** CANNABIS ** is not marijuana!
CANNABIS.COM
Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
You can help to improve the public's perception and understanding of this
wonderful plant by calling it cannabis (** or hemp) instead of pot or marijuana
which both have negative connotations.
** Low-THC cannabis which is grown for use as fiber is often called hemp.
Spread the word about cannabis!
Have questions? See the Cannabis/Hemp FAQ (html version) at:
http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/
CANNABIS.COM
Ron Bennett
Marc
ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) said:
>Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
Isn't marijuanna just the Spanish name for cannabis? Are you also leading
a crusade against people calling others "amigo?"
Marc
For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
E. Faubion
ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
>Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
Correct. Personally I prefer dope. That way it doesn't matter
whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
around it. :=]
Robert Gonzalez
Marc (Gum...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) said:
:
: >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
:
: Isn't marijuanna just the Spanish name for cannabis? Are you also leading
: a crusade against people calling others "amigo?"
Marijuanna is the name of the drug, Cannabis(sp?) is (part of) the name of
the plant.
The plant has many uses, only one of which is as a drug.
: Marc
CANNABIS.COM
In article <3428a673...@news.tamu.edu>, Gum...@tamu.edu says...
>
>ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) said:
>
>>Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
>
>Isn't marijuanna just the Spanish name for cannabis? Are you also leading
NO!!!! Marijuana which means Mary Jane in spanish is a derogatory slang term
first coined in the 1930s to describe cannabis use by Mexicans, etc.
CANNABIS.COM
Ron Bennett
shug
In article <60b0ie$k...@news.cyberenet.net>, Robert Gonzalez
<1go...@cyberenet.net> writes
>Marc (Gum...@tamu.edu) wrote:
>: ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) said:
>: >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
>: Isn't marijuanna just the Spanish name for cannabis? Are you also leading
>Marijuanna is the name of the drug,
Marijuana is the nick-name of the drug, so is marihuana.
> Cannabis(sp?)
No, you got that right, its just MJ you got wrong :-)
>is (part of) the name of
>the plant.
And the correct name for the drug.
>
>The plant has many uses, only one of which is as a drug.
Can't dispute that.
Shug
Legalise Cannabis Campaign Scotland http://www.thepulse.co.uk/lcc.scotland
Media Awareness Project UK http://www.eezeecope.demon.co.uk/Legalise-UK/
pages/MAP-UK.html
The Legalize! Initiative http://www.legalize.org/global
UK Cannabis Internet Activists http://www.foobar.co.uk/users/ukcia/
Greg Lousignont
E. Faubion wrote:
>
> ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
>
> >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
>
> whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
> around it. :=]
I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
--
Be Careful Out There!
Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D.
The LEO-IDâ„¢ Pin
http://www.kamakazi.com/leoid/badgpin.htm
SMokin'
E. Faubion <efau...@oklahoma.net> wrote in article
<3428b2d3....@news.okc.oklahoma.net>...
> ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
>
> >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed
with.
>
> Correct. Personally I prefer dope. That way it doesn't matter
> whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
> around it. :=]
And for Earl, we prefer the name "pecker head." No explanation needed.
--
- SMokin'
Prison for praise is not worth thinking
sin is still in and our ballots are shrinking
so unleash the dogs - the only soloution
forgive and forget, fuck no
I'm talking about a revolution.
- Corrosion of Conformity
Remove "-this" from my address to reply by mail.
justin
Okay, i agree with you about the pot thing, that's gotta go.... along
with weed.... I use the name, but i hate it... Marijuana however is not
in anyway bad naming cannabis. Its more cathy of a word then pot or
weed....
SMokin'
justin <jbo...@mindless.com> wrote in article
<342ACE...@mindless.com>...
How about shit. Can we call it shit? I know you can in my area, damn
brickweed commercial bullshit.
Nate Walker
>I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
>express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
Why should the dealers hang themselves when they can just deal the
product and make tons of money, with the only worry that a cop might
put down his/her donut and possibly catch them? The profit is just
worth it.
lam...@bite.me.spammers
ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) writes:
>Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
>
>wonderful plant by calling it cannabis (** or hemp) instead of pot or marijuana
>which both have negative connotations.
This won't improve the public's perception. If what you suggest caught on
other people would just label it "PC thought control" and dismiss it.
--
Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu)
ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
"It all comes from here, the stench and the peril."--Frodo (from Perl5/toke.c)
Phil Stovell
In alt.drugs.pot, Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
>express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
I've got stomach and liver problems caused by alcohol.
Justice J.F. McCart Ontario Court (General Division, Southwest Region)
14 August 1997:-
"I wish to turn now to some statistical evidence which was introduced
by various of the witnesses and which I accept as valid. I heard from
a most impressive number of experts, among whom there was a general
consensus about effects of the consumption of marijuana. From an
analysis of their evidence I am able to reach the following
conclusions:
1. Consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to
the so-called hard drugs and including tobacco and alcohol;
2. There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible
organic or mental damage from the consumption of marijuana;
3. That cannabis does cause alteration of mental functions and as
such, it would not be prudent to drive a car while intoxicated;
4. There is no hard evidence that cannabis consumption induces
psychoses;
5. Cannabis is not an addictive substance;
6. Marijuana is not criminogenic in that there is no evidence of a
causal relationship between cannabis use and criminality;
7. That the consumption of marijuana probably does not lead to "hard
drug" use for the vast majority of marijuana consumers, although there
appears to be a statistical relationship between the use of marijuana
and a variety of other psychoactive drugs;
8. Marijuana does not make people more aggressive or violent;
9. There have been no recorded deaths from the consumption of
marijuana;
10. There is no evidence that marijuana causes amotivational syndrome;
11. Less than 1% of marijuana consumers are daily users;
12. Consumption in so-called "de-criminalized states" does not
increase out of proportion to states where there is no
de-criminalization.
13. Health related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared
to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol consumption."
--
Phil Stovell
Petersfield, Hants, UK
ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk
http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/
SMokin'
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3429BF...@ix.netcom.com>...
with.
> >
> > whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
> > around it. :=]
>
> express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
That was kinda rude. I guess you're an asshole.
SMokin'
CANNABIS.COM
In article <60d0re$s2r$1...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, lam...@bite.me.spammers
says...
>
>ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) writes:
>>Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
>>
>>wonderful plant by calling it cannabis (** or hemp) instead of pot or
marijuana
>>which both have negative connotations.
>
>This won't improve the public's perception. If what you suggest caught on
>other people would just label it "PC thought control" and dismiss it.
Wouldn't be any different than the promotion of the derogatory slang word
marijuana in the 1930s to Americans in the attempt to control the plant.
I've found that when people use the word cannabis over time that they're more
likely to think of it as a useful plant as opposed to just some illicit drug.
CANNABIS.COM
Ron Bennett
Jasper O'Malley
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
>express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
Wonderfully ignorant point of view. In fact, I think we need more extremists
like you freely expressing your opinions so that the general public can see
just what a pack of zealots you really are.
BTW, I think you should be beaten with a rubber hose for eating red meat.
See how stupid that sounds?
Cheers,
Mick
--
The Reverend Jasper P. O'Malley dotdot:jo...@webspan.net
Freelance Crackerjack ringring:1800fubared
SEND HELP woowoo:http://www.webspan.net/~jooji
R Givens
In article <3428a673...@news.tamu.edu>, Gu...@tamu.edu (Marc) wrote:
> ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) said:
>
> >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
>
> Isn't marijuanna just the Spanish name for cannabis? Are you also leading
> a crusade against people calling others "amigo?"
>
> Marc
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
The term "marihuana" was used by Harry J Anslinger to prevent people
familiar with HEMP and cannabis from opposing legislation to outlaw their
industries.
The AMA, hempseed and oil merchants, hemp growers, hemp manufacturers and
many others with a stake in the "marihuana" industry only found out about
the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 a few days before the hearings for this
law. Farmers, birdseed sellers and medical people did not realize that
the "marihuana" Harry Anslinger was ranting and raving about was the same
cannabis and hemp they were familiar with.
The word "marihuana" is a slang Mexican term that had no use in the United
States until Reefer Maniacs such as William Randolph Hearst set out to
outlaw a useful plant. So the term "marihuana" is nothing more than
another narco lie intended to conceal the true worth of this magnificent
plant.
The correct botanical name is Cannabis Sativa L.. The correct
agricultural term is HEMP. The correct medical term is CANNABIS.
R Givens
R Givens
Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D. wrote:
> I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
> express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
Really. I suppose you also favor releasing over a hundred thousand
rapists, child molesters and violent sex offenders to provide cell space
for non-violent drug users.
Maybe you could explain how these priorities protect the public.
R Givens
-----------------------------------------
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
----------------------------------------- For release: February 5, 1997
----------------------------------------- For additional information:
George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
Internet: 76214...@CompuServe.com
-----------------------------------------
Government releases 134,000 convicted sex criminals to lock up pot-smokers
instead, Libertarians charge
WASHINGTON, DC -- More than 134,000 sex criminals are roaming the streets
of America -- preying on innocent women and children -- thanks to the War
on Drugs, the Libertarian Party charged today.
"How many women and children will be raped or sexually molested because,
instead of keeping sexual predators behind bars, politicians have filled
our nation's jails with non-violent drug users?" asked Steve Dasbach, the
party's national chairman.
His question followed a report released this week by the Department of
Justice, which revealed that 134,300 violent sex criminals were released
on parole or probation in 1994.
Astonishingly, only 99,300 sex criminals remained behind bars, according
to the same report -- meaning the government set free more rapists and
molesters than it kept in jail.
"Why were those 134,300 sex criminals released?" asked Dasbach. "Because
the government's War On Drugs is filling the nation's prisons at a rapid
rate -- while acting as a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' for rapists."
For example, Dasbach noted:
* One year after releasing the 134,300 sex criminals, the government
arrested 589,000 individuals for possession of marijuana, according to the
FBI.
* 400,000 Americans are currently jailed on non-violent drug charges,
according to federal figures.
* Of that number, 50,000 people are now in prison for mere possession of
marijuana, according to drug policy experts.
"Every one of those non-violent drug prisoners occupies a cell that could
be used by a sexual predator instead," Dasbach noted. "If we pardoned
non-violent drug users, every one of the 134,300 sex criminals the
politicians released could be locked up again -- without spending one more
dollar or building one more jail cell."
Instead, the politicians apparently made the decision to put tens of
thousands of American women at risk, Dasbach said.
"One Justice Department study says the recidivism rate for parolees is
69%," he said. "At that rate, those 134,300 freed rapists will victimize
another 92,000 American women. But, sadly, few of those victims will know
that the attack could have been averted if politicians focused on
preventing violence instead of punishing vice."
The 1994 exodus of rapists is partly attributable to that year's Crime
Bill, Dasbach noted, which mandated life sentences for many drug law
violators.
"Before the Crime Bill passed, 34 states were under court orders to reduce
prison populations, often requiring the release of violent criminals," he
said, "Along came the new legislation, with more mandatory life sentences
for drug crimes. The longer jail terms for drug offenders compelled prison
officials to set more sexual predators free.
"It's ironic that the Crime Bill, which Bill Clinton bragged would put
100,000 new cops on the beat, actually helped put 134,300 rapists on the
street," he said. "It's even more ironic that politicians also passed the
so-called Violence Against Women Act in 1994 -- which increased federal
funding for streetlights and domestic violence hotlines -- at the same
time they were turning loose tens of thousands of rapists.
"America's women are paying a terrible price because politicians would
rather keep a person in jail for smoking a marijuana cigarette than for
rape," said Dasbach. "Thanks to the politicians, the War on Drugs has
become a War on Women."
--
The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072
For subscription changes, please mail to <announce...@lp.org with the
word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW
form.
E. Faubion
rgi...@sirius.com (R Givens) wrote:
>I suppose you include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
>James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
>dopes.
I post humor, you post humor. Sounds fair to me.
Kaspar Baechi
In article <01bcc964$15f631e0$bcaa...@smokin.iquest.net>, "SMokin'"
<smo...@iquest.netthis> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
> > express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
> > Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D.
>
> That was kinda rude. I guess you're an asshole.
>
> SMokin'
Yea, right, I hoped the Lundberg syndrome was finally over, now we've got
another sucker coming in with that stuff. This thread is interesting, it's
discussing language use, not using bad language.
So please, Gregory, use the rope for yourself and let us have the buds!
Kaspar
R Givens
In article <3428b2d3....@news.okc.oklahoma.net>,
efau...@oklahoma.net wrote:
> ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
>
> >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
>
> Correct. Personally I prefer dope. That way it doesn't matter
> whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
> around it. :=]
I suppose you include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
dopes.
Are people who advocate cannabis sativa because HEMP produces five times
as much paper per acre as woodpulp timber dummies for trying to save the
environment?
R Givens
"American High Society," pp. 192-193 from "Hemp: Lifeline to the Future,"
by Chris Conrad, 1994, Creative Expressions Publications, $12.95 from FS
Book Company, Sacramento, 1-800-635-8883 credit cards, 916-771-4203
customer service. (I have no financial or other interest in FS; it's just
that they have good service and ship stuff out the same day - Phil Smith):
Quoted verbatim:
The extent of cannabis smoking during the Colonial era is still subject to
debate. President George Washington wrote a letter that contained an
oblique reference to what may have been hashish. "The artificial
preparation of hemp, from Silesia, is really a curiosity." (*38)
Washington made specific written references to Indian hemp, or cannabis
indica, and hoped to "have disseminated the seed to others. " (*39) His
August 7, 1765 diary entry, "began to separate the male from the female
(hemp) plants," describes a harvesting technique favored to enhance the
potency of smoking cannabis, among other reasons. (*40) Hemp farmer Thomas
Jefferson and paper maker Ben Franklin were ambassadors to France during
the initial surge of the hashish vogue. Their celebrity status and
progressive revolutionary image afforded them ample opportunities to try
new experiences. Jefferson smuggled Chinese hemp seeds to America and is
credited with the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "Life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
[I'm told this has been attributed to someone else - Phil Smith]
Did the Founding Fathers of the United States of America smoke cannabis?
Some researchers think so. Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical
Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted
seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and
Franklin Pierce. (*41) "Early letters from our founding fathers refer to
the pleasures of hemp smoking," said Burke. Pierce, Taylor and Jackson,
all military men, smoked it with their troops. Cannabis was twice as
popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce
wrote to his family that it was "about the only good thing" about that
war.
Central and Western African natives were farming and harvesting cannabis
sativa in North America as slaves. If they did smoke on the plantations,
that would be kept secret. (*42) By the time of the Louisiana purchase in
1803, New Orleans had a mixed Spanish, French, Creole, Cajun, Mexican and
Black population. The city teemed with adventurers and sailors, wise to
the ways of cannabis. It was mixed with tobacco or smoked alone, used to
season food (*43), to treat insomnia and impotence, and so on.
Cannabis was mentioned as a medicinal agent in a formal American medical
text as early as 1843. (*44)
*38 A region now shared by Germany & Poland. Letter to Dr. James Anderson,
May 26, 1794. in Writings of George Washington. Washington DC. vol. 33. p.
384.
*39 Ibid. vol. 35. p. 72
*40 Such as creating more space for females to flower for seed production,
or to take advantage of the male fiber before it overmatures in the field.
*41 Burke asserted that Washington & Jefferson were said to exchange
smoking blends as personal gifts. Washington reportedly preferred a pipe
full of "the leaves of hemp" to alcohol, & wrote in his diaries that he
enjoyed the fragrance of hemp flowers. Madison once remarked that hemp
gave him insight to create a new & democratic nation. Monroe, creator of
the Monroe Doctrine, began smoking it as Ambassador to France & continued
to the age of 73. Burke. "Pot & Presidents." in 'Green Egg.' CA. June 21,
1975
*42 "That might explain some cultural differences." Aldrich, Michael,
Ph.D. 'On use of marijuana by slaves in colonial times.' in Best of High
Times. vol. 10. 1991. p. 61
*43 Hakluyt, 'Divers voyages touching the discoverie of America.' London 1582
*44 Pereira, J. 'Elements of Materia Medica & Therapeutics. ' Lea &
Blanchard. Philadelphia PA 1843
R Givens
E Faubion wrote:
Correct. Personally I prefer dope. That way it doesn't matter
whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
around it. :=]
> rgi...@sirius.com (R Givens) wrote:
>
> >I suppose you include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
> >James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
> >dopes.
>
> I post humor, you post humor. Sounds fair to me.
I bet your Reefer Madness humor would have them rolling on the floor.
If it wasn't dope smoking Presidents you meant, maybe you had in mind the
gang of pot smoking, LSD tripping dopers who invented desktop computing
between bong hits.
According to Bob Wallace, one of the founders of Microsoft, personal
computers as we know them would not exist without the discoveries of
unreformed hippies out to do the world some good.
The reason APPLE is in so much trouble today is that they have substituted
piss tests for joint breaks and driven the truly inventive people out of
the company! Maybe Steve Jobs will change that being as how he was one of
the main acidheads who put the show on the road. The hipsters made the
breakthroughs, not the bolted down IBM types.
The Homebrew Computer Club, which was the birthplace of Apple computers
and the spawning ground for more computer millionaires than you can shake
a stick at, was a real bunch of dopes.
If it wasn't the dopes in silicone valley you had in mind, perhaps you
were thinking about Dr Karey Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning DNA
researcher who discovered the PCR techniques that revolutionized genetic
studies. Mullis is not at all bashful about admitting that his PCR
discovery was the result of several LSD trips. Mullis's discoveries are
considered comparable in DNA research to Einstein's relativity theory in
physics. Mullis is such a dope that his work has literally changed the
entire field.
R Givens
Kaspar Baechi
In article <01bcc964$6676b720$bcaa...@smokin.iquest.net>, "SMokin'"
<smo...@iquest.netthis> wrote:
That touches a true problem. The in-words used for THC-containing plants
vary greatly around this planet:
Gras, Dope, Brösel, Knaster, Grüne Kraft (green power), Psychovitamins,
Kunubu, Kunnapu, Cannabis, Kannabis, Konnab, Kinab, Kon-nab, Kannab,
Kanub, Kinnab, Quinnab, Konneb, Quonnab, Uinnaq, Quinnab, Kenneb,
Alcanque, Kinnabis, Kinnub, Kanop, Kanaq, Ranob, Canapa, Kanep, Canep,
Konopj, Konople, Konipli, Konoplia, Canapa, Cannappa, Canamo, Canhamo,
Canamazo, Kanas, Kas, Hon-neb, Hen-nab, Hennip, Nennup, Hampa, Hamp, Kamp,
Kemp, Hemp, Hanf, Cannabis Indica, Cannabis Sativa, Kandir, Bhanga, Banue,
Banga, Bhang, Bang, Beng, Benhin, Benj, Bendj, Ganja, Ganjica, Gangika,
Ganga, Ginji, Ginjeh, Guinnjeh, Gindsche, Gunjab Guaza, Haschischa,
Hasheesh, Hashish, Haschisch, Hachache, Hachaichi, Hadschi, Azallu,
Subjee, Shesh, Assis, Axis, Assyuni, Asarath,Nasha, Anascha, Asa, Dakka,
Dakha, Dacha, Dakkan, Dagga, Djamba, Diamba, Jamba, Riamba, Damba,
Kanedir, Kanabira, Kendir, Kender, Kennevir, Kenevir, Kentyr,Butt,
Cadaneh, Cansjava, Chanvre, Chenevis, Chutsao, Chu-Tsao, Chu-tso, Hursuni,
Indrasans, Jia, Intsangu, Keff, Kif, Kief, Kinif, Kerp, Kharaneq,
Sharaneq, Shanareq, Sjarank, sheera, Ma, Ma-yo, Ta-ma, Si-ma, Tse-ma,
Maguen, El MOgen, Malach, Mosjuschk, Maconha, Marihuana, Mariguana,
Marajuana, Matakwane, Mnoanan, Mutokwana, Opishnu, Penek, Pienka, Penka,
Rongoyne, Sejav, Ahets-Mangha, Fasuhk, Vijaya, Teriaki, Tekrowia,
Takrousi, Takut, Takruri, Takrouri, Tekrouri, Berch, Bernavi, Bernouay,
Bers, Bosa, Charas, Chiras, Churus, Churrus, Chire, Marihuana Pura, Gard,
Rup, Taghalim, Gabza, Mornea, Shahjehani, Mashak, Bhara, Dust, Chastry,
chatzraki, Chinty, Dawamesc, Dawamesck, Kawamesc, Diamoschum, Diamusch,
Diamesch, Diamesk, Dyasmouck, Esrar, Extract of Hemp, The Emerald Cup Of
Haider, Garawischk Hachich-Kafour, Hachich, Hafiou, Hafioun, Hashish Oil,
Cokked Hashish, Maju, Majum, Tadhal, Majoon, Madihjoon, Majoom, Madjun,
Madjoun, Magioun, Majoan, Mapuchari, Mapouchari, Mapouchair, Maslac,
Masha, Ma'agoun, Manzoul, Manjoun, Haloua, Masmoch, Malak, Maraguango,
Juanita, Dona Juanita, Maria Johanna, Rosa Maria, Nabutal Qunnab, Subji,
Patti, Ganje-kuper, Gur , Siddhi, Sabzi, Philganja, Davia, Sukhu, Sidhi,
Sabza, Thandai, Sabzi, Subzee, Darakte-bang, Darakthe-Kinnab, Drakte-Bang,
Nabatul-Qunnab, Muggles, Mooter , Reefers, Greffa, Griffo, Mary Warner,
Mary Weaver, Mary Jane, Indian Hay, Loco Weed, Love Wee, Joy-smoke,
Giggle-smoke, Bambalacha, Mohasky, Mu, Moocah, The Weed, Grass, Tea,
Ea-Tay, EEd-way, Eed-Waggles.
So I guess an International, even a national consensus on a proper name
would be almost impossible.
Kaspar
lam...@bite.me.spammers
rgi...@sirius.com (R Givens) writes:
>The correct botanical name is Cannabis Sativa L.. The correct
>agricultural term is HEMP. The correct medical term is CANNABIS.
"This is correct, that is not."
This is precisely what I'm talking about in my previous message. I'm sorry,
but the first response which pops into my head when I read this is "christ,
smoke some pot and loosen up."
Teach people about Anslinger and how he used the term "marihuana" and let
people figure out for themselves what is correct and what isn't.
lam...@bite.me.spammers
ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) writes:
>>This won't improve the public's perception. If what you suggest caught on
>>other people would just label it "PC thought control" and dismiss it.
>
>Wouldn't be any different than the promotion of the derogatory slang word
>marijuana in the 1930s to Americans in the attempt to control the plant.
Yeah, but poor mexican immigrants didn't a propaganda system to promote a
"backlash."
>I've found that when people use the word cannabis over time that they're more
>likely to think of it as a useful plant as opposed to just some illicit drug.
But correlation does not imply causality. And IMHO, I think it's better to
educate people about the plant and the drug and to just point out the fact
that marijuana was a derogatory and racist term -- and let them figure out
the rest for themselves. Educate rather than tell people how to talk.
Center the discussion on issues rather than superficial labels.
lam...@bite.me.spammers
efau...@oklahoma.net (E. Faubion) writes:
>rgi...@sirius.com (R Givens) wrote:
>>I suppose you include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
>>James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
>>dopes.
>
>I post humor, you post humor. Sounds fair to me.
Thanks for letting us know that you're comletely ignorant of the industrial
uses of hemp in the 18th and 19th centuries. And furthermore that you're
too stupid to bother learning anything about it.
Marc
>>I suppose you include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
>>James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
>>dopes.
>I post humor, you post humor. Sounds fair to me.
You said that people that use dope are dopes (or something to that effect).
The people above grew/used dope. Therfore, you think they are dopes,
right? If you disagree, where is the point of disagreement?
MArc
Kirk Nechamkin
SMokin' (smo...@iquest.net) wrote:
: justin <jbo...@mindless.com> wrote in article
: <342ACE...@mindless.com>...
: > Okay, i agree with you about the pot thing, that's gotta go.... along
: > with weed.... I use the name, but i hate it... Marijuana however is not
: > in anyway bad naming cannabis. Its more cathy of a word then pot or
: > weed....
I like the name Cannabis. Its the genus name of the plant. And it has a
nice ring to it -- a ring of sophistication. Its like calling a weiner
a frankfuter.
-Kirk
:
Kirk Nechamkin
: >I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
: >express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
Why does it bother you that people use dope? I mean, shouldn't you be
MORE concerned by crime and things that actually have an impact on your
life?
Why should you care what another person does in the privacy of his/her
home?
Its really none of your damn business, because it doesn't affect you
in the least.
Plenty of very successful, very great people have smoked pot with
reasonable frequency, and studies show it does not interfere with
productivity in a negative way (in fact, pot smokers, according to a
recent study, performed better, got more promotions).
Try focusing on boozers and such who actually are a threat to their
families, and to everyone else on the road.
-Kirk
Kirk Nechamkin
I think "cannabis" has a nice ring to it -- one of sophistication. Its
Greg Lousignont
SMokin' wrote:
>
> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <3429BF...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > >
> > > ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed
> with.
> > >
> > > whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
> > > around it. :=]
> >
> > express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
>
> That was kinda rude. I guess you're an asshole.
>
> SMokin'
Why yes, I am, thank you for noticing. You have broke the code. You
obviously heard my wife talking about me, as she so often does, in
endearing terms.
You're an asshole, you're an idiot, you're a jerk, you're such a dick,
you don't have the brains god gave a toilet, eat shit and die, what do
you think you're going to do with that thing? You're a sad little man.
All this from a woman who says she loves me with all her heart. And
love a kick in the nuts!!!??
E. Faubion
Gu...@tamu.edu (Marc) wrote:
>You said that people that use dope are dopes (or something to that effect).
And it was also followed by a happy face, a little fact a few around
here apparently overlooked in their haste to jump on someone who dare
call them names in jest. Tch tch. My point has been made and I'm
not surprised you missed it.
E. Faubion
lam...@bite.me.spammers wrote:
>Thanks for letting us know that you're comletely ignorant of the industrial
>uses of hemp in the 18th and 19th centuries. And furthermore that you're
>too stupid to bother learning anything about it.
Maybe I should light up and get smart, huh? Hehehe.... instant
lobotomy.
You need to learn how to take a joke.
Jasper O'Malley
efau...@oklahoma.net (E. Faubion) writes:
>jo...@orion.webspan.net (Jasper O'Malley) wrote:
>>BTW, I think you should be beaten with a rubber hose for eating red meat.
>>See how stupid that sounds?
>Jasper, of all people I thought you'd be one of the first to pick up
>on what a smiley face means. But that's okay, I'll pardon you the
>slip.... this time. :=)
Sadly, Earl, I wasn't replying to one of your posts :)
I was replying to Greg's suggestion that we should legalize industrial
hemp for the express purpose of supplying marijuana smokers with
strong ropes with which they might hang themselves.
E. Faubion
jo...@orion.webspan.net (Jasper O'Malley) wrote:
>BTW, I think you should be beaten with a rubber hose for eating red meat.
>See how stupid that sounds?
Jasper, of all people I thought you'd be one of the first to pick up
on what a smiley face means. But that's okay, I'll pardon you the
slip.... this time. :=)
ef
Greg Lousignont
R Givens wrote:
>
> Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D. wrote:
> > I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
> > express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
>
> rapists, child molesters and violent sex offenders to provide cell space
> for non-violent drug users.
>
> Maybe you could explain how these priorities protect the public.
> R Givens
No not at all! I favor executing those assholes, to provide more jail
space for non-violent drug users.
--
Greg Lousignont
Jasper O'Malley wrote:
>
> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
> >express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
>
> like you freely expressing your opinions so that the general public can see
> just what a pack of zealots you really are.
Why thank you!
> BTW, I think you should be beaten with a rubber hose for eating red meat.
> See how stupid that sounds?
Yes, it really does sound stupid, considering eating red meat wasn't a
crime, last time I checked. Why don't you just beat your meat with a
rubber hose?
> Cheers,
> Mick
>
> --
> The Reverend Jasper P. O'Malley dotdot:jo...@webspan.net
> Freelance Crackerjack ringring:1800fubared
> SEND HELP woowoo:http://www.webspan.net/~jooji
--
Greg Lousignont
Marc wrote:
>
> efau...@oklahoma.net (E. Faubion) said:
> >rgi...@sirius.com (R Givens) wrote:
>
> >>I suppose you include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
> >>James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
> >>dopes.
>
> >I post humor, you post humor. Sounds fair to me.
>
> right? If you disagree, where is the point of disagreement?
>
> MArc
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
I think you're a dope when you engage in an activity that is unlawful
and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
Marc
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>I think you're a dope when you engage in an activity that is unlawful
>and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
So the people that smoked dope in previous times (like many of "the
founding fathers") aren't dopes because the gvt didn't try to incarcerate
them for it, but now-a-days, people that smoke dope are dopes because the
government threatens them with harm if they do it?
Marc
Nate Walker
>I think you're a dope when you engage in an activity that is unlawful
It's sad when people can only defend their point be spouting the "it's
legal" or "it's illegal" argument. We learned that these arguments
are very poor in high school debate class.
>and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
an enlightened state compared to all the crappy laws in the south and
midwest, an ounce or less is a penalty of a fine. Usually, the cops
don't bother to give the ticket because they don't want to deal with
the paperwork, and if they did give a ticket, it is probably the most
minor misdemeanor here, which means you don't have to report it to
most jobs. Anyways my boss knows I smoke weed. As long as I don't go
to wor high (which I don't), it's all right. My boss has this crazy
idea that what I do on my own time is my business, provided that I am
not causing harm to anyone else.
Steven Proffitt
Greg Lousignont (cop...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: E. Faubion wrote:
: > ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
: >
: > > Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed
: > > with.
: >
: > Correct. Personally I prefer dope. That way it doesn't matter
: > whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life
: > revolves around it. :=]
: I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
: express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
But, what if we decided to use that rope in a way of which you
didn't approve of? Would you be offended? Would you go off the deep
end? Would you throw a timper tantrum?
Greg Lousignont
>
> > ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
> >
> > >Pot and marijuana are derogatory slang terms and should be dispensed with.
> >
> > Correct. Personally I prefer dope. That way it doesn't matter
> > whether you're referring to the plant or the dummy whose life revolves
> > around it. :=]
>
> James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
> dopes.
>
> as much paper per acre as woodpulp timber dummies for trying to save the
> environment?
> R Givens
I understand the history. But back then the drug did not bring with it
all the other negative aspects. Dope dealers are into much more than
dope dealing. They are into all kinds of crime.
Now maybe MJ should be legalized. Maybe this would stop all the other
associated crime. I don't know. As a society, we are apparently too
afraid to give it a try and see what happens.
Personally I prefer to sit down and relax with a nice large ice cold
glass of Pepsi.
Greg Lousignont
Phil Stovell wrote:
>
> In alt.drugs.pot, Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
> >express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
>
>
> Justice J.F. McCart Ontario Court (General Division, Southwest Region)
> 14 August 1997:-
>
> "I wish to turn now to some statistical evidence which was introduced
> by various of the witnesses and which I accept as valid. I heard from
> a most impressive number of experts, among whom there was a general
> consensus about effects of the consumption of marijuana. From an
> analysis of their evidence I am able to reach the following
> conclusions:
>
> 1. Consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to
> the so-called hard drugs and including tobacco and alcohol;
>
> 2. There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible
> organic or mental damage from the consumption of marijuana;
>
> 3. That cannabis does cause alteration of mental functions and as
> such, it would not be prudent to drive a car while intoxicated;
>
> 4. There is no hard evidence that cannabis consumption induces
> psychoses;
>
> 5. Cannabis is not an addictive substance;
>
> 6. Marijuana is not criminogenic in that there is no evidence of a
> causal relationship between cannabis use and criminality;
>
> 7. That the consumption of marijuana probably does not lead to "hard
> drug" use for the vast majority of marijuana consumers, although there
>
> appears to be a statistical relationship between the use of marijuana
> and a variety of other psychoactive drugs;
>
> 8. Marijuana does not make people more aggressive or violent;
>
> 9. There have been no recorded deaths from the consumption of
> marijuana;
>
> 10. There is no evidence that marijuana causes amotivational syndrome;
>
> 11. Less than 1% of marijuana consumers are daily users;
>
> 12. Consumption in so-called "de-criminalized states" does not
> increase out of proportion to states where there is no
> de-criminalization.
>
> 13. Health related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared
> to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol consumption."
> --
> Phil Stovell
> Petersfield, Hants, UK
> ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk
> http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/
All may be true, but MJ is illegal, you use it, buy it, sell it, your
going to get arrested, end of story.
Believe it or not I do have a problem when the people vote to legalize
MJ for medical use and then the government tries to strike down the
law. If the people vote to change the law then the government has
spoken because ideally the government is supposed to be the people.
I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
redeeming value. But if they law is changed by the people, then I have
a problem in principle with the government saying, well yeah you voted
to change the law, but we don't like the way you voted so it doesn't
count.
Somethings wrong there!
Marc
efau...@oklahoma.net (E. Faubion) said:
>Gu...@tamu.edu (Marc) wrote:
>>You said that people that use dope are dopes (or something to that effect).
>And it was also followed by a happy face, a little fact a few around
>here apparently overlooked in their haste to jump on someone who dare
>call them names in jest. Tch tch. My point has been made and I'm
>not surprised you missed it.
Earl is a dope ;)
Marc
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
>redeeming value.
Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
Jasper O'Malley
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Jasper O'Malley wrote:
>> BTW, I think you should be beaten with a rubber hose for eating red meat.
>> See how stupid that sounds?
>Yes, it really does sound stupid, considering eating red meat wasn't a
>crime, last time I checked. Why don't you just beat your meat with a
>rubber hose?
So you think drug users should kill thmselves because they break the law?
Should jaywalkers hang themselves as well, Greg? How about speeders?
Let's take the issue of legality out of it for a second. Do you want
drug users to hang themselves because you think they're harming themselves
or engaging in socially unacceptable behavior?
If so, my point was that eating red meat is potentially harmful, completely
unnecessary, and downright disgusting to a lot of vegetarians. I don't,
however, see you scrambling to condemn carnivores, or suggesting meat-eaters
kill themselves.
Jasper O'Malley
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I understand the history. But back then the drug did not bring with it
>all the other negative aspects. Dope dealers are into much more than
>dope dealing. They are into all kinds of crime.
Then legalize the trade and bring it out of the black market.
>Now maybe MJ should be legalized. Maybe this would stop all the other
>associated crime. I don't know. As a society, we are apparently too
>afraid to give it a try and see what happens.
Therein lies the problem.
>Personally I prefer to sit down and relax with a nice large ice cold
>glass of Pepsi.
Ditto. But then, that's not the point :)
Kirk Nechamkin
Greg Lousignont (cop...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I think you're a dope when you engage in an activity that is unlawful
: and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
But, Greg, you've been misinformed if you think that marijuana ruins
your life. It doesn't; rather, it enhances it. You should try it some
time -- then you'll know.
-Kirk
Kirk Nechamkin
Greg Lousignont (cop...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: No not at all! I favor executing those assholes, to provide more jail
: space for non-violent drug users.
Why jail people who could very well be productive citizens, don't bother
anyone else?
Maybe I don't like your breath, so I think you should be jailed? Is that
reason enough?
People should have the right, in this land of the free, to do think that
they enjoy, without harming others. If youd have something against freedom,
maybe you should move to a different country.
To say that something is wrong because it is wrong is as absurd as it is
redundant.
: Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D.
You really are dense for someone claiming to have an advanced degree.
-Kirk
: The LEO-IDâ„¢ Pin
: http://www.kamakazi.com/leoid/badgpin.htm
Kirk Nechamkin
Marc (Gum...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
: >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
: >redeeming value.
Well, that's okay for you not to like drugs. You don't have to like
them, you don't have to take them.
Some people don't like pizza, and I don't like you. What's your
point -- that because you don't like it, I have to be held to your
standards?
-Kirk
Kirk Nechamkin
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
: >I understand the history. But back then the drug did not bring with it
: >all the other negative aspects. Dope dealers are into much more than
: >dope dealing. They are into all kinds of crime.
But, Greg, the CRIME and VIOLENCE has do do with the illegality of
the drugs -- the fact that their market value is a hundredfold what
it costs to produce them.
Last year, Americans spent over $50 billion on drugs! All of it
went underground. All that money, and all of the crime associated
with it would DISAPPEAR instantly if drugs were legalized.
Our concern for drug users should be subordinate to our concern
for innocent Americans whose lives and property are often harmed
in connection with drug-related crime -- crime that has to do
entirely with prohibition.
Even if some drugs are harmful, legalizing them will only harm
drug users -- those who you claim should be imprisoned and hanged.
Just what is your argument against legalization?
-Kirk
Phil Stovell
In alt.drugs.pot, jo...@orion.webspan.net (Jasper O'Malley) wrote:
>Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>I understand the history. But back then the drug did not bring with it
>>all the other negative aspects. Dope dealers are into much more than
>>dope dealing. They are into all kinds of crime.
>
>Then legalize the trade and bring it out of the black market.
(I missed Greg's message to which the message I'm replying to was a
reply - if you see what I mean - due to a SNAFU with the news server
at my ISP)
I think the point is that "back then" cannabis was legal. It is only
the criminalisation over the last 60-odd years that has brought with
it any negative aspects. Compare with America's very successful
attempt to prohibit alcohol.
Steve Furbish
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 05:48:29 GMT, bbro...@idt.net (Nate Walker)
wrote:
>there isn't a real good reason for it to be illegal, but it is anyway.
>It's sad when people can only defend their point be spouting the "it's
>legal" or "it's illegal" argument. We learned that these arguments
>are very poor in high school debate class.
All well and good, but they should have also showed you how to set
about making the necessary changes in law that would make the conduct
you support legal. Civil disobedience is one option, but it's a weak
one IMO..
>That all depends on where you live and what your job is. In Colorado,
>an enlightened state compared to all the crappy laws in the south and
>midwest, an ounce or less is a penalty of a fine.
It can still follow you in future employment searches...
>Usually, the cops don't bother to give the ticket because they don't want
>to deal with the paperwork
You can't ALWAYS count on laziness though.
>and if they did give a ticket, it is probably the most minor misdemeanor here,
>which means you don't have to report it to most jobs.
Failure to disclose is also considered just cause in most areas.
>Anyways my boss knows I smoke weed. As long as I don't go
>to wor high (which I don't), it's all right. My boss has this crazy
>idea that what I do on my own time is my business, provided that I am
>not causing harm to anyone else.
Party on..
Steve
Night Child
> Greg Lousignont (cop...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : I think you're a dope when you engage in an activity that is unlawful
> : and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
Oh I get it. Its illegal because it ruins your life. Lets see...how does
it ruin your life? It ruins your life because it is illegal and you can
go to jail and lose your property for having it. Why is it illegal?
Because it ruins your life. So...its illegal because its illegal.
BRILLIANT!
Cigarattes can ruin your life. Red meat can ruin your life. The sun can
ruin your life. Water can ruin your life. Heavy objects can ruin your
life. Sharp objects can ruin your life. Police officers can ruin your
life. You educate yourself so you know what can and can't harm you.
You don't make them illegal, taking away that choice. Cigarettes are
next, and red meat will probably follow given how rediculous laws are
becoming. When will we outlaw sunbathing?
- Night Child
MJay 45
Marc wrote:
>
> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
> >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
> >redeeming value.
>
> what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
OK, marc, you're a college boy. Read the penal code and see if you can
figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
nicotine and alcohol used properly.
MJay 45
E. Faubion
Gu...@tamu.edu (Marc) wrote:
>Earl is a dope ;)
That's the spirit Marc. Humor is good for the soul. :)
>For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
You really should change this ya' know. I keep removing the first y.
:)
ef
MJay 45
> >and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
>
> founding fathers") aren't dopes because the gvt didn't try to incarcerate
> them for it, but now-a-days, people that smoke dope are dopes because the
> government threatens them with harm if they do it?
>
> Marc
Marc, until recently it was legal in many states to beat your wife with
a stick if it was no thicked than your little finger. In ancient Rome a
child was not considered a citizen until it reached the age of (12 if I
recall correctly) and therefor could be killed by it's parents at their
discretion.
Following your attempt at logic I can only assume that you feel that if
someone were to do those things today you would be outraged because
those things were legal at one time.
MJay 45
Jack Carter
Greg Lousignont wrote:
>
> R Givens wrote:
> >
> > In article <3428b2d3....@news.okc.oklahoma.net>,
> > efau...@oklahoma.net wrote:
> >
> > > ad...@cannabis.com (CANNABIS.COM) wrote:
> > >
>
> Personally I prefer to sit down and relax with a nice large ice cold
> glass of Pepsi.
>
what...with all the 'drugs' that are in Pepsi ?
Greg, how can you...I thought you were the keeper of clean mind and
body...
(go ahead, try to tell me there are no drugs in pepsi....
(hint, same as in coffee!)
See...you are a drug user!
> --
> Be Careful Out There!
>
> Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D.
>
Marc
>>For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
>You really should change this ya' know. I keep removing the first y.
>:)
But how do you know which I typed first?
Marc
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
>Marc wrote:
>> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>> >I think you're a dope when you engage in an activity that is unlawful
>> >and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
>> So the people that smoked dope in previous times (like many of "the
>> founding fathers") aren't dopes because the gvt didn't try to incarcerate
>> them for it, but now-a-days, people that smoke dope are dopes because the
>> government threatens them with harm if they do it?
>Marc, until recently it was legal in many states to beat your wife with
>a stick if it was no thicked than your little finger.
I thought it was your thumb. Isn't that where the "rule of thumb" came
from?
>In ancient Rome a
>child was not considered a citizen until it reached the age of (12 if I
>recall correctly) and therefor could be killed by it's parents at their
>discretion.
And slaves were property and could be killed without penalty (other than
economic). And in some European countries you could toss your kid in jail
for no other reason than you didn't want to deal with them anymore.
>Following your attempt at logic I can only assume that you feel that if
>someone were to do those things today you would be outraged because
>those things were legal at one time.
No. You completly missed the point, again.
Earl: Dopers are dopes.
Me: The founding fathers used dope, and therefore are dopes, right?
You: Then you think that killing children should be legal?
Which one of these doesn't belong with the others? Now be a good boy and
let your father get back on the computer.
Marc
efau...@oklahoma.net (E. Faubion) said:
>cap...@walrus.com (Kirk Nechamkin) wrote:
>>But, Greg, the CRIME and VIOLENCE has do do with the illegality of
>>the drugs
>Yeah, right. Legalize them and the dopers will no longer be
>dopers.... just like today's drunks are not a problem.
>Time for a reality check.
Since you bring it back to alcohol, lets look at that.
Simple questions (that I've not seen you give a straight answer to):
Was this country better off under Prohibition?
If no, Why do you think that the current prohibition is signifigantly
different as to get the *opposite* of the success of Prohibition?
Jack Carter
> > >redeeming value.
> >
> > Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
> > what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
> >
> figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
> nicotine and alcohol used properly.
>
> MJay 45
Sorry, MJ. Greg said he didn't like DRUGS. He said nothing about
legal vs illegal drugs...
So...in lite of that, what does that have to do with the penal code..
or what, your not a college boy ?
lam...@bite.me.spammers
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> writes:
>Marc wrote:
>> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>> >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
>> >redeeming value.
>>
>> Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
>> what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
>
>figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
>nicotine and alcohol used properly.
The same thing that made Jews different from Aryans in Nazi Germany--the law.
Read the medical literature on alcohol and marijuana and figure out for
yourself how far up their asses our legislators have their heads.
--
Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu)
ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
"It all comes from here, the stench and the peril."--Frodo (from Perl5/toke.c)
lam...@bite.me.spammers
Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>R Givens wrote:
>> Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D. wrote:
>> > I agree with Earl. However, I do feel hemp should be legalized for the
>> > express purpose of making ropes so that dope users can hang themselves.
>> rapists, child molesters and violent sex offenders to provide cell space
>> for non-violent drug users.
>>
>> Maybe you could explain how these priorities protect the public.
>> R Givens
>
>No not at all! I favor executing those assholes, to provide more jail
>space for non-violent drug users.
Oh good idea. Executions solve all the problems. We certainly don't have
to worry about killing innocent people. Our government and legal system
*never* makes a mistake, and certainly wouldn't if we accelerated the
death penalty so that tens and hundreds of thousands were being killed
each year.
>--
>Be Careful Out There!
>
>Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D.
^^^^^
McDonalds?
Pieman
E. Faubion wrote:
>
> cap...@walrus.com (Kirk Nechamkin) wrote:
>
> >But, Greg, the CRIME and VIOLENCE has do do with the illegality of
> >the drugs
>
> Yeah, right. Legalize them and the dopers will no longer be
> dopers.... just like today's drunks are not a problem.
>
> Time for a reality check.
No kidding.
The 90% of drinkers who aren't drunks aren't a problem. Are they?
The 90% of pot smokers who don't commit any other crime would not be a
problem. Would they?
The Pieman
.
Steven Schoene
Steve Furbish wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 05:48:29 GMT, bbro...@idt.net (Nate Walker)
> wrote:
>
> >there isn't a real good reason for it to be illegal, but it is anyway.
> >It's sad when people can only defend their point be spouting the "it's
> >legal" or "it's illegal" argument. We learned that these arguments
> >are very poor in high school debate class.
>
> All well and good, but they should have also showed you how to set
> about making the necessary changes in law that would make the conduct
> you support legal. Civil disobedience is one option, but it's a weak
> one IMO..
Many of the most important revolutions in history were brought about
through civil disobedience. There's nothing weak about it. What's weak
is doing nothing to change a situation you feel is unjus. But without
civil disobedience the issue will not come home to enough people to make
the changes that are necessary. The more injustice people see the more
people will see the issue as one to be voted on and the sooner the
situation will change. As unfortunate as it is, people have to suffer
before anyone will do anything to change a bad situation. If we all
obeyed the law and just voiced our complaints about the unfairness of it
then nothing would change because people would not see any harm in the
status quo.
Phil Stovell
In alt.drugs.pot, Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yes, it really does sound stupid, considering eating red meat wasn't a
>crime, last time I checked. Why don't you just beat your meat with a
>rubber hose?
Red meat eating will be soon, considering the World Health
Organisations's recent pronouncements.
As you are obviously a policeman, I've always wondered who exactly is
the victim of the crime in this scenario:-
A single employed person smoking a cannabis cigarette in his or her
own apartment.
Michael Zarlenga
E. Faubion (efau...@oklahoma.net) wrote:
: >You said that people that use dope are dopes (or something to that effect).
: And it was also followed by a happy face, a little fact a few around
: here apparently overlooked in their haste to jump on someone who dare
: call them names in jest. Tch tch. My point has been made and I'm
: not surprised you missed it.
Oh, right. So if someone were to say "Earl Faubion is an ignorant
jackass and a danger to society," it's Ok if they include " ;') "
: call them names in jest. Tch tch. My point has been made and I'm
: not surprised you missed it.
Your point has been made, all right and the only one who missed
it was you, Earl.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Michael Zarlenga
Greg Lousignont (cop...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I understand the history. But back then the drug did not bring with it
: all the other negative aspects. Dope dealers are into much more than
: dope dealing. They are into all kinds of crime.
What negative aspects didn't exist "back then," Greg?
: Now maybe MJ should be legalized. Maybe this would stop all the other
: associated crime. I don't know. As a society, we are apparently too
: afraid to give it a try and see what happens.
Thanks to lies from drug cops and other government paranoics.
Ever listen to a D.A.R.E. officer? Lie after lie comes from their
mouths. They sell irrational fear to young children. They should be
ashamed of themselves.
E. Faubion
Michael Zarlenga
Kirk Nechamkin (cap...@walrus.com) wrote:
: People should have the right, in this land of the free, to do think that
: they enjoy, without harming others. If youd have something against freedom,
: maybe you should move to a different country.
Many people, myself included, believe that American citizens do, in
spite of the War on Drugs, have the right to ingest drugs, if they
want to.
Back in the early 1900s, when the US Constitution MEANT SOMETHING
to the people in government, our politicians realized that to forbid
the consumption of alcohol, it would take an Amendment, not just a
new law.
The relevant parts of the United States Constitution haven't changed,
but today the government treats the document like a list of suggestions,
not the law of the land. A set of nice things to strive for, if they
want.
Hence we have the War on Drugs, a totally ILLEGAL war, backed by un-
constitutional laws, being waged by the United Staes government against
its own people.
Welcome to America.
R Givens
> > I suppose you include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
> > James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce among the
> > dopes.
> >
> > Are people who advocate cannabis sativa because HEMP produces five times
> > as much paper per acre as woodpulp timber dummies for trying to save the
> > environment?
> > R Givens
Gregory Lousignont, Ph.D. wrote:
> I understand the history. But back then the drug did not bring with it
> all the other negative aspects. Dope dealers are into much more than
> dope dealing. They are into all kinds of crime.
There were no negative aspects "back then" because there were no
prohibition laws to cause problems. The fact that several Presidents
smoked marijuana should provide evidence that pot doesn't cause the
insanity and mental disability people like Harry J Anslinger claimed.
Prohibition automatically turns control of a market over to criminals, so
why the surprize? The creation of violent criminal black markets is an
automatic function of drug prohibition. It happened with alcohol
prohibition and it has happened with drug prohibition. The Cali Cartel
cannot function without the support of drug prohibition laws!
So you cannot use a situation CREATED BY THE LAW to justify the law! Some
people call this circular reasoning begging the question. I call it
hypocrisy.
Proof that drug laws are responsible for our "drug problems" can be found
in historical records that do not reveal the slightest problem with
"narcotics" and other drugs prior to the drug laws. There were no gangs of
criminals selling drugs because an addict could buy all the drugs they
wanted wholesale from legal distributors. No one had to steal or whore to
buy drugs that cost pennies a day. All of that is the direct consequence
of drug prohibition laws.
The fact that it is necessary to use sophisticated tests to detect drug
use should be prima facia evidence that the entire drug prohibition
paradigm is a myth. If husbands and wives cannot detect drug use, why
should society stick its nose in. If an employer cannot tell drug users
from other employees by job performance, why should they worry?
The only "drug problem" this country had prior to the narcotics laws was
in the minds of delusionary prohibitionists who were out to ban every
"stimulant" from alcohol to chloral hydrate and even tobacco. These were
the dimwits who put stockings on furniture legs to avoid licentious
stimulations. Real role models for the modern man.
> Now maybe MJ should be legalized. Maybe this would stop all the other
> associated crime. I don't know.
It's hard to see how a criminal black market could survive legalization.
Repeal put the beer barons out of business and legalizing drugs would end
the current criminal market.
The example of Holland's cannabis policy proves the folly of Reefer
Madness, but the government makes asses of themselves trying to deny the
plain facts. Holland has allowed marijuana for over 20 years and their
society hasn't gone into terminal drug addiction, insanity, or the dark
ages predicted by Reefer Maniacs. Indeed, unlike the United States, the
Dutch are generally very happy about the results of their drug policies.
Their policy is actually reducing drug addiction!
Holland puts the lie to the whole bag of Reefer Madness bullshit used to
justify marijuana prohibition. The fantasies, myths and propaganda used
to validate drug prohibition fall flat on their face when confronted by
the plain facts in the Netherlands.
>As a society, we are apparently too afraid to give it a try and see what
happens.
How about the fact that the government has engaged in a never ending
blizzard of lies about MJ for the last 70 years? If the government ever
stops its hysterical Reefer Madness propaganda and tells the truth, people
will see there is nothing to fear from legalizing marijuana or other drugs
either for that matter.
_________________________
SENATOR DAVIS: How many [marihuana] cigarettes would you have to smoke
before you got this vicious mental attitude toward your neighbor?
MR. ANSLINGER: I believe in some cases one cigarette might develop a
homicidal mania, probably to kill his brother. It depends on the physical
characteristics of the individual. Every individual reacts differently to
the drug. It stimulates some and others it depresses. It is impossible to
say just what the action of the drug will be on a given individual, of the
amount. Probably some people could smoke five before it would take that
effect, but all the experts agree that the continued use leads to
insanity. There are many cases of insanity.
Sworn Congressional testimony 1937
____________________________
Often repeated Anslinger accusation
Å‚How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups,
burglaries, and deeds of maniacal insanity it (marijuana) causes each
year, especially among the young, can only be conjectured.Ë›
Harry Anslinger
These things could only be "conjectured" because they never happened.
Anslinger's claims were all based on yellow journalism which he himself
inspired. Anslinger would attend a conference of newspaper editors and
fill their heads with lurid Reefer Madness tales. Then the papers would
print the "weed with roots in hell" stories he had told them. The Bureau
of Narcotics also supplied a set of stock propaganda which was widely
used. Anslinger would then use the newspaper articles as EVIDENCE that
he was right. Anslinger did this again and again.
Several of the newspaper and magazine articles cited to Congress as
evidence by Anslinger in the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act hearings had actually
been written in toto by Harry Anslinger. At one point in the hearings it
was revealed that an AMA editorial supporting marijuana prohibition had
actually been written by Anslinger and was most definitely NOT the
position of the AMA. Anslinger had used the influence of the Treasury
Department to get his editorial printed in the JAMA even though it did not
represent their view. Anslinger then brought this item to Congress to
indicate that the medical community supported his position. They did not!
And the AMA representative took some pains to point out this fraud to the
committee.
Virtually every piece of "evidence" used to outlaw pot had been created by
the narcs.
Never once in his lying career did Anslinger ever present one shred of
credible scientific evidence to support any of his Reefer Madness
accusations.
____________________________
Marijuana prohibitionists put their faith in a barrage of lies that
hasn't stopped to this very day.
Drug prohibition is a collossal fraud!
R Givens
Marc
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
>Marc wrote:
>> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>> >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
>> >redeeming value.
>> Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
>> what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
>OK, marc, you're a college boy. Read the penal code and see if you can
>figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
>nicotine and alcohol used properly.
Perhaps you should be a college boy. The social value of a drug is
independent its social benifit or cost. The value of a dollar (in the old
days when we were on the gold standard) was a dollar's worth of gold. That
was its value. If you were in the Ivory Coast negotiating with a local
merchant for a dollar's worth of gold, 'd venture a guess that they
wouldn't have accepted a dollar as payment. Since you didn't seem to get
it the first time, I'll try to state it so that even you can understand.
The "value" is not necessarly its "worth" in all circumstances.
What does that have to do with what I said? Well, the "value" of a drug is
independent of the legality of it. The value can be determined without
legality in mind, and I'm interested in why you (collective) find it
acceptable to relax with a cold Pepsi or beer, or have a brownie with
caffeine in it, but not acceptable to have a brownie with THC.
What does caffeine "add" to society that gives them a socially redeeming
value?
And for those truely stupid (I know there are lots of you reading this),
this isn't an arguement for or against any drug, or anything like that.
I'm simply trying to figure out why you (collective) think that one
stimulant is different from another stimulant enough to make one a felony
to posess and the other completly legal in all situations (even to the
point where you can drive while impared by it, under most situations, since
it is not looked for as an imparing factor).
E. Faubion
Pieman <nos...@goaway.com> wrote:
>The 90% of drinkers who aren't drunks aren't a problem. Are they?
Like I said, time for a reality check. Look around you at the costs
of alcoholism. Sweeping them under the rug is not the smart thing to
do.
>The 90% of pot smokers who don't commit any other crime would not be a
>problem. Would they?
Is this the same 90% that currently flaunts the law or the new 90%
that will start smoking if it becomes legal.
However I do like your attitude of focusing on the positive and
ignoring the negative. Do you also do this when it comes to
politicians and cops and attorneys and doctors, etc.?
ef
Steven Schoene
E. Faubion wrote:
>
> Pieman <nos...@goaway.com> wrote:
>
> >The 90% of drinkers who aren't drunks aren't a problem. Are they?
>
> Like I said, time for a reality check. Look around you at the costs
> of alcoholism. Sweeping them under the rug is not the smart thing to
> do.
Drug prohibition has never been about the relative harm of the substance
in question, and I'm sure you realize this. If it were otherwise then
the question would be "Why is MJ legal and alcohol illegal?" and this
would be the alt.drugs.alcohol newsgroup. Nobody suggests sweeping
anything under the rug. Alcoholism is dealt with as a health problem as
it should be, not a legal problem. People who abuse marijuana should be
given the same consideration rather than be treated as criminals.
People who do not abuse mj but enjoy the occasional smoke deserve to be
treated with the same respect as a social drinker, not abused with
unjust laws. Comparing the social costs of alcohol to those of
marijuana is a losing argument for those in favor of mj prohibition;
alcohol is far, far more harmful and costly to society than mj, you have
to agree.
> >The 90% of pot smokers who don't commit any other crime would not be a
> >problem. Would they?
>
> Is this the same 90% that currently flaunts the law or the new 90%
> that will start smoking if it becomes legal.
There is no evidence to suggest the number of smokers will skyrocket
given legalization. It hasn't happened in countries that have
liberalized their laws concerning cannabis, specifically Holland. But
even if that were to happen, given that there are 10-20 million regular
smokers in this country (U.S.) and the government has bent over
backwards to show how harmful pot is with no legitimate support for
their position, what difference would it make if there were suddenly 40
million pot smokers here? Absolutely none IMO. The ratio of people who
develop problems would be the same and those costs could be offset by
the revenue generated by taxes of the now legal substance. There is no
way that legalization would cost more than it costs to arrest 600,000
people per year and try and incarcerate a substantial portion of these.
> However I do like your attitude of focusing on the positive and
> ignoring the negative. Do you also do this when it comes to
> politicians and cops and attorneys and doctors, etc.?
>
> ef
Nobody's ignoring the negative aspects of legalization. The argument
being made is that the current treatment of marijuana results in more
negative consequences to society than would result from legalization.
Please be more circumspect in your reading of these posts.
MJay 45
lam...@bite.me.spammers wrote:
>
> MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> writes:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
> >> >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
> >> >redeeming value.
> >>
> >> Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
> >> what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
> >
> >OK, marc, you're a college boy. Read the penal code and see if you can
> >figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
> >nicotine and alcohol used properly.
>
>
> Read the medical literature on alcohol and marijuana and figure out for
> yourself how far up their asses our legislators have their heads.
>
> Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu)
> ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
> "It all comes from here, the stench and the peril."--Frodo (from Perl5/toke.c)
I hate to tell you but the nazi comparison has been beaten to death. I
have no moral problem with putting marijuana users/sellers in jail. If
you find that the same as the attempted genocide of a race of people
then perhaps you need a reality check.
Illegal=I enforce. Legal=I do not enforce.
Clear enough?
MJay 45
MJay 45
Jack Carter wrote:
>
> MJay 45 wrote:
> >
> > Marc wrote:
> > >
> > > Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
> > >
> > > >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
> > > >redeeming value.
> > >
> > > Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
> > > what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
> > >
> > figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
> > nicotine and alcohol used properly.
> >
>
> Sorry, MJ. Greg said he didn't like DRUGS. He said nothing about
> legal vs illegal drugs...
>
> So...in lite of that, what does that have to do with the penal code..
> or what, your not a college boy ?
I suppose the reason I referred Marc to the penal code is because it
illustrates a very large difference between the drug marijuana and the
drug caffeine. He wanted to know the criteria that made them different;
read the penal code yourself and see if you can figure it out.
MJay 45
MJay 45
Marc wrote:
>
> MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
> >> >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
> >> >redeeming value.
>
> >> Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
> >> what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
>
> >figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
> >nicotine and alcohol used properly.
>
> independent its social benifit or cost. The value of a dollar (in the old
> days when we were on the gold standard) was a dollar's worth of gold. That
> was its value. If you were in the Ivory Coast negotiating with a local
> merchant for a dollar's worth of gold, 'd venture a guess that they
> wouldn't have accepted a dollar as payment. Since you didn't seem to get
> it the first time, I'll try to state it so that even you can understand.
>
> The "value" is not necessarly its "worth" in all circumstances.
>
> What does that have to do with what I said? Well, the "value" of a drug is
> independent of the legality of it. The value can be determined without
> legality in mind, and I'm interested in why you (collective) find it
> acceptable to relax with a cold Pepsi or beer, or have a brownie with
> caffeine in it, but not acceptable to have a brownie with THC.
>
> What does caffeine "add" to society that gives them a socially redeeming
> value?
>
> And for those truely stupid (I know there are lots of you reading this),
> this isn't an arguement for or against any drug, or anything like that.
> I'm simply trying to figure out why you (collective) think that one
> stimulant is different from another stimulant enough to make one a felony
> to posess and the other completly legal in all situations (even to the
> point where you can drive while impared by it, under most situations, since
> it is not looked for as an imparing factor).
>
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
Perhaps I have not made my point clear enough. I don't care. I really
don't care. Is that clear enough? If it is a crime I will enforce it as
long as I have no supreme moral problem with it, (that's for those of
you who will start screaming nazi again). I don't care that marijuana is
illegal, I catch a guy with marijuana and he goes to jail. Is that any
more clear?
MJay 45
MJay 45
Marc wrote:
>
> MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
Well Marc, unless you are on the 40 year degree plan at A&M, (and at A&M
I realize that is possible) I am probably old enough to be your father.
As far as the laws, the legal system is supposed to be a flexible
system, ever changing to meet the needs of the people. If the people as
a majority want the currently illegal drugs to be legal then they should
have the laws changed. At that point I will quit enforcing those laws.
Until then it's business as usual.
MJay 45
Andy Katz
efau...@oklahoma.net (E. Faubion) wrote:
>Pieman <nos...@goaway.com> wrote:
>
>>The 90% of drinkers who aren't drunks aren't a problem. Are they?
>
>Like I said, time for a reality check. Look around you at the costs
>of alcoholism. Sweeping them under the rug is not the smart thing to
>do.
Whoever got Earl started on *this* topic again is the one that really
deserves a session with Halleck and his omnipresent paddle! But since
the damage is done, I might as well throw my two cents in and, while
acknowledging the costs of drug use and abuse, ask whether simply
outlawing it isn't also sweeping it under the rug?
>However I do like your attitude of focusing on the positive and
>ignoring the negative. Do you also do this when it comes to
>politicians and cops and attorneys and doctors, etc.?
Attorneys...?
What've *you* been toking, Earl?
Andy Katz
________________________________________
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
andre...@aol.com
Remove * to reply
Marc
>>The 90% of drinkers who aren't drunks aren't a problem. Are they?
>Like I said, time for a reality check. Look around you at the costs
>of alcoholism. Sweeping them under the rug is not the smart thing to
>do.
Then why aren't you crusading to get alcohol illegal, as are other drugs?
>>The 90% of pot smokers who don't commit any other crime would not be a
>>problem. Would they?
>Is this the same 90% that currently flaunts the law or the new 90%
>that will start smoking if it becomes legal.
When alcohol was made legal after Prohibition, use dropped. What makes you
think that the situation with drugs would have the complete opposite
effect?
>However I do like your attitude of focusing on the positive and
>ignoring the negative. Do you also do this when it comes to
>politicians and cops and attorneys and doctors, etc.?
If there was anything positive about them ;)
Marc
>> > > Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>> > > >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no soically
>> > > >redeeming value.
>> > > Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
>> > > what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
>> > OK, marc, you're a college boy. Read the penal code and see if you can
>> > figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
>> > nicotine and alcohol used properly.
>> Sorry, MJ. Greg said he didn't like DRUGS. He said nothing about
>> legal vs illegal drugs...
>> So...in lite of that, what does that have to do with the penal code..
>> or what, your not a college boy ?
>I suppose the reason I referred Marc to the penal code is because it
>illustrates a very large difference between the drug marijuana and the
>drug caffeine. He wanted to know the criteria that made them different;
>read the penal code yourself and see if you can figure it out.
So you are saying that if MJ was legal, that it and caffeine would be
identical?
Marc
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
>Perhaps I have not made my point clear enough. I don't care. I really
>don't care. Is that clear enough?
No. If you really don't care, why do you keep posting?
>If it is a crime I will enforce it as
>long as I have no supreme moral problem with it, (that's for those of
>you who will start screaming nazi again). I don't care that marijuana is
>illegal, I catch a guy with marijuana and he goes to jail. Is that any
>more clear?
Fine and dandy. You are then not addressing any of the questions I've
asked, and I don't understand why you are bothering to post to say that you
don't care. Are you really so content in your refusal to even form an
opinion that you like to tell everyone that you have no opinion, and don't
wish to form one? It may just be me, but that looks like the rantings of a
close-minded automaton who wishes to impose their non-thinking qualities on
everyone else.
bbs...@mindspring.com
On 1997-09-27 mjay45...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net said:
>Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs,rec.drugs.cannabis,talk.
>politics.drugs,alt.law-enforcement
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
>Xref: mindspring alt.drugs.pot:106568 alt.drugs:277451 rec.drugs.
>cannabis:56848 talk.politics.drugs:121211 alt.law-enforcement:1
>lam...@bite.me.spammers wrote: >
>> MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> writes:
>> >Marc wrote:
>> >> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>> >> >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no
>>soically >> >redeeming value.
>> >>
>> >> Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke
>>any of those, >> what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
>> >
>> >OK, marc, you're a college boy. Read the penal code and see if
>>you can >figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different
>>from caffeine, >nicotine and alcohol used properly.
>> The same thing that made Jews different from Aryans in Nazi
>Germany--the law. >
>> Read the medical literature on alcohol and marijuana and figure
>>out for yourself how far up their asses our legislators have
>their heads. >
>> --
>> Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu)
>> ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
>> "It all comes from here, the stench and the peril."--Frodo (from
>Perl5/toke.c) I hate to tell you but the nazi comparison has been
>beaten to death. I have no moral problem with putting marijuana
>users/sellers in jail.
Then you are morally bankrupt. Or you choose to be ignorant.
>If you find that the same as the attempted
>genocide of a race of people then perhaps you need a reality check.
>Illegal=I enforce. Legal=I do not enforce.
>Clear enough?
Nope. Is there any time that you let someone slide or choose not to
enforce a particular law or infraction?
>MJay 45
Michael,
..................................................................
. Michael Hess : Montgomery, Alabama : Voice : 334.263.7971 .
. Email: bbs...@mindspring.com URL: www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews .
..................................................................
Marc
>> >Marc wrote:
>> >> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>Well Marc, unless you are on the 40 year degree plan at A&M, (and at A&M
>I realize that is possible) I am probably old enough to be your father.
And my father is probably old enough to be your father. So?
>As far as the laws, the legal system is supposed to be a flexible
>system, ever changing to meet the needs of the people. If the people as
>a majority want the currently illegal drugs to be legal then they should
>have the laws changed. At that point I will quit enforcing those laws.
>Until then it's business as usual.
Which once again shows that you are argueing with me on a point that I'm
not addressing. Earl said dopers are dopes. The founding fathers were
dopers. That makes them dopes according to Earl.
The simple question is:
Do you agree with Earl's view on people that use drugs which would mean
that the people that started the country that you are whining about
upholding the laws of without thought, are dopes?
MJay 45
> >don't care. Is that clear enough?
>
> No. If you really don't care, why do you keep posting?
Because this NG is cheap entertainment for me after a hard day of
busting dopers.
>
> >If it is a crime I will enforce it as
> >long as I have no supreme moral problem with it, (that's for those of
> >you who will start screaming nazi again). I don't care that marijuana is
> >illegal, I catch a guy with marijuana and he goes to jail. Is that any
> >more clear?
>
> Fine and dandy. You are then not addressing any of the questions I've
> asked, and I don't understand why you are bothering to post to say that you
> don't care. Are you really so content in your refusal to even form an
> opinion that you like to tell everyone that you have no opinion, and don't
> wish to form one?
Yes
> It may just be me, but that looks like the rantings of a
> close-minded automaton who wishes to impose their non-thinking qualities on
> everyone else.
It may indeed just be you. Unlike you I have never attempted to impose
my beliefs on anyone in this NG.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
MJay 45
MJay 45
> >> MJay 45 wrote:
> >> > > >redeeming value.
>
> >> > > Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke any of those,
> >> > > what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
>
> >> > OK, marc, you're a college boy. Read the penal code and see if you can
> >> > figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different from caffeine,
> >> > nicotine and alcohol used properly.
>
> >> legal vs illegal drugs...
>
> >> So...in lite of that, what does that have to do with the penal code..
> >> or what, your not a college boy ?
>
> >I suppose the reason I referred Marc to the penal code is because it
> >illustrates a very large difference between the drug marijuana and the
> >drug caffeine. He wanted to know the criteria that made them different;
> >read the penal code yourself and see if you can figure it out.
>
> So you are saying that if MJ was legal, that it and caffeine would be
> identical?
As far as the legality, yes. Make marijuana legal and I will have no
marijuana laws to enforce.
MJay 45
MJay 45
bbs...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> On 1997-09-27 mjay45...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net said:
> >Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs,rec.drugs.cannabis,talk.
> >politics.drugs,alt.law-enforcement
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
> >Xref: mindspring alt.drugs.pot:106568 alt.drugs:277451 rec.drugs.
> >cannabis:56848 talk.politics.drugs:121211 alt.law-enforcement:1
> >lam...@bite.me.spammers wrote: >
> >> MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> writes:
> >> >> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
> >> >> >I don't like drugs, pure and simple, I feel they have no
> >>soically >> >redeeming value.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you not like alcohol? Caffeine? Nicotine? If you loke
> >>any of those, >> what criteria seperate them from other drugs?
> >> >
> >> >OK, marc, you're a college boy. Read the penal code and see if
> >>you can >figure out for yourself what makes marijuana different
> >>from caffeine, >nicotine and alcohol used properly.
> >Germany--the law. >
> >> Read the medical literature on alcohol and marijuana and figure
> >>out for yourself how far up their asses our legislators have
> >their heads. >
> >> --
> >> Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu)
> >> ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
> >> "It all comes from here, the stench and the peril."--Frodo (from
> >Perl5/toke.c) I hate to tell you but the nazi comparison has been
> >beaten to death. I have no moral problem with putting marijuana
> >users/sellers in jail.
> Then you are morally bankrupt. Or you choose to be ignorant.
Or, (amazing concept here), I have a different opinion of the situation
than you.
> >If you find that the same as the attempted
> >genocide of a race of people then perhaps you need a reality check.
> >Illegal=I enforce. Legal=I do not enforce.
> >Clear enough?
> Nope. Is there any time that you let someone slide or choose not to
> enforce a particular law or infraction?
The occasional traffic violation maybe, never a drug offense.
> >MJay 45
>
> Michael,
> ..................................................................
> . Michael Hess : Montgomery, Alabama : Voice : 334.263.7971 .
> . Email: bbs...@mindspring.com URL: www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews .
> ..................................................................
MJay 45
E. Faubion
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> wrote to Marc:
>> No. If you really don't care, why do you keep posting?
>Because this NG is cheap entertainment for me after a hard day of
>busting dopers.
Hehehe... I love it!
MJay 45
Marc wrote:
>
> MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
That was a direct reference to you calling me "boy" and suggesting that
I let my father use my computer for some reason.
>
> >As far as the laws, the legal system is supposed to be a flexible
> >system, ever changing to meet the needs of the people. If the people as
> >a majority want the currently illegal drugs to be legal then they should
> >have the laws changed. At that point I will quit enforcing those laws.
> >Until then it's business as usual.
>
> Which once again shows that you are argueing with me on a point that I'm
> not addressing. Earl said dopers are dopes. The founding fathers were
> dopers. That makes them dopes according to Earl.
>
> The simple question is:
> Do you agree with Earl's view on people that use drugs which would mean
> that the people that started the country that you are whining about
> upholding the laws of without thought, are dopes?
I have no idea what the people who started this country were like. I am
not even sure what the actual definition of a "dope" is. Tomorrow if I
have time in between arrests of people for using illegal drugs I will
look up the word dope as used in that context and get back with you. A
simple answer for your simple question.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
MJay 45
Mojo Hand
>> >rgi...@sirius.com (R Givens) wrote:
>> You said that people that use dope are dopes (or something to that effect).
>> The people above grew/used dope. Therfore, you think they are dopes,
>> right? If you disagree, where is the point of disagreement?
>>
>> MArc
>> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
>
>Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think you're a dope when you engage in an activity that is unlawful
>and for which your whole life can be ruined over.
>
Do you mean to imply that all unlawful actions are thereby immoral?
If the answer is yes, then Gandhi, Luther King, and all the other
practitioners of civil disobedience are dopes by your reasoning.
Further, how are you qualified to judge whether cannabis smoking is
immoral? I'm sure a disciplined mind like yours must allow for the
possibility of error. Could it be that cannabis smokers might not be
IMMORAL? Does smoking cannabis equate to immoral behavior? I am
inclined to say no.
Lastly, I think that the many of the voices expressed in this forum
are opposed to the severity of the punishment meted out under the
auspices of the drug war. Does possession of an ounce of cannabis
merit forfeiture of private property and civil liberty? I have read
your recent posts and I know that you are not necessarily advocating
the prohibition of cannabis. I would like to think instead that you
are playing the devil's advocate and emjoy provoking debate in this
NG. Please clarify your stance vis-a-vis the decriminalization of
cannabis possession and cultivation.
Or perhaps you have no definite position at all, and are merely
straddling the fence.
Phil Stovell
In alt.drugs.pot, MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>I have no idea what the people who started this country were like. I am
>not even sure what the actual definition of a "dope" is. Tomorrow if I
>have time in between arrests of people for using illegal drugs I will
>look up the word dope as used in that context and get back with you. A
>simple answer for your simple question.
I assume this is a joke and you do actually catch real criminals, you
know, ones who have actually harmed somebody else, or their property.
I would be most upset if I found out that my house was burgled while
the police were all occupied with busting somebody smoking a joint.
lam...@bite.me.spammers
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> writes:
>I hate to tell you but the nazi comparison has been beaten to death. I
>you find that the same as the attempted genocide of a race of people
>then perhaps you need a reality check.
No you need a reality check. Drug laws are used as a weapon against
minorities. They are enforced in a completely racist fashion, which anyone
can see by looking at the breakdown of sentencing. There's a question of
magnitude between the way the drug laws in this country are enforced and
genocide, but it's just magnitude -- the roots of the problem are the same.
>Illegal=I enforce. Legal=I do not enforce.
>
>Clear enough?
Yeah, you'd rather let other people think for you -- and "do your job."
lam...@bite.me.spammers
efau...@oklahoma.net (E. Faubion) writes:
>Pieman <nos...@goaway.com> wrote:
>>The 90% of pot smokers who don't commit any other crime would not be a
>>problem. Would they?
>
>Is this the same 90% that currently flaunts the law or the new 90%
>that will start smoking if it becomes legal.
When marijuana was decriminalized in the 1970's in CA, marijuana use
continued along the declining trend that it had been following previously.
There was no increase in use.
lam...@bite.me.spammers
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> writes:
>Perhaps I have not made my point clear enough. I don't care. I really
>long as I have no supreme moral problem with it, (that's for those of
>you who will start screaming nazi again). I don't care that marijuana is
>illegal, I catch a guy with marijuana and he goes to jail. Is that any
>more clear?
Yeah, you don't have the balls to think for yourself.
Kirk Nechamkin
E. Faubion (efau...@oklahoma.net) wrote:
: cap...@walrus.com (Kirk Nechamkin) wrote:
: >But, Greg, the CRIME and VIOLENCE has do do with the illegality of
: >the drugs
: Yeah, right. Legalize them and the dopers will no longer be
: dopers.... just like today's drunks are not a problem.
Well, drunks ARE a problem. But, that's ALCOHOL -- NOT CANNABIS. The
two are entirely different -- as different as red meat and fish.
On what level are you comparing them?
Cannabis does not cause the same kind of intoxication, cannabis is
not physically addictive, cannabis is not as damaging as alcohol to
the mind.
Showing that red meat consumption fosters heart disease is not
cause enough to warn people against eating fish, which isn't a
red meat.
Secondly, most people who consume alcohol are NOT drunks. Which
is why alcohol doesn't need to be prohibited. Abusers will always
be abusers, and will always find something to abuse -- and often
don't stop with substances.
: Time for a reality check.
Time for YOUR reality check.
The major threat of drugs on our society has to do with illegality.
This was my point; that drugs foster violence because of prohibition,
which drives the prices through the roof, but doesn't effectively
stop those who want them from getting them.
Violence is a problem everybody has to contend with -- not just
the drug users.
We spend billions and billions and billions of dollars each year
trying to curb drug smuggling and drug use, and if the current
trend is any indication, we're FAILING in our War on Drugs.
We have far more violence than other countries where marijuana
us legal, and we're far more tolerant of violent crime.
Doesn't it seem odd that we treat cannabis consumers more harsh
than rapists and murderers?
Its true!
The average prisoner on drug-related charges serves TWICE the
sentence of the prisoner for murder. Only the latter is a public
threat.
It doesn't doesn't make any sense from a logical standpoint.
Addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are, I'll agree, quite
dangerous. But, the overwhelming majority of arrests are for
marijuana-related charges -- most often nominal-quantity
possession.
I have a serious problem with that when my car has been stolen
twice in the past year, when I've been violently mugged on
the mean streets of New York City.
Its clear we have to re-prioritize.
-Kirk
Kirk Nechamkin
Pieman (nos...@goaway.com) wrote:
: The 90% of pot smokers who don't commit any other crime would not be a
: problem. Would they?
More like 99.6 percent. And, those pot-smokers who do commit crimes
would likely commit them in the absense of their cannabis habit.
Because the drug promotes empathy and compassion, effectively reducing
the drive to harm and rob. Most pot smokers are hard workers.
-Kirk
: The Pieman
: .
SMokin'
MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> wrote in article
<342DCF...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net>...
> Marc wrote:
> > MJay 45 <mja...@tgcccn.campus.mci.net> said:
> > >Marc wrote:
> > >> Greg Lousignont <cop...@ix.netcom.com> said:
> As far as the laws, the legal system is supposed to be a flexible
> system, ever changing to meet the needs of the people. If the people as
> a majority want the currently illegal drugs to be legal then they should
> have the laws changed. At that point I will quit enforcing those laws.
> Until then it's business as usual.
>
> MJay 45
What you stated is supposed to work at the state level, not federal.
Although it might be permissable to regulate morality on the state level,
the federal government has no authority (well, under the, ehem, u.s.
constitution {no, it's not capitalized}) to create or support such laws.
Besides, if this legal system were flexible, we might actually have some
serious studies reviewed by the poli's instead of having some bunk drug
warrior bullshit spread across the media by paid spin doctors. It's
starting to seep in isn't it MJay.
--
- SMokin'
Prison for praise is not worth thinking
sin is still in and our ballots are shrinking
so unleash the dogs - the only soloution
forgive and forget, fuck no
I'm talking about a revolution.
- Corrosion of Conformity
Remove "-this" from my address to reply by mail.
SMokin'
> Pieman wrote:
> > MJay 45 wrote:
> Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. As any long time
> participant of this NG knows I am from Texas. >>>>>That is the state
where a
> seed can get you arrested.<<<<<
>
> MJay 45
Did you actually read what you wrote? A seed. A simple-ass motherfucking
seed.
SMokin'
> You are really missing my point here! I don't care why it's illegal. I
> need to quote no facts or reasons, it is not important to me. The fact
> that the majority in this country has deemed it illegal is enough of a
> reason for me to enforce the law.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. If all of you people would
> get together and change the laws as opposed to whining on this NG then I
> would have no drug laws to enforce. All you are doing here is attacking
> the messenger. Do you really think that by attempting to engage law
> enforcement officers in these useless debates you will accomplish
> anything?
We were just hoping that there was someone in the law enforcement chain
that still has an iota of self reasoning. 30+ years of and endless,
useless, failing drug war and you think that no one has spoken out? No
groups like NORML? No protests? No letters to the editor? No letters to
the congressman? No letters to the PRESIDENT? Do you think that no one in
CA or AZ has voted on the issue only to have it thrown back in their faces
by the creators of the [federal] law? It appears to me that they will keep
on creating bullshit laws and there will always be someone to support THEIR
views. NOT the veiws of the population, THEIR views. We've tried getting
to the source, now we're trying to get at the support... YOU. Think about
where this is leading MJay. Think real hard about it too 'cause the lines
are being drawn and the people are gettin' ancey.
> MJay 45