
...

> We're not living in a Fascist state. We've got elections here,
> and the will of the people, and everything.

You are a laugh riot, Chris. Because a minority group wants drugs and drug
paraphenalia made legal, that's your definition of the "will of the people"? And
arresting some dumbass who makes bongs and is caught with a pound of dope makes
this a facist state? Step aside, Al Franken, we've got a new contenduh!

I was particularly amused by this quote from the story:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard G. Hirsch, one of Chong's attorneys, urged Schwab not to punish the
actor for his films. "The government is asking you to blur the distinction
between reality and satire," he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, Richard, Chong is being punished for breaking the law; he pleaded guilty to
conspiring to sell drug paraphernalia. That's about as real as it gets.

"My momma talka to me try to tell me how to live. But I don't listen to her
'cause my head is like a sieve." Ah, earache my eye.

John

[LeBaron & Alrich]

John LeBlanc wrote:

> Because a minority group wants drugs and drug paraphenalia made legal,
> that's your definition of the "will of the people"? And arresting some
> dumbass who makes bongs and is caught with a pound of dope makes this a
> facist state? Step aside, Al Franken, we've got a new contenduh

John, in the early '80's investigation resulted in estimates that over
thirty million Americans used or had used marijuana. I doubt the numbers
are lower today. I don't know what is your own criteria for a
"minority", but that's quite a few folks in my book.

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.

George Washington grew marijuana and used it to relieve the pain of his
rotting teeth and the wooden pegs driven into his jaws to replace the
missing chompers. We'd not have been able to moor a naval vessel for
hundreds of years were it not for hemp. And the story goes for five
thousand years...

Today the media continues to keep the uninformed populace in a state of
hysteria about pot, all because that allows the maintenance of a black
market, so the "right people" get to make the money.

--
ha

[ryanm]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are a laugh riot, Chris. Because a minority group wants drugs and drug
> paraphenalia made legal, that's your definition of the "will of the
people"?
>
Not a minority. 6 million new people do drugs without "ruining their
lives" every year. Read the anti-drug propaganda, even they admit that the
vast majority either thinks that drugs should be legal or don't care either
way.

> And arresting some dumbass who makes bongs and is caught with a pound of
dope makes
> this a facist state? Step aside, Al Franken, we've got a new contenduh!
>
Arresting a dumbass for possessing a plant which was harming no one and
selling pipes, just like every tobacco shop in every mall in the country, is
pushing the limits, if you ask me.

ryanm

[Jay Kahrs]

>Hmm. Does he keep a pound for his personal stash? I doubt it. Wonder
>where this pound came from? Maybe Ashcroft's dealer ;)
>

I know a guy who has "a pound in my freezer just in case there's a shortage".
No joke. That's a whole lotta weed, enough to last some people a year.

---
-Jay Kahrs
Owner - Chief Engineer
Mad Moose Recording Inc.
Morris Plains, NJ
http://www.madmooserecording.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Come visit me here --> http://www.gearslutz.com

[dt king]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...

> Arresting a dumbass for possessing a plant which was harming no one
and
> selling pipes, just like every tobacco shop in every mall in the country,
is
> pushing the limits, if you ask me.

Thank goodness there are laws to protect us from blown glass chotchkies and
the terrible risk of craving an entire box of Capt. Crunch with chocolate
syrup and fluff. Will we never be safe from the proliferation of lava
lamps and beaded curtains?

dtk

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Adelman > wrote:
>
>"Chong admitted that his company, which operated as Chong Glass and
>employed 25 glass blowers, sold some 7,500 bongs and pipes until Feb.
>14, when federal drug agents raided his California home and business.
>Authorities also seized about a pound of marijuana."
>
>Hmm. Does he keep a pound for his personal stash? I doubt it. Wonder
>where this pound came from? Maybe Ashcroft's dealer ;)

Well, when I go to my local stereo store, they have a huge rack of records
and CDs that you can use to audition their equipment.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< when federal drug agents raided his California home and business.
Authorities also seized about a pound of marijuana." >>

But that is not what he was charged or pleaded to. And not in the same state
that the charges were brought.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Rob Adelman]

Jay Kahrs wrote:

> I know a guy who has "a pound in my freezer just in case there's a shortage".
> No joke. That's a whole lotta weed, enough to last some people a year.

A LOT longer than a year.

[reddred]

"Jay Kahrs" > wrote in message
...
> >Hmm. Does he keep a pound for his personal stash? I doubt it. Wonder
> >where this pound came from? Maybe Ashcroft's dealer ;)
> >
>
> I know a guy who has "a pound in my freezer just in case there's a
shortage".
> No joke. That's a whole lotta weed, enough to last some people a year.
>

Considering this is Chong we're talking about, it probably lasts him about
two months. Imagine the tolerance he's built up. When he gets out of the
clink, though, he'll be able to take one or two puffs and be as high as he
was in 1969. Maybe he'll consider it a blessing in disguise.

jb

[reddred]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...

>
> Uh, Richard, Chong is being punished for breaking the law; he pleaded
guilty to
> conspiring to sell drug paraphernalia. That's about as real as it gets.
>

The drug paraphenalia in question is an invention as old as time with an
extra hole in the side (the legal definition of a 'drug pipe' as opposed to
a 'tobacco pipe') and a bong is equally old, basically a gourd for smoking
like those found by archaeologists all over the world. OK, regardless of
ones beliefs about legalization of controlled substances, how can it be
illegal to sell a ****ing glass pipe?

jb

[ryanm]

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> The drug paraphenalia in question is an invention as old as time with an
> extra hole in the side (the legal definition of a 'drug pipe' as opposed
to
> a 'tobacco pipe') and a bong is equally old, basically a gourd for smoking
> like those found by archaeologists all over the world. OK, regardless of
> ones beliefs about legalization of controlled substances, how can it be
> illegal to sell a ****ing glass pipe?
>
To save the children!!!!! Don't you want to SAVE THE CHILDREN?!?!?!

Why is it that the screechy voices of people who use that rhetoric
always kill my buzz?

ryanm

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >, "ryanm"
> wrote:


> > ones beliefs about legalization of controlled substances, how can it be
> > illegal to sell a ****ing glass pipe?
> >
> To save the children!!!!! Don't you want to SAVE THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
>
> Why is it that the screechy voices of people who use that rhetoric
> always kill my buzz?

What are you, a baby hater?

This is something I noticed a long time ago. It seems that whenever
election time comes around, the "issue" ads start rolling, and every
single one of them says it's "for the children". It could be legalizing
murder and they'd find a way to make it "for the children". If you
disagree with anything they say, you must be a baby hater. "What do you
mean you're against capital punishment for moving violations? You must
hate babies!" I must admit, that sends up a red flag for me and makes me
wonder if they're less than sincere. But it obviously makes for good
publicity or it wouldn't be so overused.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[George]

In article >,
"John LeBlanc" > wrote:

> "Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > We're not living in a Fascist state. We've got elections here,
> > and the will of the people, and everything.
>
> You are a laugh riot, Chris. Because a minority group wants drugs and drug
> paraphenalia made legal, that's your definition of the "will of the people"?
> And
> arresting some dumbass who makes bongs and is caught with a pound of dope
> makes
> this a facist state? Step aside, Al Franken, we've got a new contenduh!
>
> I was particularly amused by this quote from the story:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard G. Hirsch, one of Chong's attorneys, urged Schwab not to punish the
> actor for his films. "The government is asking you to blur the distinction
> between reality and satire," he said.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Uh, Richard, Chong is being punished for breaking the law; he pleaded guilty
> to
> conspiring to sell drug paraphernalia. That's about as real as it gets.
>
> "My momma talka to me try to tell me how to live. But I don't listen to her
> 'cause my head is like a sieve." Ah, earache my eye.
>
> John
>
>

John Thank the higher power there are people like you
otherwise I might just like everyone!!
your a ass
George

[George]

In article >,
Jay - atldigi > wrote:

> In article >, "ryanm"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > ones beliefs about legalization of controlled substances, how can it be
> > > illegal to sell a ****ing glass pipe?
> > >
> > To save the children!!!!! Don't you want to SAVE THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
> >
> > Why is it that the screechy voices of people who use that rhetoric
> > always kill my buzz?
>
> What are you, a baby hater?
>
> This is something I noticed a long time ago. It seems that whenever
> election time comes around, the "issue" ads start rolling, and every
> single one of them says it's "for the children". It could be legalizing
> murder and they'd find a way to make it "for the children". If you
> disagree with anything they say, you must be a baby hater. "What do you
> mean you're against capital punishment for moving violations? You must
> hate babies!" I must admit, that sends up a red flag for me and makes me
> wonder if they're less than sincere. But it obviously makes for good
> publicity or it wouldn't be so overused.

Support Abortion, do it for the children, LOL

But John Imagine the burden you will not have to pay in income and
property taxes to rage pointless wars around the globe once POT is legal
George

[Tom Paul]

> My keyboard player buys a pound a month. And he's usually out before the
> end of the month. I would imagine that an experienced stoner like Chong
> could go through a pound in a few weeks. Less than 5 or 6 pounds in Chong's
> house could easily have been his personal supply, if he buys in bulk.
>
> ryanm


I wonder what all that tar and **** is doing to his lungs?
Healthwise, he'd probably do better to move into hard drugs! Yow!

Tom

[WillStG]

>"reddred"
> OK, regardless of ones beliefs about legalization of controlled substances,
how can it be illegal to sell a ****ing glass pipe?>

So you're saying "Bongs don't get people stoned, people get people stoned"?
<g> Well the thing is Tommy plead guilty to the drug paraphenalia rap. If you
plead guilty, you can't turn around and complain about the gear's intended
usage being multifacted.

And remember, Tommy didn't get charged with "possession with the intent to
distribute" for the pound of pot they found. If he was found guilty for that,
he would have gone away for a lot longer than 6 months, so it sounds to me like
some kind of deal was worked out here, a deal that included him getting out of
the bong business.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

John LeBlanc > wrote:

> Uh, Richard, Chong is being punished for breaking the law; he pleaded
> guilty to conspiring to sell drug paraphernalia. That's about as real
> as it gets.

Selling this particular type of "drug paraphernalia" isn't even
illegal. It was only recently (since Jan 2001) made illegal to sell it
_on the internet_ which it doesn't take a paranoid to tell you is
pretty messed up. You can go down to any head shop in any town in
America and buy the same equipment, so long as you don't mention
illegal drugs while you're doing it. If this is as real as it gets,
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?

ulysses

[Tom Paterson]

>From: Justin Ulysses Morse

>"If you can't find Osama, bring us some other freaky
>bearded wierdos to hang." Right?

Right. "If we allow sin to exist among us, the Lord will take away our
blessings", meaning the lake house and the boat and even our children (Jesus
arranging car wrecks, and other pestilences), so "get them".

America will be purified.

Draping the breasts of the statue of Justice crackpot enough for you? --Tom
Paterson

[nmm]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 4:33 pm, Ron Capik =
t> wrote:
>Rob Adelman wrote:
>
>> Bryson wrote:
>>
>> > < ..snip... >

>> Authorities also seized about a pound of marijuana."
>>
>> Hmm. Does he keep a pound for his personal stash? I doubt it.
Wonder
>> where this pound came from? Maybe Ashcroft's dealer ;)
>
>I'd guess it was used for R&D and quality control. Gotta test those
>bongs and pipes... ;-)
>
>Ron Capik <<< cynic in training >>>
>--

Maybe he rolls big joints?


---------------------------------------------------------
"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time
thinking about myself, about why I do things." =DC-GWB,Aboard Air
Force One, June 4, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:51:47 GMT, (LeBaron &
Alrich) wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Then again, oral sex is illegal here too.
>
>So, of course, nobody does it.

But we have a definitive ruling from the last presidency that oral sex
is not, in fact, sex (with that woman). So oral sex per se does't
exist. So it can't be illegal.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

[John LeBlanc]

"Tom Paterson" > wrote in message
...

> Right. "If we allow sin to exist among us, the Lord will take away our
> blessings", meaning the lake house and the boat and even our children (Jesus
> arranging car wrecks, and other pestilences), so "get them".

Well, when Clinton ws president and suggested making the Baptist denomination
the official religion of the United States, I take it you were against?

John

[Gary Koliger]

The judge might have if he hadn't tried to say that he had dealt with his
pot habit by channeling his energy into salsa dancing - I just about fell
off my chair laughing - gotta give Tommy credit for that one - don't know
why they had to send him to jail other than to be vindictive and after
revenge for the way he and Chong laughed at 'em for all those years. Truth
of it is that the Sgt Stedenko character from the old C&C movies was based
on a real narc from my town up here in Canada - too funny/.

Gary

Rob Adelman wrote:

> "Chong said he's been working with youth groups, teaching filmmaking and
> speaking against drug use."
>
> You suppose maybe the judge wasn't buying it?

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Don Pearce wrote:

> But we have a definitive ruling from the last presidency that oral sex
> is not, in fact, sex (with that woman). So oral sex per se does't
> exist. So it can't be illegal.

I'm trying to figure out whether or not that sucks.

--
ha

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:16:16 GMT, (LeBaron &
Alrich) wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> But we have a definitive ruling from the last presidency that oral sex
>> is not, in fact, sex (with that woman). So oral sex per se does't
>> exist. So it can't be illegal.
>
>I'm trying to figure out whether or not that sucks.

Don't you mean "whether she sucks"?

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Tom Paterson]

>From: "John LeBlanc"

>Well, when Clinton ws president and suggested making the Baptist denomination
>the official religion of the United States, I >take it you were against?

Sounds like more "Bill Clinton Antichrist" right-winger bull****. Citation,
please.

I guess you can accuse me of being stupid enough to spend my time counting
partisan trash-talk "hits". Part of the game, right? Or maybe you just want the
company. Refuted.

FWIW, I'm "against" any religion-based pollution of the democratic
process--specifically our support of Israel, based not on support of a
downtrodden people, but "biblical prophecy"; the rebuilt temple, Last Days,
etc. PBS had a wonderful special on the bible, they replay it every so often.
Along with failed prophetical interpretations, it shows a Texas rancher (and
evangelical) picking out a particular red calf. His motivation being that what,
he gets extra points in heaven for supplying the sacrifice? They gonna fly it
over there in Air Force One? Well, at least he probably doesn't think he'll be
paid in virgins...

"If we allow sin to exist among us, God will take away our blessings". America
will be cleansed. At least 'till the next election.
--Tom Paterson

[John LeBlanc]

"Tom Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "John LeBlanc"
>
> >Well, when Clinton ws president and suggested making the Baptist denomination
> >the official religion of the United States, I >take it you were against?
>
> Sounds like more "Bill Clinton Antichrist" right-winger bull****. Citation,
> please.

What a coincidence, I was going to ask you for the "Jesus arranging car wrecks"
citation.

You first.

John

[Analogeezer]

Bryson > wrote in message . net>...
> Shame.
>
> http://www.firstcoastnews.com/entertainment/news-article.aspx?storyid=7983

Just wait, Ashcroft is going after Porno next.

Ya think maybe they should be trying harder to find Osama and his buds?

Analogeezer

p.s. Now I know why they phased out Chong's character on "That 70's Show"

[Don Cooper]

Don Pearce wrote:

> But we have a definitive ruling from the last presidency that oral sex
> is not, in fact, sex (with that woman). So oral sex per se does't
> exist. So it can't be illegal.


That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

(Hey, and I like the guy, but I always thought that was great line.)


Don

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:22:34 -0400, Don Cooper
> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> But we have a definitive ruling from the last presidency that oral sex
>> is not, in fact, sex (with that woman). So oral sex per se does't
>> exist. So it can't be illegal.
>
>
>That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
>
>(Hey, and I like the guy, but I always thought that was great line.)
>
>
>Don

And then again, I wonder if it would have been sex if he had caught
Chelsea with one of his aides...

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

[reddred]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking of oral (or any other kind of) sex...
>
> Tommy Chong is an awfully good-looking guy. I hope he won't be forced to
do
> anything he doesn't want to...
>

I think Chong is going to be one of the most popular guys in prison, ever. I
don't think anybody will have anything bad to say about Chong, not even the
guards. People will give Chong cigarettes for free. When he gets out, he can
write a book, and make so much money, forget the bong business. Not that he
has trouble getting weed now, but I bet when he gets out, he'll get it for
free.

jb

[reddred]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> reddred > wrote:
> >
> >The drug paraphenalia in question is an invention as old as time with an
> >extra hole in the side (the legal definition of a 'drug pipe' as opposed
to
> >a 'tobacco pipe') and a bong is equally old, basically a gourd for
smoking
> >like those found by archaeologists all over the world. OK, regardless of
> >ones beliefs about legalization of controlled substances, how can it be
> >illegal to sell a ****ing glass pipe?
>
> 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
>

It's pretty silly too, because it's just as easy for a blower to make a pipe
without a shotgun. People can smoke out of anything anyway, so I don't
understand the logic. Maybe it has something to do with real estate.

As far as the baby spoons go, what are babies supposed to use now?

jb

[Rob Adelman]

reddred wrote:

> It's pretty silly too, because it's just as easy for a blower to make a pipe
> without a shotgun. People can smoke out of anything anyway, so I don't
> understand the logic.

That sparked some memories. I once made a bong out of a 1 gallon A&W
jug. Pretty cool idea until it got dumped in the back seat of my car.

[Johnston West]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message

> You are a laugh riot, Chris. Because a minority group wants drugs and drug
> paraphenalia made legal that's your definition of the "will of the people"?
.....blah, blah, blah.
>
> John

Tobacco killed 5 Million people in 2000 (
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/09/12/smoking.reut/index.html )
yet not one death has ever been attributed to Marijuana use. Pretty
amazingly safe recreational drug, statistically speaking.

So where's the logic in these "Laws"? If the government claims to be
looking out for our health and welfare (hahahahaha!!!!), where's the
logic? Where's the morality?

But that aside John, I thought you said you were for getting
"Government off our backs", "Less Regulation", "more personal
freedom", and all that other spin.

You're sounding more like a Dirty Commie to me. Downright Un-American,
you hypocrite..... take that Flag off of your front porch until you
stand up for real freedom, and earn the right to fly it.

J_West

[reddred]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> reddred wrote:
>
> > It's pretty silly too, because it's just as easy for a blower to make a
pipe
> > without a shotgun. People can smoke out of anything anyway, so I don't
> > understand the logic.
>
> That sparked some memories. I once made a bong out of a 1 gallon A&W
> jug. Pretty cool idea until it got dumped in the back seat of my car.
>

There are many reasons to be careful when you ride around with people....

jb

[George]

>
> It's pretty silly too, because it's just as easy for a blower to make a pipe
> without a shotgun. People can smoke out of anything anyway, so I don't
> understand the logic. Maybe it has something to do with real estate.
>
> As far as the baby spoons go, what are babies supposed to use now?
>
> jb
>
>

Just a few things I pressed into service during my days
toilet paper tube
tin foil
apples
soda and beer cans
pins,cardboard and drinking glasses
thistle glass(from chemistry)
cotter pins and the end of a spark plug make great roach clips
of course in public school I made pipes in wood,metal and ceramics
classes
when I had no pipe I would just eat it
so when mouths are labled as paraphanlia only outlaws will have mouths

FREE THE WEED!!!!!!!
George(who still smokes about 4 joints a year)

[John LeBlanc]

"Johnston West" > wrote in message
om...

> So where's the logic in these "Laws"? If the government claims to be
> looking out for our health and welfare (hahahahaha!!!!), where's the
> logic? Where's the morality?
>
> But that aside John, I thought you said you were for getting
> "Government off our backs", "Less Regulation", "more personal
> freedom", and all that other spin.

I don't consider the pursuit of personal liberty to be "spin" at all. I vote in
every election in which I'm allowed. And I vote according to my view that people
should be allowed to make their own decisions about what's best for them so long
as their actions don't infringe on the rights of others. If someone's idea of
the pursuit of happiness is shooting off their own toes with an AK47, I say
merry christmas to him. Just don't expect my tax dollars to either pay for the
hospital bills or the prosthetics or for the rehabilitation therapy. I think
that's fair.

There is a process to changing or repealing stupid laws in this country and I
avail myself to that process when I think it's warranted. Ignoring laws and then
being surprised when you are arrested generally isn't the way to go about doing
that. And armchair quarterbacking and bitching isn't the way to go about it,
either.

I intentionally haven't expressed my opinion of pot, pot smoking, and pot
smoking paraphernalia because it's irrelevant to the discussion here, which is
that Tommy Chong got arrested for, plead guilty to, and was sentenced for
breaking a law. Title 21 United States Code, Section 863 is pretty clear.

But I have expressed my opinion that it's perfectly acceptable to me that
breaking laws gets people fined and/or put in jail.


> You're sounding more like a Dirty Commie to me. Downright Un-American,
> you hypocrite..... take that Flag off of your front porch until you
> stand up for real freedom, and earn the right to fly it.

I've absolutely no doubt you think that. And I'm perfectly okay with your right
to go on to express such an absurd opinion. <g>

John

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Johnston West wrote:

> So where's the logic in these "Laws"?

Title: Jack Herer's The Emperor Wears No Clothes
Author: Jack Herer ; editing by Leslie Cabarga
Subject: Marijuana.
Year: 1998
ISBN 1878125028


--
ha

[Andrew Leavitt]

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.

[WillStG]

<< (Johnston West) >>
<< But that aside John, I thought you said you were for getting
"Government off our backs", "Less Regulation", "more personal freedom", and all
that other spin.

You're sounding more like a Dirty Commie to me. Downright Un-American, you
hypocrite..... take that Flag off of your front porch until you stand up for
real freedom, and earn the right to fly it. >>

This is such a juvenile rant. What have YOU done to try to change these
laws you disagree with, other than pointing the finger and mouthing off? If
you ask John he's probably FOR legalizing pot, and fact is there are plenty of
political conservatives and Independents who are advocating legalized
Marijuana, even William F. Buckley. But right now it's not legal, and there
are penalties for violating the law. Jesse Ventura's for legalizing pot, but
that doesn't mean he can as Governor of Minnesota just tell all the State cops
not to enforce the State drug laws.

If you don't like the rules change it, or there are countries with
different rules. Or you can move to Berkeley. Buzzy Lindhardt, who sang on
what was our opening theme for a while got busted for pot there, he had about
14 large plants or something growing in his pad. After the charges were
dismissed because he had the pot for "Medicinal Purposes" (and in his case it
really was), he SUED the City of Berkeley for destroying his 14 plants. They
settled, and he got about $14,000 for the damages! Gotta love Berkeley...

Anyway, quit acting like Tommy got 20 years. Which in some states, if you
get caught with a POUND of pot, is what you'd get. He's getting 6 months and
has to give up the bong - business. Maybe that's not exactly what you'd call
"420 friendly", but it could've been much worse.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[LeBaron & Alrich]

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

[George Gleason]

"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

[ryanm]

"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

[Rob]

On 15 Sep 2003 15:35:24 GMT, (Tom Paterson)
wrote:

>>From: Justin Ulysses Morse
>
>>"If you can't find Osama, bring us some other freaky
>>bearded wierdos to hang." Right?
>
>Right. "If we allow sin to exist among us, the Lord will take away our
>blessings", meaning the lake house and the boat and even our children (Jesus
>arranging car wrecks, and other pestilences), so "get them".
>
>America will be purified.
>
>Draping the breasts of the statue of Justice crackpot enough for you? --Tom
>Paterson

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??

Always going after the little guy - the easy targets

At least Cheech and Chong made us laugh, and that's gotta be worth
something in my books

Rob

[Tom Paterson]

>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

[ryanm]

"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

[Rob Adelman]

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.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

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

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

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

[ryanm]

"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

[ryanm]

"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

[Johnston West]

(WillStG) wrote in message

> This is such a juvenile rant.

Trumped only by your Berkely rant....... "Or you can move to
Berkeley."

Cute will. Very original. No one was talking to you anyway... I
already know your disrespect for Personal Freedom, so you can quit
wiping your ass with the Flag. It's embarassing.

I'll put it to you like someone did in the third line of this post.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22****+you%22+%22mean+that%22+group:rec. audio.pro+group:rec.audio.pro+group:rec.audio.pro&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.audio.pro&selm=3-ScnW67WKnYXtSjXTWc2Q%40rockbridge.net&rnum=12

" ....so **** You...... I mean that"

J_West

[Don Cooper]

"We report, you decide."


Don

[Billy Bee]

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
>
>
>

[WillStG]

<< >>
<< Trumped only by your Berkely rant....... "Or you can move to
Berkeley." >>

You are treating this issue in such cliche, superficial manner you missed
my point totally. I love Buzzy Lindhardt, and I loved the couple of years I
lived in Bezerkley.

<< Cute will. Very original. No one was talking to you anyway... I already know
your disrespect for Personal Freedom, so you can quit
wiping your ass with the Flag. It's embarassing. >>

Oh I see, this is a "420 locals only" discussion? Did I miss that part of
the RAP FAQ? You disagree with the social contract do something to change it.
But enough with the whining and the drama already.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[no spam]

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 Good<G>.
Paul Gitlitz
Glitchless Productions
www.glitchless.net

[Don Cooper]

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

[George Gleason]

"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

[dt king]

"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

[Don Cooper]

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

[Gene Pool]

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

[Don Cooper]

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

[Bill Lorentzen]

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
>
>

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

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

[Jay Kadis]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[JohnLeBlanc]

"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."

[Kurt Albershardt]

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.

[Kurt Albershardt]

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...

[SomeGuyOnTheInternet]

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 **
************************************************** *****************

[Gary Koliger]

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

[John LeBlanc]

"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_news/article.asp?id=n091543A

John


John

[Gary Koliger]

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
> >
> >

[Charles Thomas]

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

[Charles Thomas]

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

[LeBaron & Alrich]

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

[Rob Adelman]

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.

[Dave Martin]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .

> Bet you were quaking in yer boots.
>
Kinda:

"He had a broad face and a little round belly,

That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly"

(Clement Clarke Moore - The Night Before Christmas)

[georgeh]

Gene Pool > writes:

>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 always thought that Steve Perry was just a "poor man's" Marty Balin,
myself.

[John LeBlanc]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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.


Well, it may well be the differentce between getting shot in the stomach or
getting shot in the head. I still dont want to be shot.

John

[Mark]

You think it's hard to find drugs in prison??

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Kahrs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Hmm. Does he keep a pound for his personal stash? I doubt it. Wonder
> > >where this pound came from? Maybe Ashcroft's dealer ;)
> > >
> >
> > I know a guy who has "a pound in my freezer just in case there's a
> shortage".
> > No joke. That's a whole lotta weed, enough to last some people a year.
> >
>
> Considering this is Chong we're talking about, it probably lasts him about
> two months. Imagine the tolerance he's built up. When he gets out of the
> clink, though, he'll be able to take one or two puffs and be as high as he
> was in 1969. Maybe he'll consider it a blessing in disguise.
>
> jb
>
>
>

[Les Cargill]

Rob Adelman wrote:
>
> Don Cooper wrote:
> >
>
> > "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.
>
> 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.

The point of the sketch was to make fun of the self-absorbed patina of
the times.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Cooper]

Les Cargill wrote:

> The point of the sketch was to make fun of the self-absorbed patina of
> the times.


I don't know that it has improved any since then, but I've learned a new
word. Thanks!

pat·i·na2


Pronunciation Key (ptn-, p-tn) also
pa·tine (p-tn)
n.

1.A thin greenish layer, usually basic copper
sulfate, that forms on copper or copper alloys,
such as bronze, as a result of corrosion.
2.The sheen on any surface, produced by age
and use.
3.A change in appearance produced by
long-standing behavior, practice, or use: a
face etched with a patina of fine lines and tiny
wrinkles.



[Italian, from Latin, plate (from the incrustation on
ancient metal plates and dishes). See paten.]



Don

[Tom Paterson]

>From: "John LeBlanc"

>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.

The Dutch have found a way they can live with. Maybe we could learn something
from them. Not "condoned", but "tolerated". Big difference there, for starters.
--Tom Paterson

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro, "dt king" > wrote:

>"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.

I don't know how to fit "balanced" in, but "fair" is usually an
accurate description on a poor-fair-good-excellent scale.

>dtk
>

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[Neil]

Rob Adelman > wrote in message >...
> Don Cooper wrote:
> >
>
> > "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.
>
> I never thought it was funny. Just that here is a guy really full of
> himself.

That was the joke, but I realize humor is a subjective thing and YMMV.

(snip)

[[email protected]]

On 2003-09-14 (LeBaron&Alrich) said:
>in my book. 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
<snip>
>We'd not have been able to moor a naval vessel for
>hundreds of years were it not for hemp. And the story goes for five
>thousand years... Today the media continues to keep the uninformed
>populace in a state of hysteria about pot, all because that allows
>the maintenance of a black market, so the "right people" get to
>make the money. --

"He walked around the wheelhouse once ... he walked around the
wheelhouse twice ... and the first mate said, "YOu want another toke
cap'n?"

can't recall the artist, but most old heads will remember that song
from the early '70's.



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



"Reality is an illusion created by a Marijuana deficiency."

[Neil]

Don Cooper > wrote in message >...
> 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.

At age 14 or so, Journey guitarist Neal Schon played and toured with
Santana for awhile. I've only been waiting 30+ years to use that bit
of trivia!

Both Journey and Santana are San Francisco bands and may have some
other overlaps. I used to be a bit snobbish and dislike Journey, but I
really do like some of their "Greatest Hits" CD. I appreciate that
they're not posing as pseudo intellectuals or revolutionaries or angry
young men or wannabe bad boys, they just play what they play, no
pretensions, IMHO.

But we're all wondering, as we might in any situation..."How does this
affect me, Al Franken?"

(snip)

[SomeGuyOnTheInternet]

In article >,
(SomeGuyOnTheInternet) wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "John LeBlanc" > wrote:
>> >> 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_news/article.asp?id=n091543A
>>
>>
>> than here, though.
>>

Somehow my post got garbled. I was going to say that I think Canada's laws
are only slightly better. I think more people get jailed for minor pot
offenses in the US than here, although I have no facts to back that up,
it's just the way it seems from watching news, etc. Personally I don't
think anyone should do time for possesion or selling. Of course there
should be laws to protect minors, and laws against driving while
intoxicated, the same kinds of laws that apply to alcohol use.




************************************************** *****************
** The only good velocity-switch is an inaudible velocity-switch **
************************************************** *****************

[Josh Snider]

in article , JohnLeBlanc at
wrote on 9/16/03 11.38:
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."
>

Great song. Great quote.
It's hard as a Christian (albiet one who has serious struggles with his
faith) to watch other so-called Christians do some pretty strange, and
sometimes downright evil things in God's name... I dotn' pretend to know
ANYONES faith but my own, but there are some seriously misguided people out
there who don't even realize what they're doing is wrong...

J

--
josh.snider
cave.productions
416.524.6927

[Sean S]

"William Sommerwerck" > laid this on me:

> 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.


The "Bush debates with himself" sketch (where they showed Bush
saying completely opposite things at various press conferences) was
divine inspiration.

Sean

[George Gleason]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>
any tax collected opon its use would mean less tax I am paying to prevent
its use
George

[George Gleason]

"georgeh" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Pool > writes:
>
> >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 always thought that Steve Perry was just a "poor man's" Marty Balin,
> myself.

Why , were Journy albums cheaper than Starship albums?
lol
George

[Don Cooper]

Rob Adelman wrote:

> > The point of the sketch was to make fun of the self-absorbed patina of
> > the times.
>
> Maybe on the surface. The real point was to make sure you know Al
> Franken. Apparently it worked.


Maybe Al Franken wrote it, but it could have been Bill Murray on camera.
Or Jane Curtain. It was probably funnier with Al Franken.

What about "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And darn it, people like
me!"? Wasn't that funny?


Don

[Hans van Dongen]

John LeBlanc wrote:
> "Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
> Well, it may well be the differentce between getting shot in the stomach or
> getting shot in the head. I still dont want to be shot.
>
> John
>
>
Although I completely agree about not wanting to share the
road with someone stoned on mariuana, studies have shown
that marijuana impares driving skills far less (if at all
-dependent on dosage) than alcohol

Hans



U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993:

"This program of research has shown that marijuana, when
taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving
impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The
impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to
maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its
magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes
produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under
the influence of marijuana retain insight in their
performance and will compensate, where they can, for
example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a
consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance
appear relatively small."

http://www.google.com/search?q=study+marijuana+driving+dutch




--
===========================

"This is a non-profit organisation
We didn't plan it that way, but it is."

In article >,
John LeBlanc > wrote:

>Well, it may well be the differentce between getting shot in the stomach or
>getting shot in the head. I still dont want to be shot.

Do you want to be shot in the head with both barrels of a 12 gauge,
or you want to be shot with a squirt gun?

We've decided for you. We've subsidized the guy with the 12 guage and
made sure he has shells. Meanwhile we've locked away the guy with the
squirt gun, and we're trying to lock away anyone else who ever sells
squirt guns or anything that can be modified to work like a squirt gun.


--

[Roger W. Norman]

Incarcerating a first time offender is even worse. And blown glass bongs
could just have easily been art pieces from Blenko and strictly collector's
items. But, the sad truth is that now Ashcroft has the name and address of
every individual who's bought one, and that's the real scary part.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You are a laugh riot, Chris. Because a minority group wants drugs and
drug
> > paraphenalia made legal, that's your definition of the "will of the
> people"?
> >
> Not a minority. 6 million new people do drugs without "ruining their
> lives" every year. Read the anti-drug propaganda, even they admit that the
> vast majority either thinks that drugs should be legal or don't care
either
> way.
>
> > And arresting some dumbass who makes bongs and is caught with a pound of
> dope makes
> > this a facist state? Step aside, Al Franken, we've got a new contenduh!
> >
> Arresting a dumbass for possessing a plant which was harming no one
and
> selling pipes, just like every tobacco shop in every mall in the country,
is
> pushing the limits, if you ask me.
>
> ryanm
>
>

[Les Cargill]

WillStG wrote:
>
> << Kurt Albershardt >>
> << "Sacramental wine" had special exemptions and the business kept CA wineries
> alive during the period... >>
>
> Still, I beleive Prohibition was regarded pretty much as an anti-Catholic
> law....
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Fox And Friends/Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

It may have been regarded as such after the fact, but there's not
a whit of anti-Catholicism in the derivation of the law - the
CWT and other organizations were not specifically anti-Catholic.

That there were specific exceptions made for sacramental wine should
indicate that at least some thought was given this.

Prohibition grew out of the Abolitionist and Woman's Suffrage
movements. It was stated as the third goal of a generally
Utopian/Progressive political movement.

--
Les Cargill

[John LeBlanc]

> wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> John LeBlanc > wrote:
>
> >Well, it may well be the differentce between getting shot in the stomach or
> >getting shot in the head. I still dont want to be shot.
>
> Do you want to be shot in the head with both barrels of a 12 gauge,
> or you want to be shot with a squirt gun?
>
> We've decided for you. We've subsidized the guy with the 12 guage and
> made sure he has shells. Meanwhile we've locked away the guy with the
> squirt gun, and we're trying to lock away anyone else who ever sells
> squirt guns or anything that can be modified to work like a squirt gun.


So are you saying I don't have a right to expect and demand the guy driving a
car towards me is totally sober? Careful with your answer; karma and all.

John

[Abyssmal]

>
>
>So are you saying I don't have a right to expect and demand the guy driving a
>car towards me is totally sober? Careful with your answer; karma and all.
>
>John
>

The only way you could guarantee that is if in addition to banning
illegal drugs and alcohol form being used while driving, you also
banned perscription drugs like Valium, Xanax, or even over the counter
allergy medications, etc. They all impair people to a certain degree.
Pot is probably a lot less impairing than some drugs doctors
perscribe, or even less than benadryl or other drowsy inducing
medications.

Randall

[Richard Crowley]

"Abyssmal" wrote ...
> The only way you could guarantee that is if in addition to banning
> illegal drugs and alcohol form being used while driving, you also
> banned perscription drugs like Valium, Xanax, or even over the counter
> allergy medications, etc. They all impair people to a certain degree.

That is already the case in many (most?) states, isn't it?
In many cases it is covered by "driving while impaired" (and
in some places even "driving while distracted" as from a cell
phone, etc.)

[Abyssmal]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:49:19 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"Abyssmal" wrote ...
>> The only way you could guarantee that is if in addition to banning
>> illegal drugs and alcohol form being used while driving, you also
>> banned perscription drugs like Valium, Xanax, or even over the counter
>> allergy medications, etc. They all impair people to a certain degree.
>
>That is already the case in many (most?) states, isn't it?
>In many cases it is covered by "driving while impaired" (and
>in some places even "driving while distracted" as from a cell
>phone, etc.)
>
Maybe so, but how many people do you know that got charged with
driving under the influence of Nyquil?

Randall

[Roger W. Norman]

I believe the Supreme Court just took care of that little problem law in VA.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> reddred > wrote:
> >
> >The drug paraphenalia in question is an invention as old as time with an
> >extra hole in the side (the legal definition of a 'drug pipe' as opposed
to
> >a 'tobacco pipe') and a bong is equally old, basically a gourd for
smoking
> >like those found by archaeologists all over the world. OK, regardless of
> >ones beliefs about legalization of controlled substances, how can it be
> >illegal to sell a ****ing glass pipe?
>
> 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
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro, Bryson > wrote:

>Shame.
>
>http://www.firstcoastnews.com/entertainment/news-article.aspx?storyid=7983

For the political activists on RAP:
Don't let Ashcroft "cop the bong" FREE TOMMY CHONG!

http://www.freetommychong.org/
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[Roger W. Norman]

Loss of property associated with the business, and out of work glass blowers
who only practiced their craft.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Tom Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> >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

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro, (Johnston West) wrote:

>Tobacco killed 5 Million people in 2000 (
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/09/12/smoking.reut/index.html )
>yet not one death has ever been attributed to Marijuana use. Pretty
>amazingly safe recreational drug, statistically speaking.
>
>So where's the logic in these "Laws"? If the government claims to be
>looking out for our health and welfare (hahahahaha!!!!), where's the
>logic? Where's the morality?

International sales is a big growth market for US tobacco
companies, IIRC it more than makes up for lost sales in the USA. I
understand the US makes the best cigarrettes in the world, a helluva
thing to be proud of.
It would be interesting if some other country made tobacco illegal
and declared a "war on tobacco"...

>J_West

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[George]

> It would be interesting if some other country made tobacco illegal
> and declared a "war on tobacco"...
>
> >J_West
>
Imagine the choppers flying low over North Carolina spraying herbacides,
armed mailitias storming through private lands , and some country
seizing our president and jailing him for supporting the international
tobacco smugling trade with your tax dollars in the form of farm
subsidies
In all fairness OIL is GW's hair shirt Al Gore had tobacco
George

[WillStG]

<< "Roger W. Norman" >>
<< The cops, in the eyes of the law, could not
charge Tommy for anything having to do with pot if in fact the warrant
specified drug paraphenalia only, which, due to the nature of the business they
were trying to bust, would have had to have specified. Can't make carte
blanche search warrants these days, and truthfully, they should have only been
able to search his home office and computer in relation to the business
records. So it's not like the cops were being nice. They had restraints
placed upon them. Not that they wouldn't confiscate the lb, but to charge for
it was outside of their mandate.>>

Roger, talking about carte blanche, you toss out this kind of legal advice
and then talk about how bad Tommy's lawyer was? If they are executing a valid
search warrant and find a pound of pot whether it should be excluded or not
depends on the situation and the judgment of the court, now doesn't it? If you
were Tommy maybe you would rather risk getting out of jail at 70 rather than
take the 6 months, maybe you'd prefer to roll the dice - but in any event, if a
lawyer didn't tell him he should maybe consider the deal , now THAT would be
bad representation.

"Personally, hand blown glass is an art, no matter what form the product takes.
Tommy apparently didn't have that great of a lawyer, or someone fell for the
threat of throwing him in the can for 20 years due to the pot they confiscated
but couldn't charge him with. Nine months is too long in jail
for someone selling glass art, no matter what form it takes. Otherwise I'm
going to start complaining that these damned pink flamingoes are really drug
paraphenalia! <g> >>

Roger, glass art whatever, if he pleads GUILTY then your argument is moot,
he's admitted before the court "yeah, I was selling bongs for kids to smoke
pot". Which he actually was. And I figure they likely had him dead to rights
on the pound of pot too, because stoner or not Tommy's been around awhile and I
doubt he's stupid. But if Tommy is indeed the victim of stupidity and bad
counsel, well that's kind of a cautionary tale of the impact of "induced bad
judgement" all in of itself, isn't it...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

<< Les Cargill >>
<It may have been regarded as such after the fact, but there's not a whit of
anti-Catholicism in the derivation of the law - the
CWT and other organizations were not specifically anti-Catholic.

That there were specific exceptions made for sacramental wine should indicate
that at least some thought was given this. >>

You perhaps have forgotten about how deep anti-Catholic sentiments ran in
this country, once upon a time. My Irish mother told me quite a few tales
about enduring such sentiments growing up, and she was not even a Catholic but
was Episcopalian! Just as some wish to argue there was anti-black sentiment
behind the prohibition of Marijuana, so too some make a similar case regarding
anti-Catholic bigotry informing the prohibition of alcohol. That Prohibition
excluded communion wine and doesn't specifically mention Catholics doesn't mean
such sentiments didn't contribute to the creation of such laws. Many
Protestants were highly critical of the Catholic Church's tolerance for the
celebratory imbibing of spirits.

<< Prohibition grew out of the Abolitionist and Woman's Suffrage movements. It
was stated as the third goal of a generally Utopian/Progressive political
movement. >>

I agree with you Les that they had a good motivation, they had worked for
abolishing slavery, giving women equal rights and moved on to the idea that
people might make more of their lives sober. My little town here in NJ has a
historical building with "WCTU" for "The "Women's Christian Temperance Union"
still proudly displayed across it's facade. But those ladies were just a wee
bit strict, don'cha think?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, I'd say some little research into public record of what the search
warrant really entailed, but no, offhand, I wouldn't put it past the
prosecutors nor the police to use drug trafficking laws and the threat of a
large amount of time behind bars to coerce a guilty plea to lesser charges.
I mean, after all, it's been a legally institutable tactic supported by
decision of the Supreme Court. The government is allowed to lie to coerce
admission.

But the fact that the police/prosecutors/DEA were going after a BUSINESS
who's sole "criminal activity" was the distribution of "drug paraphernalia"
doesn't necessarily include the probable cause necessary for reasonable
search and seizure of drugs. One does not necessarily imply the other.
Nor, I'm sure, would Tommy Chong be so stupid as to have a pound of pot just
lying around to be seen by anyone who happens into his home. A roach maybe,
which would certainly give rise to probable cause. But with the tactics
allowable today, it's just as likely that no probable cause was present for
a search of his private residence for drugs. The results could still be the
same because who, yourself included, wouldn't believe that Tommy Chong would
have a pound of pot lying around for the cops to find. Particularly when he
KNOWS he's under investigation.

Your point isn't what I was talking about, so, although I admit that if a
person pleads guilty, then guilty it is, I can conjecture that some manner
of coercion was used to elicit such a plea. And I also admit that, based on
good behavior, Mr. Chong is likely to get out in about 4 1/2 months.

However, neither the plea nor the charges were specifically what I was
referring to. Nor was anything I said legal advice, except perhaps to have
a damned fine lawyer when you go to court. Certainly Tommy should have been
able to afford qualified representation. So no, I'm not really discussing
the results of the arrest and trial. I'm discussing the levels that an
agency like the DEA would go to in order to give the appearance of doing
damage to drug trafficking.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> << "Roger W. Norman" >>
> << The cops, in the eyes of the law, could not
> charge Tommy for anything having to do with pot if in fact the warrant
> specified drug paraphenalia only, which, due to the nature of the business
they
> were trying to bust, would have had to have specified. Can't make carte
> blanche search warrants these days, and truthfully, they should have only
been
> able to search his home office and computer in relation to the business
> records. So it's not like the cops were being nice. They had restraints
> placed upon them. Not that they wouldn't confiscate the lb, but to charge
for
> it was outside of their mandate.>>
>
> Roger, talking about carte blanche, you toss out this kind of legal
advice
> and then talk about how bad Tommy's lawyer was? If they are executing a
valid
> search warrant and find a pound of pot whether it should be excluded or
not
> depends on the situation and the judgment of the court, now doesn't it?
If you
> were Tommy maybe you would rather risk getting out of jail at 70 rather
than
> take the 6 months, maybe you'd prefer to roll the dice - but in any event,
if a
> lawyer didn't tell him he should maybe consider the deal , now THAT would
be
> bad representation.
>
> "Personally, hand blown glass is an art, no matter what form the product
takes.
> Tommy apparently didn't have that great of a lawyer, or someone fell for
the
> threat of throwing him in the can for 20 years due to the pot they
confiscated
> but couldn't charge him with. Nine months is too long in jail
> for someone selling glass art, no matter what form it takes. Otherwise
I'm
> going to start complaining that these damned pink flamingoes are really
drug
> paraphenalia! <g> >>
>
> Roger, glass art whatever, if he pleads GUILTY then your argument is
moot,
> he's admitted before the court "yeah, I was selling bongs for kids to
smoke
> pot". Which he actually was. And I figure they likely had him dead to
rights
> on the pound of pot too, because stoner or not Tommy's been around awhile
and I
> doubt he's stupid. But if Tommy is indeed the victim of stupidity and bad
> counsel, well that's kind of a cautionary tale of the impact of "induced
bad
> judgement" all in of itself, isn't it...
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Fox And Friends/Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 9:11 PM, George Gleason
> wrote:
>Then even if not tax can ever be collected(which I highly doubt) how
>about
>just stopping the insane war against it and save all that money
>money not spent trying to stop pot is money that can be used
>elsewhere
>George


And watch my Raytheon Stock plummit?

George Clinton was saying the last time i say Parliment ( '93?) "There is
More Money in Keeping it Ilegal"

It's also a method of oppression. George W Bush gets busted with coke (
1972) and has his record 'exponged' and is sentanced to 10 months community
service. But say you don't have any friends, and you'll be doing 5 years at
leastwith a permanent record.




---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[georgeh]

Abyssmal > writes:

>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:49:19 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>>That is already the case in many (most?) states, isn't it?
>>In many cases it is covered by "driving while impaired" (and
>>in some places even "driving while distracted" as from a cell
>>phone, etc.)
>>
>Maybe so, but how many people do you know that got charged with
>driving under the influence of Nyquil?

It's becoming more common around here if you have an accident.
1st they do is take blood and look for drugs, prescript or
otherwise. Of course the cops let the local county comish
skate free after they stopped him for driving off the road,
smelled alcohol, then heard him admit he had been drinking,
AND using pain-killers --- both script and over the counter.
So it still isn't what you do, it's who you are.

[Garthrr]

In article >,
"George Gleason" > writes:

>No john you do not have any "rights' over anothers actions you only have
>"rights" to control your own actions
>George

So a person doesn't have a right not to be shot or knifed by another person?
Just in case your reply would be that the attacked has a right to defend
themself then what about someone in a wheelchair or similar situation? Think
about what you're saying George. Your argument as I undwerstand it is certainly
legally wrong and I think its pretty obvious that its morally wrong too.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Tom Paterson]

>From: (Garthrr)

>So a person doesn't have a right not to be shot or knifed by another person?
>Just in case your reply would be that the attacked has a right to defend
>themself then what about someone in a wheelchair or similar situation? Think
>about what you're saying George. Your argument as I undwerstand it is
>certainly
>legally wrong and I think its pretty obvious >that its morally wrong too.

You can google on this, but no, you don't have a right to not be attacked, but
an obligation to defend yourself against attack, since the law can't be
everywhere to protect the you. Look it up.

This is why you can kill in self-defence and not go to jail, as long as a jury
of your peers (or sometimes, some places, just the investigating cops) are of
the opinion that excessive force was not used. BTW, here in Texas, after dark,
you can kill to protect your property, and not even be "taken downtown for
questioning" (helps control burglary). Some criminals think that interferes
with their "rights".
--Tom Paterson

[Jay Kadis]

In article > Abyssmal
> writes:
>
> >
> >
> >So are you saying I don't have a right to expect and demand the guy driving
a
> >car towards me is totally sober? Careful with your answer; karma and all.
> >
> >John
> >
>
> The only way you could guarantee that is if in addition to banning
> illegal drugs and alcohol form being used while driving, you also
> banned perscription drugs like Valium, Xanax, or even over the counter
> allergy medications, etc. They all impair people to a certain degree.
> Pot is probably a lot less impairing than some drugs doctors
> perscribe, or even less than benadryl or other drowsy inducing
> medications.
>
> Randall

Don't forget sleep deprivation, probably topping the list of driving hazards.

-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

[Dave Martin]

The last study I read actually placed cell phones way down the list, behind
talking, eating, drinking, and messing with the radio.

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> More people have accidents now
> because of cell phones than because of driving under the influence of any
> type of

[Roger W. Norman]

Actually, no. A person has the reasonable expectation that, under normal
circumstances they won't be shot or stabbed by another person, but sometimes
even those people that do those types of things are the people closest to
you. Most murders are by people the victims know, and by in large, spouses
are most likely the person to be the one to murder their significant others.
Most murdered woman are killed by people who profess to love them.

One can only have the reasonable expectation. I mean, no matter how your
jump or dance, the last drop always falls in your pants, and if that's the
best we can do, then how can we expect and demand anything from others?

The statement "morally wrong" takes concepts and experiences into
consideration that may not be shared by both parties. It's not a good way
to view life. Getting ****ed is one thing, getting into someone else's face
because you get ****ed is something else entirely. Obviously it's not
morally wrong for terrorists to take innocent lives due to their perceptions
of wrongs needing righting, and just as obviously, one's sense of justice
may well be that, in retaliation for such acts, it's perfectly acceptable to
kill yet thousands more.

One can only have the reasonable expectation that they will unerringly walk
the straight and narrow. That's personal responsibility.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Garthrr" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "George Gleason" > writes:
>
> >No john you do not have any "rights' over anothers actions you only have
> >"rights" to control your own actions
> >George
>
> So a person doesn't have a right not to be shot or knifed by another
person?
> Just in case your reply would be that the attacked has a right to defend
> themself then what about someone in a wheelchair or similar situation?
Think
> about what you're saying George. Your argument as I undwerstand it is
certainly
> legally wrong and I think its pretty obvious that its morally wrong too.
>
> Garth~
>
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney

[Roger W. Norman]

Depends on the stipulations. I said more accidents, not deadly accidents.
I will stipulate that more deadly accidents happen due to driving under the
influence of alcohol, but not pot. I will also reiterate that more
accidents happen due to people talking on cell phones than any other
causation.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Dave Martin" > wrote in message
...
> The last study I read actually placed cell phones way down the list,
behind
> talking, eating, drinking, and messing with the radio.
>
> --
> Dave Martin
> Java Jive Studio
> Nashville, TN
> www.javajivestudio.com
>
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > More people have accidents now
> > because of cell phones than because of driving under the influence of
any
> > type of
>
>

[Kurt Albershardt]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> You have the right to expect that anyone on the road with you is as
> perceptive of the driving conditions and has the same level of expertise you
> have in driving a car. That's what getting a license is supposed to prove
> to the regulating agencies.
> ...
> if you really want to demand anything, then demand that people learn
> how to use their ****ing turn signals and recognize that they aren't the
> most important thing on the road. Those are your problems more than pot
> would be. Most people today take driving in their car about as seriously as
> they take being in their living rooms.

IMO this is a consequence of our society's perception that driving is a
right rather than a privilege. In many EU countries, there are numerous
offenses of which you can be convicted which result in a longterm or
permanent loss of that privilege. Sure--with enough DUI's or a
vehicular manslaughter you can lost it here, but the fact that we don't
have an Autobahn says as much about our legal system as it does about
our driving skills.

[George Gleason]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Abyssmal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >So are you saying I don't have a right to expect and demand the guy
driving a
> > >car towards me is totally sober? Careful with your answer; karma and
all.
> > >
> > >John
> > >
> >
> > The only way you could guarantee that is if in addition to banning
> > illegal drugs and alcohol form being used while driving, you also
> > banned perscription drugs like Valium, Xanax, or even over the counter
> > allergy medications, etc.
>
> I didn't say "guarantee." I said "expect and demand." Do you believe a
person
> has the right, and should be free to do anything he wanted, anywhere he
wants to
> do it, despite the danger he might cause those around him?
>
> John
>

Pretty much just as you have the personal right to protect yourself from
such actions
but you do not have the right to make people conform to your ideals

George
>

[George]

In article >,
"John LeBlanc" > wrote:

> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Pretty much just as you have the personal right to protect yourself from
> > such actions
> > but you do not have the right to make people conform to your ideals
>
>
> I'd guess you'd have a different opinion if your daughter was killed on the
> highway by someone intoxicated on drugs. After she's dead seems a bit late to
> worry about defending.
>
> Then again, maybe you wouldn't have a different opinion. Afterall, it was that
> other driver's right to drive around any way he wanted.
>
> John
>
>

John you are a very confused person
there is no right to drive driving is a priveledge
george

[Tom Paterson]

>From: "John LeBlanc"

>I didn't say "guarantee." I said "expect and demand." Do you believe a person
>has the right, and should be free to do anything he wanted, anywhere he wants
>to
>do it, despite the danger he might cause those around him?

Anyone walking the street is already "free" to do what he wants (or can,
limited by time, money, ability, etc. etc.) If he does something unlawful, and
is caught, then the law can do something about his action, i.e., punish him.
The only deterrents I can think of are fear of punishment or moral
compunction-- note, I didn't just say that morals come only from belief in
Christianity because I don't for a moment believe that to be true. --TP

[George]

In article
>,
George > wrote:

> In article >,
> "John LeBlanc" > wrote:
>
> > "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Pretty much just as you have the personal right to protect yourself
> > > from
> > > such actions
> > > but you do not have the right to make people conform to your ideals
> >
> >
> > I'd guess you'd have a different opinion if your daughter was killed on the
> > highway by someone intoxicated on drugs. After she's dead seems a bit late
> > to
> > worry about defending.
> >
> > Then again, maybe you wouldn't have a different opinion. Afterall, it was
> > that
> > other driver's right to drive around any way he wanted.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
> John you are a very confused person
> there is no right to drive driving is a priveledge
> george

People can respect the priveledge or abuse the priveledge but you have
no RIGHTS except over your own actions
you do not have the Right to force me to be christian,
jewish,muslim,sober,a responsible driver, hold a job, you have no
rightsover me or any other person what-so-ever
get over the idea that you can control(exert rights) over others, you
can not.Just as I have no rights over your actions or thoughts
I accept my privledges the come with adhereing to public expectation
and exrecise my rights by choosing to live basically a law abiding
peaceful life
but you have no right that makes me do this, I do it on my own
I could just as easily exercised my rights by becomeing a meth dealer
and by choosing my right to thumb my nose at law abiding america I would
eventually suffer for that
but your RIGHTS begin and end with your personal actions
George

George

[Les Cargill]

WillStG wrote:
>
> << Les Cargill >>
> <It may have been regarded as such after the fact, but there's not a whit of
> anti-Catholicism in the derivation of the law - the
> CWT and other organizations were not specifically anti-Catholic.
>
> That there were specific exceptions made for sacramental wine should indicate
> that at least some thought was given this. >>
>
> You perhaps have forgotten about how deep anti-Catholic sentiments ran in
> this country, once upon a time.

No, not at all. It was all but impossible for the pressure
groups like the Christian Women's Temperence Union to be *overtly*
anti-Catholic, though. That would have been a violation of one
of the founding principles - tolerance. They could be against
the "Rum And Romanism" thing while accepting Catholicism as a
valid religious choice. Very subtle.

When Margaret Sanger piled into the Catholic Church, that was
considered heretical by the Progressives of the time, and she
caught flack for it, up to and including jail time.

The Realpolitik was a bit different - the Tweed empire was based in
no small part on largely Catholic immigrants as power base. This
was in direct competition with the largely traditional Yankee
( as in descended from whaling cap'ns ) power base of the
Progressives.

It's a remarkable little hunk of political schizophrenia that
still has effects to this day.

> My Irish mother told me quite a few tales
> about enduring such sentiments growing up, and she was not even a Catholic but
> was Episcopalian!

There was a whole hell reserved for Irish(wo)men regardless of religion.

> Just as some wish to argue there was anti-black sentiment
> behind the prohibition of Marijuana,

From what I've been able to gather, pot was ( at least in the Hearst
papers ) more an anti-Hispanic thing. Cocaine was propagandized as
causing raging ex-slave longshoremen to go on rape rampages. We
have to keep our race prejudice/drug associations organized :)

But drug prohibition itself came out of the large number of people
left addicted to opiates by medical practices during the Civil War,
and by the patent medicine industry. This is where
the basic ideas of Nixon's WOD came. His folks were Quaker, and
that lay quite close to the other Progressive thinking orders
of the day. Apply that schema to Vietnam, and you have
what we have.

The point being, this sort of thing is long woven into the
political fabric.

> so too some make a similar case regarding
> anti-Catholic bigotry informing the prohibition of alcohol. That Prohibition
> excluded communion wine and doesn't specifically mention Catholics doesn't mean
> such sentiments didn't contribute to the creation of such laws. Many
> Protestants were highly critical of the Catholic Church's tolerance for the
> celebratory imbibing of spirits.
>

There's no question there was a sense of competition happening. Most
Eastern U.S. cities had Tweed-style boss heirarchies, which were
largely organized around religious commons, with Catholicism being
well-represented because the Irish and Italian immigrants were
often quite Catholic.

It's kind of goofy to quote movies for this sort of thing, but both
"Gangs of New York" and "Far And Away" illustrate these things pretty
well. Both productions apparently paid good attention to historical detail.
Both Ron Howard and Martin Scorcese seem to be pretty good historians.

What's some weird is just how activist Catholic organs of power became in
this light - there was a parallel Catholic progressive movement that's
really lasted longer and remained somewhat more radical than the
Protestant version. The Catholic public hospital system in the U.S. has
been a force of nature in rationalizing and organizing medical practice, and
is apparently on the rise.

> << Prohibition grew out of the Abolitionist and Woman's Suffrage movements. It
> was stated as the third goal of a generally Utopian/Progressive political
> movement. >>
>
> I agree with you Les that they had a good motivation, they had worked for
> abolishing slavery, giving women equal rights and moved on to the idea that
> people might make more of their lives sober.

There was way more to it than that. It was, in great general, a Platonically
Idealistic movement, with some moderation. Not much, though.

> My little town here in NJ has a
> historical building with "WCTU" for "The "Women's Christian Temperance Union"
> still proudly displayed across it's facade. But those ladies were just a wee
> bit strict, don'cha think?


I think they were all but nuts.

It's still a fascinating color in the
tapestry of history, though. The political logistics of the 18th Amendment
represent a level of force that'll probably never be equalled. And just
how all this phased was as much a matter of internal political struggles
internal to the movements as anything else.

And it's a VERY cogent lesson in exactly why having a permeable barrier
between religious thought and principle, and the hard-nosed, pragmatic
practice of creating the law is a Good Thing. It's a delicate balance,
one we'll probably always be learning. But we derive a great benefeit
from all aspects of this - there are never enough ideas, and even the
bad ones help in the long run., at some cost in pain.
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Fox And Friends/Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits


--
Les Cargill

[Roger W. Norman]

Repurcussions always seem to be a little more on the hard side of life,
giving rise to feelings that get in the way of discussing things in a less
hardened view.

Making the wild hair assumption that one has some belief in some entity that
has designs on people's usefulness and when to bring them home and such, one
could argue that the person who took that young lady's life with their
intoxication, indeed without that particular occurance, then something else
would have stepped in to accomplish the same goal. If one doesn't believe
in the will of God, then it's easier to presume that the blame is the
intoxicated person's, and I won't argue that it wasn't. I'm saying that one
viewpoint presumes that all others are wrong, which has it's own
ramifications. In fact, ramifications are all that drive what we do and how
we respond to circumstances and what we become as people.

However, it's a false pretense to assume that some situation that might not
have prevailed would have had a different outcome under different
circumstances. I realize what I'm saying may well seem harsh, John, and
that is not my intention. I have lost loved ones due to just such an
occurance, but I've been lucky in that my children are still whole and
finally functioning adults. I realize that this isn't the case in a lot of
circumstances, and I've only lately been able to come to the realization
that one only has the time from birth to death, and regardless of how long
that is, or what circumstances prevailed, the outcome is still the same. It
is so between your birth and death, and it will be between mine, as it is
with everyone's. Death only hurts the living because we're the ones that
are left to pick up the pieces, pack away the memories, and try to move on.
Until it's our time. Were it that some people's time never came, then I
could probably understand the anger, but it's just as effective to rail
against the wind or tilt against windmills. Nobody lives longer than death,
and your daughter notwithstanding, it is a matter of fact, however harsh it
may seem.

Do I have a different opinion than yours? Not necessarily, nor do I suggest
that one shouldn't feel deprived. But one can only walk the path they walk,
and all other acts and occurances are an aside. It's guaranteed that during
our lives people we know and love will pass. We come into this world alone
and we go out alone, no matter how it happens. A dear friend of mine
cleaned his gutters and got stung by four bees. He passed in about 20
minutes, leaving a beautiful young wife and four lovely kids. Do we blame
the bees or his desire to clean the gutters? One cannot find fault with
death. It happens to too many people every day. In fact, we remark upon it
quite often these days on this forum.

And we remark upon such things as this thread involves, which has nothing to
do with interpersonal relationships as much as it does the foundation of
discourse. Once someone brings a personal tragedy into the fray, it places
all others on alert that there is no level of discourse available. I'm sure
you miss your loved one. We all have them and miss them, whatever
relationship we have had. No one here wishes that you had to live through
your loss, nor does anyone here wish your loss upon anyone else, as I'm sure
you would agree. I would most certainly desire to be the next in line than
to lose one more person dear to me. It may or may not happen, but I have no
choice in the matter. May you come to terms with your loss and hopefully
you'll be fulfilled in knowing that people your daughter loved and those who
loved her are with you in your love and your sorrow.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Pretty much just as you have the personal right to protect yourself
from
> > such actions
> > but you do not have the right to make people conform to your ideals
>
>
> I'd guess you'd have a different opinion if your daughter was killed on
the
> highway by someone intoxicated on drugs. After she's dead seems a bit late
to
> worry about defending.
>
> Then again, maybe you wouldn't have a different opinion. Afterall, it was
that
> other driver's right to drive around any way he wanted.
>
> John
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Perhaps a system of roads that have safeguards against habitual drunks
driving at 100 mph, or older people whose reaction times have degraded, or
whatever. Local roads to the store, ok for most everybody who've passed the
test. High speed avenues of egress, most definitely one must have reaction
times and equipment that meets the test. Roads inbetween have their own
sets of restrictions. I see no reason that a person of some age can decide
for themselves that 45 miles an hour is just fine on a road supporting 65
miles an hour as I've seen far too many people who can't support the mental
math to realize that they are going faster than the person in front of them.
And you all have seen the same. How is it that someone can get jammed up
behind a slow moving vehicle when faster lanes were available? Because
their minds simply can't calculate their speed vs the car in front of them,
so they slam on the breaks on the other person's bumper, ride it like a $2
whore for a while, and then zip out into oncoming traffic as if their
initial miscalculation deserves some element of making up time at the
detriment to those who are traveling just fine.

What about the turn signal situation? What about turning one's ****ing head
to see into the blind spot so that they can make a proper determination as
to whether the way is clear? People are idiots behind the wheel, and I have
to admit, there have been times when I've made a move that should make me
suspect as to my ability to operate a vehicle. Smoking hash oil while
driving during the 70s is a damned good example of my stupidity.

The world is getting closer together, via means that I don't wish to discuss
right now, but the fact is that we're being pushed into smaller amounts of
space in order to accomodate a larger number of people and the roads
themselves aren't becoming better at handling the traffic, much less the
myriad types of people driving the cars, nor the range of cars on roads that
may or may not be able to handle the road conditions. All of this is a
persistent interplay of driver, vehicle condition and design, road
conditions and repair that operate to create more than any highway designer
of the 50s and 60s could have anticipated. How do I know? My father was
director of the Federal Highways Administration designers of most of the
major interstate highways of today, and even he admits that the roads were
not designed to handle the traffic or the diversity of the vehicles
travelling the roads.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > You have the right to expect that anyone on the road with you is as
> > perceptive of the driving conditions and has the same level of expertise
you
> > have in driving a car. That's what getting a license is supposed to
prove
> > to the regulating agencies.
> > ...
> > if you really want to demand anything, then demand that people learn
> > how to use their ****ing turn signals and recognize that they aren't the
> > most important thing on the road. Those are your problems more than pot
> > would be. Most people today take driving in their car about as
seriously as
> > they take being in their living rooms.
>
> IMO this is a consequence of our society's perception that driving is a
> right rather than a privilege. In many EU countries, there are numerous
> offenses of which you can be convicted which result in a longterm or
> permanent loss of that privilege. Sure--with enough DUI's or a
> vehicular manslaughter you can lost it here, but the fact that we don't
> have an Autobahn says as much about our legal system as it does about
> our driving skills.
>
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

There are always going to be "Favorite Sons". I think that's what finally
did in Communism because the goals didn't match the reality. And although
capitalism (not democracy) may have lasted longer, it may well be the same
death nell. Perhaps the reality is somewhere inbetween?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 9:11 PM, George Gleason
> > wrote:
> >Then even if not tax can ever be collected(which I highly doubt) how
> >about
> >just stopping the insane war against it and save all that money
> >money not spent trying to stop pot is money that can be used
> >elsewhere
> >George
>
>
> And watch my Raytheon Stock plummit?
>
> George Clinton was saying the last time i say Parliment ( '93?) "There
is
> More Money in Keeping it Ilegal"
>
> It's also a method of oppression. George W Bush gets busted with coke (
> 1972) and has his record 'exponged' and is sentanced to 10 months
community
> service. But say you don't have any friends, and you'll be doing 5 years
at
> leastwith a permanent record.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> "You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
> Test"
> - George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

[Harvey Gerst]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote:

>Perhaps a system of roads that have safeguards against habitual drunks
>driving at 100 mph, or older people whose reaction times have degraded, or
>whatever. Local roads to the store, ok for most everybody who've passed the
>test.

Ah, but the joys of driving a back road (stoned out of your mind) at a breakneck
speed of 10 or 15mph, while enjoying:

all the brightly colored pebbles in the road (that you've never noticed before),

a bend in the road, where all the telephone poles line up for an instant,

the unique arrangement of ashes in the ashtray,

a 10 second guitar lick on the radio (that takes about 20 minutes in your
"perceived" time frame),

the windshield wipers, actually "slapping time".

thinking not why you're here, but why the hell everybody else is here,

calling off, in your mind, all the chord changes to a song on the radio,

and the sight of a lazy cow, in a bright green pasture, watching you, as you
drive by.

surely, these are treasures without measure.

(Some of my youthful "pot" days actually helped me relive some of the wonders of
my childhood.)

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[John LeBlanc]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...

> I realize what I'm saying may well seem harsh, John, and
> that is not my intention.

Roger, you know I think you're a good human bean, so I didn't take it as you
being harsh, and it would never occur to me you'd intend to be so.

John

[Roger W. Norman]

I take heart in the fact that I'm a good human bean! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I realize what I'm saying may well seem harsh, John, and
> > that is not my intention.
>
> Roger, you know I think you're a good human bean, so I didn't take it as
you
> being harsh, and it would never occur to me you'd intend to be so.
>
> John
>
>

[WillStG]

<< "Roger W. Norman" >>
<< There are always going to be "Favorite Sons". I think that's what finally
did in Communism because the goals didn't match the reality. And although
capitalism (not democracy) may have lasted longer, it may well be the same
death nell. Perhaps the reality is somewhere inbetween? >>

Materialism is materialism.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Rob Adelman]

Harvey, sounds like you got the makings of a good song there.


Harvey Gerst wrote:
> Ah, but the joys of driving a back road (stoned out of your mind) at a breakneck
> speed of 10 or 15mph, while enjoying:
>
> all the brightly colored pebbles in the road (that you've never noticed before),
>
> a bend in the road, where all the telephone poles line up for an instant,
>
> the unique arrangement of ashes in the ashtray,
>
> a 10 second guitar lick on the radio (that takes about 20 minutes in your
> "perceived" time frame),
>
> the windshield wipers, actually "slapping time".
>
> thinking not why you're here, but why the hell everybody else is here,
>
> calling off, in your mind, all the chord changes to a song on the radio,
>
> and the sight of a lazy cow, in a bright green pasture, watching you, as you
> drive by.
>
> surely, these are treasures without measure.
>
> (Some of my youthful "pot" days actually helped me relive some of the wonders of
> my childhood.)

[Roger W. Norman]

Good point, but didn't I say that? <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> << "Roger W. Norman" >>
> << There are always going to be "Favorite Sons". I think that's what
finally
> did in Communism because the goals didn't match the reality. And although
> capitalism (not democracy) may have lasted longer, it may well be the same
> death nell. Perhaps the reality is somewhere inbetween? >>
>
> Materialism is materialism.
>
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Fox And Friends/Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

John LeBlanc > wrote:

> So are you saying I don't have a right to expect and demand the guy driving a
> car towards me is totally sober? Careful with your answer; karma and all.

I'd say you're a fool to expect all the other drivers on the road to be
sober. You're much less likely to get killed if you expect that
anybody you encounter on the road could be drunk, stoned, angry,
distracted, sleeping, or having a heart attack. In most cases it takes
two mistakes to cause an accident. Anticipating the other guy making
first one allows you to avoid making the 2nd one.

ulysses

[Johnston West]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message

> These are inane and inaccurate statements you are resorting to, and in fact,.......

>

Now Roger, don't try and confuse John with the facts. Can't you see
he's trying to make a politcal point.

The drug laws aren't designed to control certain types of drugs. (If
they were, then the really dangerous ones like Tobacco and Alcohol
would be illegal.)

Drug laws are designed to control certain types of people that the
ruling society doesn't approve of......... The Marijauna laws were
originally invented to control the Mexicans. And when Jazz Musicians
and the 'Hipsters' started smoking grass, the government couldn't
believe their wisdom, foresite and good fortune in having the tools to
control these dangerous people.

J_West

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Roger W. Norman > wrote:

> I will also reiterate that more accidents happen due to people
> talking on cell phones than any other causation.

You can reiterate til you're blue in the fingertips but it still isn't
true. If you said "distracted drivers" you'd have a case, but most
drivers are distracted by things other than their phones. Talking on
the phone while you drive is NOT the leading cause of accidents. Where
do you get your information?

ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

John LeBlanc > wrote:

> The fact that we have in this country so many selfish, irresponsible dumbasses
> is one of the reasons we have so many laws on the books.

You've got that one backwards. The reason we have so many dumbasses is
that we have so many laws on the books. Every new law takes
responsibility away from people, so they no longer have to take
responsibility for their actions. For every explicitly stated
illegality, there are a myriad of equally asenine activities that we
have not yet found the words to define legally. This is the cause of
our hopelessly loophole-oriented system of constant litigation.

Imagine if we just had ONE really well-written law that covered
everything that needed to be covered, and nothing else? You know,
something like, "Don't be an asshole."

Nobody would be able to say, "Technically I don't hold a financial
interest in the financial success of Halliburton because I bought an
insurance policy against their insolvency." Under our current system,
there's some ambiguity there. Under my proposed system, the case would
be so clear-cut it would never have reached that point in the first
place.


ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

dt king > wrote:

> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hence Peter McWilliams' excellent suggestions on arguing with so-called
> > conservatives willing to squander billions of tax dollars on the WOD.
> > On both fiscal and constitutional grounds, it fails their own litmus
> > tests...
>
> If the goal is to stop drug use, then yes. However, if the goal is to
> build a massive federal enforcement structure and erode civil rights, then
> it seems to be working ok.

But building a massive federal structure of any kind, and eroding civil
rights, are both exactly contrary to what it means to be
"Conservative."

ulysses

[Rob Adelman]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

> Imagine if we just had ONE really well-written law that covered
> everything that needed to be covered, and nothing else? You know,
> something like, "Don't be an asshole."

If everybody could agree on the definition of an asshole. Interpretation
of that law would be a nightmare.

[George Gleason]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> JohnLeBlanc at wrote on 9/16/03 11.38:
>
> > > 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."
>
>
> This just isn't true though. Did people quit believing in Zeuss just
> because some Greeks made bad examples of themselves? Do atheists
> reject Mohammed as the prophet because of the actions of Al Qaeda?
>
> Self-righteous and wicked christians (or muslims or jews) may have
> something to do with people being annoyed and vocal, but it's the
> absurdity of the basic premise of religion that makes people into
> non-believers.
>
> ulysses

I don't sign on with religion esp a montheistic one beacuse any greater
being capable of creating the all of entirity, why would he/she/it give a
flying F*ck if you worship it, much less dedicate your existence to the
worship of it
how vane can this "god" be ?
If i was God I wouldn't be such a hardass as the God that every once in a
while kills all the people on earth, asks fathers to slay thier sons, or
ejects one from his garden for partaking in fruit of the tree of knowledge
I think Bob Marley would have made a great God
George

[John Cafarella]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> > Imagine if we just had ONE really well-written law that covered
> > everything that needed to be covered, and nothing else? You know,
> > something like, "Don't be an asshole."
>
> If everybody could agree on the definition of an asshole. Interpretation
> of that law would be a nightmare.

Wheels within wheels..... LOL
--
John Cafarella
EOR Studio
Melbourne Australia
[ cafarellaj at powertel dot com dot au ]

[Roger W. Norman]

AAA. Or perhaps I misheard it and it is the FASTEST growing segment for
causes of accidents. Regardless, again, the concept is that if one isn't
talking on the phone, one shouldn't be having accidents due to talking on
the phone. I had my van hit this morning by a gentleman who was talking on
the phone whilst trying to pull into the parking space just in front of me.
He saw the car, he saw me, he hit the car, and luckily I wasn't in between.
He didn't even apologize.

But my statement wasn't based on that occurance. It just supported the
statement to a degree.

And again, I am NOT talking about accidents that cause death or injury. I'm
simply talking about people not paying attention, and if that happens to be
on the highway at 55 mph in rush hour traffic, then it means just that.
These are not police reported accidents, btw, just people reported
accidents, which generally means yet another rise in insurance rates. You
want to be right? OK, you're right. But in another two years when there is
a MAJOR increase in insurance, perhaps you'll remember this little message.
Cell phones are fine for emergencies when one has it in the car. It's not
for talking to one's best friend or lining up a new conglomerate deal or
dealing with the complexities of the stock market. Is that fair to say?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> Roger W. Norman > wrote:
>
> > I will also reiterate that more accidents happen due to people
> > talking on cell phones than any other causation.
>
> You can reiterate til you're blue in the fingertips but it still isn't
> true. If you said "distracted drivers" you'd have a case, but most
> drivers are distracted by things other than their phones. Talking on
> the phone while you drive is NOT the leading cause of accidents. Where
> do you get your information?
>
> ulysses

[Roger W. Norman]

A picture of me in the dictionary should be sufficient.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> > Imagine if we just had ONE really well-written law that covered
> > everything that needed to be covered, and nothing else? You know,
> > something like, "Don't be an asshole."
>
> If everybody could agree on the definition of an asshole. Interpretation
> of that law would be a nightmare.
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Now THAT I agree with whole heartedly. Conservativism means holding your
cards close to your chest. If those cards are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness, then I'm all for it. And yes, I realize that I earlier
mentioned that one can only control their actions and thus couldn't demand
anything of someone else. But they can expect that the authorities have
taken that into consideration and wouldn't necessarily give privileges to
those that don't deserve them. A ****ed up someone else shouldn't be able
to take my life, my liberty (hmmm, one wonders about that) nor my pursuit of
happiness (and if that happiness means a Tommy Chong Bong and some
homegrown?). Too many factors and too little time to decide between them
all.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> dt king > wrote:
>
> > "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Hence Peter McWilliams' excellent suggestions on arguing with
so-called
> > > conservatives willing to squander billions of tax dollars on the WOD.
> > > On both fiscal and constitutional grounds, it fails their own litmus
> > > tests...
> >
> > If the goal is to stop drug use, then yes. However, if the goal is to
> > build a massive federal enforcement structure and erode civil rights,
then
> > it seems to be working ok.
>
> But building a massive federal structure of any kind, and eroding civil
> rights, are both exactly contrary to what it means to be
> "Conservative."
>
> ulysses

[Roger W. Norman]

Accurately anticipating the other's mistakes might help to survive, but
inaccurately anticipating another's actions could just as easily be a cause.

Speaking of heart attacks, I've actually been in that situation. Had a
woman die on me right in front of my car at a stop light. Thank god it was
at a stop light, but when I finally walked up to discuss her negligence on
moving on the green, I realized she was dead. Upon trying to flag down a
policeman, he didn't want to believe that he had a stiff, and proceeded to
curse about the paper work and loss of drive around time. Way before
sensitivity training. I'm freaked and he doesn't want to deal with it.
What is a citizen to do?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> John LeBlanc > wrote:
>
> > So are you saying I don't have a right to expect and demand the guy
driving a
> > car towards me is totally sober? Careful with your answer; karma and
all.
>
> I'd say you're a fool to expect all the other drivers on the road to be
> sober. You're much less likely to get killed if you expect that
> anybody you encounter on the road could be drunk, stoned, angry,
> distracted, sleeping, or having a heart attack. In most cases it takes
> two mistakes to cause an accident. Anticipating the other guy making
> first one allows you to avoid making the 2nd one.
>
> ulysses

[AweSpishus]

"Dave's not here."

[Roger W. Norman]

Generally I'd agree, but somehow talking on a cell phone puts you somewhere
else, not in the general vicinity. Perhaps if you don't know then it's
because you have better sense. It happens. Some people are better at
holding a note than I am, even if I don't even smoke as many cigarettes as
they, nor for as long as they have. But far too few people have the ability
to walk and chew gum at the same time, and these people can have cell phones
and drive too. Distracted? Yes. But like I said, too many people are
treating talking on the cell whilst driving like they do talking to people
in the rumpus room while they are cooking. Not the same thing at all, but
the cook doesn't normally pull into oncoming traffic either.

What, have I suddenly become stupid? Did I miss a memo?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Dave Martin" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Regardless, again, the concept is that if one isn't
> > talking on the phone, one shouldn't be having accidents due to talking
on
> > the phone.
>
> Roger, if you aren't eating fast food in the car, then you shouldn't be
> having accidents due to eating fast food in the car. If you aren't talking
> to the passengers, you shouldn't be having accidents due to talking to the
> passengers. Cell phones in and of themselves aren't the problem.
Distracted
> drivers are. And believe me, there are far more ways to be distracted
while
> driving than talking on cell phones.
>
> --
> Dave Martin
> Java Jive Studio
> Nashville, TN
> www.javajivestudio.com
>
>

[WillStG]

<< (Johnston West) >>
<< Now Roger, don't try and confuse John with the facts. Can't you see he's
trying to make a politcal point. >>

It sounded to me Johnston that John had a daughter who was killed by a
drunk driver, and so he is actively against drinking and driving or driving
under the influence.

You have any kids?



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Dave Martin]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> But far too few people have the ability
> to walk and chew gum at the same time, and these people can have cell
phones
> and drive too. Distracted? Yes. But like I said, too many people are
> treating talking on the cell whilst driving like they do talking to people
> in the rumpus room while they are cooking. Not the same thing at all, but
> the cook doesn't normally pull into oncoming traffic either.
>
> What, have I suddenly become stupid? Did I miss a memo?
>
Nah, I think that you're either one of those who has become sensitized to
cell phone wielding drivers or you know how YOU react while talking on a
cell phone. If and when you become stupid, we'll all make sure that you get
an easy to understand memo in large print that uses only short words. Like
the ones that Halliburton sends to Dubya... "WE WANT MORE MONEY. START A
WAR"

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Roger W. Norman > wrote:

> Generally I'd agree, but somehow talking on a cell phone puts you somewhere
> else, not in the general vicinity. Perhaps if you don't know then it's
> because you have better sense. It happens. Some people are better at
> holding a note than I am, even if I don't even smoke as many cigarettes as
> they, nor for as long as they have. But far too few people have the ability
> to walk and chew gum at the same time, and these people can have cell phones
> and drive too. Distracted? Yes. But like I said, too many people are
> treating talking on the cell whilst driving like they do talking to people
> in the rumpus room while they are cooking. Not the same thing at all, but
> the cook doesn't normally pull into oncoming traffic either.

I have taken the wrong exit because I was talking on the phone. That
did a good job of reminding me to concentrate on the road. But I've
come closer to hitting things or driving off the road while messing
with the radio or looking for something on the floor of the passenger
seat. You can use a phone without taking your eyes off the road
(except maybe while you're dialing). It's a lot more dangerous to take
your eyes off the road than to take your mind off the road. Yes, it's
a whole lot safer to keep both ON the road. I've seen people eating
all sorts of things, putting on makeup, changing their baby, and even
reading a novel while driving. All of these things are WAY more
dangerous than talking on the phone. Not paying attention generally
only becomes dangerous when something dangerous happens very abruptly
in front of you. If you're not even looking, it doesn't matter how
much time you have to respond.

ulysses

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> I take heart in the fact that I'm a good human bean! <g>

Calm down; he didn't say you'se de vine.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> I had my van hit this morning by a gentleman who was talking on
> the phone whilst trying to pull into the parking space just in front of me.
> He saw the car, he saw me, he hit the car, and luckily I wasn't in between.
> He didn't even apologize.

<j>

This is why you should always have a Smith & Wesson handy. That way you
won't care if he didn't apologize.

</j>

--
ha

[Tommy B]

I met Bob Marley once. He would not have made a great god, but he did make a
great songwriter.
IMHO, God's biggest joke on man is sex and man's biggest joke on god is
religion.
Cell Phones are too recent of an invention to make the list. ;-) Oh yes, as
I'm sure you have all noticed, although Stupidity is not a virus or a
bacteria, it is incredibly contagious.

Tom



"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JohnLeBlanc at wrote on 9/16/03 11.38:
> >
> > > > 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."
> >
> >
> > This just isn't true though. Did people quit believing in Zeuss just
> > because some Greeks made bad examples of themselves? Do atheists
> > reject Mohammed as the prophet because of the actions of Al Qaeda?
> >
> > Self-righteous and wicked christians (or muslims or jews) may have
> > something to do with people being annoyed and vocal, but it's the
> > absurdity of the basic premise of religion that makes people into
> > non-believers.
> >
> > ulysses
>
> I don't sign on with religion esp a montheistic one beacuse any greater
> being capable of creating the all of entirity, why would he/she/it give a
> flying F*ck if you worship it, much less dedicate your existence to the
> worship of it
> how vane can this "god" be ?
> If i was God I wouldn't be such a hardass as the God that every once in a
> while kills all the people on earth, asks fathers to slay thier sons, or
> ejects one from his garden for partaking in fruit of the tree of
knowledge
> I think Bob Marley would have made a great God
> George
>
>

[Don Cooper]

I wrote:

> There was an arrest the first day


I should have said, "there was a ticket issued". The dude was allowed to
go home.


Don

[George Gleason]

"Tommy B" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I met Bob Marley once. He would not have made a great god, but he did make
a
> great songwriter.
> IMHO, God's biggest joke on man is sex and man's biggest joke on god is
> religion.
> Cell Phones are too recent of an invention to make the list. ;-) Oh yes,
as
> I'm sure you have all noticed, although Stupidity is not a virus or a
> bacteria, it is incredibly contagious.
>
> Tom
>
I never met Bob all I know of him is his music which I find very spiritual
and that was the basis for my statement
but I haven't met "God" yet either but from all I hear he is a dick ready
to cast children to hell for masturbating or haveing homosexual contact
George

[George Gleason]

> Imagine if we just had ONE really well-written law that covered
> everything that needed to be covered, and nothing else? You know,
> something like, "Don't be an asshole."
>
>
That would put lots of presidents/politicians in Jail
george

[Tommy B]

>I never met Bob all I know of him is his music which I >find very
spiritualand that was the basis for my statement

"Trust the Art, not the Artist"
Most folks have feet of clay.
I'm not saying this about Bob Marley, but it's really amazing when you see,
"an Idol" become "an Asshole"
in about 3 seconds.
I like to say, I've worked with "greats, near-greats and ingrates" .

Tom








"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tommy B" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > I met Bob Marley once. He would not have made a great god, but he did
make
> a
> > great songwriter.
> > IMHO, God's biggest joke on man is sex and man's biggest joke on god is
> > religion.
> > Cell Phones are too recent of an invention to make the list. ;-) Oh yes,
> as
> > I'm sure you have all noticed, although Stupidity is not a virus or a
> > bacteria, it is incredibly contagious.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> I never met Bob all I know of him is his music which I find very
spiritual
> and that was the basis for my statement
> but I haven't met "God" yet either but from all I hear he is a dick
ready
> to cast children to hell for masturbating or haveing homosexual contact
> George
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 2003-09-17 said:
>Depends on the stipulations. I said more accidents, not deadly
>accidents. I will stipulate that more deadly accidents happen due
>to driving under the influence of alcohol, but not pot. I will
>also reiterate that more accidents happen due to people talking on
>cell phones than any other causation.
I've seen my share of stupidity due to someone babbling on a cell
phone. MOnday I was pushing my lady's wheelchair downtown NEw
Orleans. SHE has to park too far away from the courthouse to be able
to walk there. AS we're crossing a busy intersection a lady buzzed
around the corner almost striking my lady in the wheelchair. OF
course she was babbling on her cell phone.

HEr boss hit a utility pole a couple of years ago during an Iowa
winter, because she was looking at the auto dial memories on her cell
phone. I asked her if it taught her anything. SHe didn't think so.

I see more stupidity on the roads, people messing up regular traffic
flow and being accidents waiting to happen because they're jabbering
on a phone and not driving. My favorite bumper stickers these days
say
"hang up and drive!!!"

Or

"YOu're driving a car not a phone booth!"

REgards,



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

[[email protected]]

On 2003-09-17 said:
>Generally I'd agree, but somehow talking on a cell phone puts you
>somewhere else, not in the general vicinity. Perhaps if you don't
>know then it's because you have better sense. It happens. Some
>people are better at holding a note than I am, even if I don't even
>smoke as many cigarettes as they, nor for as long as they have.
>But far too few people have the ability to walk and chew gum at the
>same time, and these people can have cell phones and drive too.
>Distracted? Yes. But like I said, too many people are treating
>talking on the cell whilst driving like they do talking to people
>in the rumpus room while they are cooking. Not the same thing at
>all, but the cook doesn't normally pull into oncoming traffic
>either. What, have I suddenly become stupid? Did I miss a memo? --

The real problem is the full duplex connection of the phone. even
experienced mobile radio operators know there are times when
distractions from the radio should be avoided and don't operate while
driving or pull to the side. My lady and I are weather spotters and
do quite a bit of ham radio public service comms. MOre than once
she's pulled to the side of the road while interacting with people on
the radio so as to give her whole attention to the road when she's
done.

we observe big city traffic on a daily basis, and more times than not
these days when you see a real bonehead move in traffic the foll
making it is jabbering on the phone.


rEgards,



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

[Mike]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...

I never met Bob all I know of him is his music which I find very spiritual
and that was the basis for my statement
but I haven't met "God" yet either but from all I hear he is a dick ready
to cast children to hell for masturbating or haveing homosexual contact
========

Now George, don't take the word of all those lying S.O.B. humans who think
they speak for God...

[George]

In article >,
"Mike" > wrote:

> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I never met Bob all I know of him is his music which I find very spiritual
> and that was the basis for my statement
> but I haven't met "God" yet either but from all I hear he is a dick ready
> to cast children to hell for masturbating or haveing homosexual contact
> ========
>
> Now George, don't take the word of all those lying S.O.B. humans who think
> they speak for God...
>
>
>
>

LOL, I forgot that kids can get "absolution" by admitting to homosexual
tendencies to cAtholic preists
it's just too perfect !!!!!
George(a cynic asshole at heart)

[ryanm]

"Neil" > wrote in message
om...
>
> At age 14 or so, Journey guitarist Neal Schon played and toured with
> Santana for awhile. I've only been waiting 30+ years to use that bit
> of trivia!
>
Better than that, he played on Abraxis, arguably Santana's best album.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Bill Lorentzen" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>
Nah, why would anyone grow it at home if they could go to 7-11 and get a
pack of Marlboro Gold joints for $5, all of which are perfectly rolled, have
a filter to reduce tar, and are of even consistency and THC content? No one
grows cigarette tobacco or makes beer at home unless they just want to.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
>
> Prohibition grew out of the Abolitionist and Woman's Suffrage
> movements. It was stated as the third goal of a generally
> Utopian/Progressive political movement.
>
Interestingly enough, prohibition caused a drastic increase in the
number of women who not only tried alcohol, but became alcoholics. Prior to
prohibition, drinking was considered a "man's" activity that was done at the
bar, where women were often not allowed (other than the hostesses, dancers,
hookers, etc, of course). During prohibition, however, the speakeasies
understood that women's money was as green as men's and women started
drinking as much as men, and often more.

ryanm

[steve]

Les Cargill wrote:
>

>
> From what I've been able to gather, pot was ( at least in the Hearst
> papers ) more an anti-Hispanic thing. Cocaine was propagandized as
> causing raging ex-slave longshoremen to go on rape rampages. We
> have to keep our race prejudice/drug associations organized :)
>

> Les Cargill

For a perspective on weed, catch a mini-doc called "Grass" either on
Sundance or IFC. Anti-pot started in Texas as a reaction to control
Mexican laborers.

[ryanm]

"Gary Koliger" > wrote in message
...
> thanks for this - I've been looking for this info
>
All that an more at: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

Great read, totally free, and I would think truly enlightening to anyone
who doesn't know something about the subject.

ryanm

[Kurt Albershardt]

steve wrote:

>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>
>> From what I've been able to gather, pot was ( at least in the Hearst
>> papers ) more an anti-Hispanic thing. Cocaine was propagandized as
>> causing raging ex-slave longshoremen to go on rape rampages. We
>> have to keep our race prejudice/drug associations organized :)
>
>
>
> For a perspective on weed, catch a mini-doc called "Grass" either on
> Sundance or IFC. Anti-pot started in Texas as a reaction to control
> Mexican laborers.

In the same way anti-cocaine started as a way to keep crazed negroes
from corrupting "pure white women."

[Phildo]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:51:47 GMT, (LeBaron &
> Alrich) wrote:
>
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >> Then again, oral sex is illegal here too.
> >
> >So, of course, nobody does it.
>
> But we have a definitive ruling from the last presidency that oral sex
> is not, in fact, sex (with that woman). So oral sex per se does't
> exist. So it can't be illegal.
>
You remember when he was in Oxford and tried marijuana but "didn't inhale"?
What he forgot to mention was that is was baked into hash cookies.

As for the drugs issue, I'm for legalising pretty much everything with the
exception of heroin and crack. In one fell swoop the government can clean up
the supply (the major cause of death from drugs is not knowing how strong
the stuff is or what it is cut with), tax it thus creating a huge amount of
revenue, remove that "forbidden fruit" aspect which will drastically reduce
drug use anyway, wipe out a huge amount of organised crime and free up a lot
of police resources. People are going to do it anyway so why not make it
safe, make money out of it (instead of the money going to criminals) and
stop people using the serious drugs like Heroin or crack which nobody will
bother with once other drugs are legal?

Phildo

[Phildo]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> reddred wrote:
>
> > It's pretty silly too, because it's just as easy for a blower to make a
pipe
> > without a shotgun. People can smoke out of anything anyway, so I don't
> > understand the logic.
>
> That sparked some memories. I once made a bong out of a 1 gallon A&W
> jug. Pretty cool idea until it got dumped in the back seat of my car.
>
I was on a tour once with a big glass globe, the sort you normally have
miniature gardens in, emptied out and turned into a 4 man bong. Not only was
it fully flightcased but it was listed on the carnet as a "smoke generator".

Phildo

[George Gleason]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> If the WOD is making it easier to get pot than beer than I sure haven't
seen
> that effect, dammit! <g> From what I hear, prices are exhorbitant
although
> quality is superb, which, of course, blows some of the idea of smoking a
> joint. I mean, when you can't smoke a joint because the pot's too good
then
> what's the use in smoking pot in the first place. Might as well just down
a
> Rohr's 714 with a beer and be done for the day no matter what you were
> trying to do.
>

Depends on the strain
the ropey sativas give you a uplifting bouncy high where the popular
indicas(sp?) give you that "Just got hit with a brick" stupid stare into
space high

many new smokers are super impressed with the current skunk weeds
I am not it is a dirty lazy high
there is quality out there but it is not comeing from the hydoponic
basements
get some that is grown in the hawaii hills or southern California by
someone
you will lose the sweet thick taste but gain a much nice buzz
George

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Roger W. Norman > wrote:

> If the WOD is making it easier to get pot than beer than I sure haven't seen
> that effect, dammit!

Go back to school. High school kids have long said they first
experimented with drugs because they're easier for a minor to get ahold
of than beer is.

ulysses

[Jay Kadis]

In article > "ryanm"
> writes:
[snip]
> Hell, the martini was
> invented to make gin drinkable, because gin was, after all, invented because
> wood alcohol wasn't illegal during prohibition (it would make you go blind
> and die until it was processed into gin).
[snip]

"Wood" alcohol is methanol and highly toxic. It is cannot be processed into
gin, which contains the less-toxic ethanol. I don't think a little Vermouth
makes gin more palatable, although gin was used in India to make quinine more
palatable, as the gin and tonic.

-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

[ryanm]

"Phildo" > wrote in message
...
>
> As for the drugs issue, I'm for legalising pretty much everything with the
> exception of heroin and crack.
>

<snip>

> stop people using the serious drugs like Heroin or crack which nobody will
> bother with once other drugs are legal?
>
Heroin is just a form of morphine, and crack is just a form of cocaine.
All it takes is baking soda and water to make crack from coke. You're right
about that second part, though. But they don't need to be illegal either,
people will stop using them on their own. People have a tendency to moderate
these kinds of things naturally. The reason that there *is* such a thing as
heroin or crack is because the drugs were made illegal. Why sell a gram of
coke for $250 when you can make 25 hits of crack out of that gram and sell
them for $25 each, you double your profits for the same amount of risk
(smuggling a gram of coke into the country). The very same thing happened
during prohibition. Before prohibition, most people drank beer or wine.
During prohibition the smugglers didn't want to deal with beer or wine,
becaue 8 ounces of beer was a $1 drink, while 8 ounces of whiskey was 8 $1
drinks, 8 times the profit for the same amount of work. Cocktails were
pretty much invented during prohibition to make all the liquor palatable for
the drinkers, who were not used to strong liquor. Hell, the martini was
invented to make gin drinkable, because gin was, after all, invented because
wood alcohol wasn't illegal during prohibition (it would make you go blind
and die until it was processed into gin). Given the choice, people will
always tend to go for the slower, smoother high (beer or wine instead of
liquor, coke instead of crack, morphine instead of heroin, etc). Now,
because of both prohibition and the WOD we have a whole lot of people
already addicted to these stronger forms of the drugs, and it's going to
take some time (probably several generations) for people to gravitate back
towards the slower and less harmful drugs, but it will happen, it's just
human nature.

ryanm

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Kadis > wrote:
>In article > "ryanm"
> writes:
>[snip]
>> Hell, the martini was
>> invented to make gin drinkable, because gin was, after all, invented because
>> wood alcohol wasn't illegal during prohibition (it would make you go blind
>> and die until it was processed into gin).
>
>"Wood" alcohol is methanol and highly toxic. It is cannot be processed into
>gin, which contains the less-toxic ethanol. I don't think a little Vermouth
>makes gin more palatable, although gin was used in India to make quinine more
>palatable, as the gin and tonic.

Gin was, in fact, invented in the 18th century as a way to make cheap
column-distilled neutral spirits palatable. It's a lot cheaper to make
neutral spirits than a conventional distilled whiskey (which is normally
made in a pot or alembic still that takes several passes to get up to proof
and results in a lot of lost alcohol in the process).

I strongly recommend the Hogarth engravings in the "Gin Lane" series as a
nice set of examples of the harm excessive alcohol causes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George Gleason]

> I strongly recommend the Hogarth engravings in the "Gin Lane" series as a
> nice set of examples of the harm excessive alcohol causes.
> --scott
I will be trying excessive achohol sunday
I got a case of "old foghorn ."(anchors Barley wine a .75l of 21 yo port
wood balvinie and a .75 l of good tequila(I forget the name right now but
it came highly recommended)
along with about 100 utility beers(labatts blue)
Iwill let ya know how my fall fest after party works out
I am hopeing some growers are bringing some primo tops as well
:-)
George

[Willie K.Yee, M.D.]

On 24 Sep 2003 17:56:58 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> It's a lot cheaper to make
>neutral spirits than a conventional distilled whiskey (which is normally
>made in a pot or alembic still that takes several passes to get up to proof
>and results in a lot of lost alcohol in the process). . .

If Scott had been around at the beginning of the 19th century, they
wouldn't have bothered to start the Library of Congress. He must have
a hippocampus the size of Manhattan stuffed inside his brain.

--

Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org

[Roger W. Norman]

And he's just talking about facts. Wait 'till he starts telling STORIES
about gigs.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Willie K.Yee, M.D." > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Sep 2003 17:56:58 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > It's a lot cheaper to make
> >neutral spirits than a conventional distilled whiskey (which is normally
> >made in a pot or alembic still that takes several passes to get up to
proof
> >and results in a lot of lost alcohol in the process). . .
>
> If Scott had been around at the beginning of the 19th century, they
> wouldn't have bothered to start the Library of Congress. He must have
> a hippocampus the size of Manhattan stuffed inside his brain.
>
> --
>
> Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
> Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
> Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band
http://www.bigbluebigband.org
>

[Roger W. Norman]

And he's just talking about facts. Wait 'till he starts telling STORIES
about gigs.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Willie K.Yee, M.D." > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Sep 2003 17:56:58 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > It's a lot cheaper to make
> >neutral spirits than a conventional distilled whiskey (which is normally
> >made in a pot or alembic still that takes several passes to get up to
proof
> >and results in a lot of lost alcohol in the process). . .
>
> If Scott had been around at the beginning of the 19th century, they
> wouldn't have bothered to start the Library of Congress. He must have
> a hippocampus the size of Manhattan stuffed inside his brain.
>
> --
>
> Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
> Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
> Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band
http://www.bigbluebigband.org
>