Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany that
will rock North America?

"Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...qc4vAD9A70MDO0

I don't know where to begin. This is MONUMENTAL. Why hasn't this
been major US news, for days, not meerely a bleep on Google, vastly
underplayed? I'm stunned.

I can see why Mexico would do this. They no longer have time to deal
with the lowly street user. They are in a fight for their very
national existence against the huge drug cartels, which threaten,
literally, to overwhelm the govt.

Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels will
continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels them, not
some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
problem, make no mistake.

We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.

It will be interesting to see where this leads. Is it a social
experiment to see new possibilities or just a desperate survival
tactic? Will the US even consider this revolutionary approach or has
the law enforcement industry too tight a strangle hold.

What say ye all?

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> It will be interesting to see where this leads. Is it a social
> experiment to see new possibilities or just a desperate survival
> tactic? Will the US even consider this revolutionary approach or has
> the law enforcement industry too tight a strangle hold.
>
> What say ye all?
>
> nb

With Obama in charge, anything is possible.

Remember, "Change" and all that. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

Where do they stand on workplace drug-testing?

-sw

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:14:30 GMT, notbob wrote:

> What say ye all?

> The maximum amount of marijuana considered to be for "personal use"
> under the new law is 5 grams ¡X the equivalent of about four joints.

More like 4 blunts (cigars). Unless it's got a *lot* of stems and
seeds.

> "The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 lines."
> ... 40 milligrams for methamphetamine

They must snort pretty big lines as well.

They sure do a lot of drugs down there and have built up quite an
immunity if they have to smoke and snort that much.

-sw

notbob wrote:
> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany that
> will rock North America?
>
> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...qc4vAD9A70MDO0
>
>
> Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels will
> continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels them, not
> some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
> problem, make no mistake.
>
> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
> of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
> INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
> sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
> business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.

>
> What say ye all?



Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make sense.

If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any level?
That's pretty hypocritical. I can see overlooking the user in favor of
cracking down on the dealers who are profiting mightily, but if we could
ever get the dealing eliminated, what then for the users?

If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there were
no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have enabled?

gloria p

Gloria P > wrote in
on Aug Sun 2009 pm

> notbob wrote:
>> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany
>> that will rock North America?
>>
>> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
>>
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...COzYSi8kbAUY1l
>> LDdqc4vAD9A70MDO0
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels
>> will continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels them,
>> not some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
>> problem, make no mistake.
>>
>> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
>> of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
>> INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
>> sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
>> business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.
>
>>
>> What say ye all?
>
>
>
> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make
> sense.
>
> If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any
> level? That's pretty hypocritical. I can see overlooking the user in
> favor of cracking down on the dealers who are profiting mightily, but
> if we could ever get the dealing eliminated, what then for the users?
>
> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there
> were no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have
> enabled?
>
> gloria p
>

If you legalize drugs, you then can enforce trade laws as to quality and generate tax money from
it's sales. Those taxes would more than likely be greater the the cost of the trade law enforcement.
Plus a great deal of money could be saved in prison costs. So making things buyable at state run
'drug' stores would seem to be a good idea.

--
Is that your nose, or are you eatting a banana? -Alan

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany that
> will rock North America?
>
> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...qc4vAD9A70MDO0
>
> I don't know where to begin. This is MONUMENTAL. Why hasn't this
> been major US news, for days, not meerely a bleep on Google, vastly
> underplayed? I'm stunned.


So, a little bit of cocain is OK? Just a tad of heroin? I can agree on
the weed, but the others are not and never should be made legal. I agree
that the law should be going after the dealers and importers, but saying it
is OK for users to posess some is a way for dealers to just spread out the
inventory.


>
> It's US drug use that fuels them, not
> some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
> problem, make no mistake.

Yes, I agree here.


>
> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
> of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
> INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
> sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
> business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.

Agree on the prison system, but I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the
drug cartels. Sell drugs legally in some manner?


>
> It will be interesting to see where this leads. Is it a social
> experiment to see new possibilities or just a desperate survival
> tactic? Will the US even consider this revolutionary approach or has
> the law enforcement industry too tight a strangle hold.
>
> What say ye all?

We'll never eliminate the problem of drugs, but perhaps it can be lessened
some. What I have a problem with is making drugs like heroin readily
available to anyone with a $5 bill. It is an addictive drug, not a
recreational toot once a month or so to relax on Saturday night. Selling
over the counter cheaply can start a whole generation of users that just
wanted to give it a test drive.

I don't know the answer but going after the top should be more of a priority
that going after the street user. Education programs seem to be rather
ineffective also.

On 2009-08-23, Gloria P > wrote:

> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make sense.

I am not advocating drug use. I'm against the criminalization of it.
There's a huge and profound difference.

> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there were
> no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have enabled?

You view the whole thing as right or wrong. Pointless. Subsance
abuse is a given. As long as there are living human beings, there
will be mind altering subtances and human beings will desire to use
them. We must deal with the desire and need.

Look at drinking and smoking. Smoking has been reduced to a never
believed possible level. How? Education and social stigma. It
freakin' kills ya, man! ...and it no longer looks cool. Same with
alcohol and drunk driving. How? Fine
them till they bleed! Who can afford to pay $5-10K for a first DUI?
The 3 martini lunch --or any lunch inbibing-- is a thing of the past
because layers started suing the crap outta any company that tolerated
it. Yet look at alcohol use. If anything, it's up! Advertising has
increased.

I make no judgement on drug use, I only despise that it has become a
criminal epidemic, precipitated by insane laws. Just as Prohibition
created a whole new class of criminals, so have drugs. The
prohibition of drugs is worse than the drugs. More people die from
drug related crime than ever did from the drugs themselves.
Prohibition has never worked and it never will.

In the meantime, the mega pharmaceutical companies are coming out with
mind altering drugs daily. Two page ads in magazines. They make you
sick, rot your organs, but they make you calm in this harried world.

It's gotta change. The way it is now is total mandness.

(whew! ....pass me valium)

nb



..

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> I make no judgement on drug use, I only despise that it has become a
> criminal epidemic, precipitated by insane laws. Just as Prohibition
> created a whole new class of criminals, so have drugs. The
> prohibition of drugs is worse than the drugs. More people die from
> drug related crime than ever did from the drugs themselves.
> Prohibition has never worked and it never will.
>
> In the meantime, the mega pharmaceutical companies are coming out with
> mind altering drugs daily. Two page ads in magazines. They make you
> sick, rot your organs, but they make you calm in this harried world.
>
> It's gotta change. The way it is now is total mandness.
>
> (whew! ....pass me valium)
>
> nb

Nicely put Notbob.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany that
> will rock North America?
>
> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...bAUY1lLDdqc4vA
> D9A70MDO0
>
> I don't know where to begin. This is MONUMENTAL. Why hasn't this
> been major US news, for days, not meerely a bleep on Google, vastly
> underplayed? I'm stunned.
>
> I can see why Mexico would do this. They no longer have time to deal
> with the lowly street user. They are in a fight for their very
> national existence against the huge drug cartels, which threaten,
> literally, to overwhelm the govt.
>
> Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels will
> continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels them, not
> some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
> problem, make no mistake.
>
> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
> of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
> INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
> sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
> business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.
>
> It will be interesting to see where this leads. Is it a social
> experiment to see new possibilities or just a desperate survival
> tactic? Will the US even consider this revolutionary approach or has
> the law enforcement industry too tight a strangle hold.
>
> What say ye all?

Don't know about the rest of the US, but in California, you get a
prescription from your doctor. There were problems, since the DEA
didn't recognize this as legal. Once Obama took office, I believe he
told them to back off. I understand that some of these "prescriptions"
were for 1 1/2 pounds.

I believe that north of me, marijuana is the number two cash crop behind
lumber.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-08-23, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Don't know about the rest of the US, but in California, you get a
> prescription from your doctor.

C'mon Dan, I ain't been gone that long.

I know a relative of a friend in SFBA that has a prescription, first
and only I've met. I was shocked to see this person busting up huge
breadstick size buds and mixing them with whole cubes of butter.
Apparently the best way to ingest the herb. I was getting high just
from the fumes off the buds!

> There were problems, since the DEA didn't recognize this as legal.
> Once Obama took office, I believe he told them to back off. I
> understand that some of these "prescriptions" were for 1 1/2 pounds.

After seeing this person open his bag o' buds, I'm not surprised.

Unfortunately, this is all an anomaly and not even a minor dent in the
overall problem.

nb

hahabogus wrote:
> Gloria P > wrote

>>
>> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make
>> sense.
>>
>> If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any
>> level? That's pretty hypocritical.

>> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there
>> were no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have
>> enabled?
>>
>> gloria p
>>
>
> If you legalize drugs, you then can enforce trade laws as to quality and generate tax money from
> it's sales. Those taxes would more than likely be greater the the cost of the trade law enforcement.
> Plus a great deal of money could be saved in prison costs. So making things buyable at state run
> 'drug' stores would seem to be a good idea.
>


Recreational drugs aren't a good idea, period. Legalizing them
is a terrible idea, no matter how much revenue it would generate.

gloria p

"hahabogus" > wrote in message
47...
> Gloria P > wrote in
> on Aug Sun 2009 pm
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany
>>> that will rock North America?
>>>
>>> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...COzYSi8kbAUY1l
>>> LDdqc4vAD9A70MDO0
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels
>>> will continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels them,
>>> not some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
>>> problem, make no mistake.
>>>
>>> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
>>> of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
>>> INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
>>> sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
>>> business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.
>>
>>>
>>> What say ye all?
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make
>> sense.
>>
>> If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any
>> level? That's pretty hypocritical. I can see overlooking the user in
>> favor of cracking down on the dealers who are profiting mightily, but
>> if we could ever get the dealing eliminated, what then for the users?
>>
>> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there
>> were no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have
>> enabled?
>>
>> gloria p
>>
>
> If you legalize drugs, you then can enforce trade laws as to quality and
> generate tax money from
> it's sales. Those taxes would more than likely be greater the the cost of
> the trade law enforcement.
> Plus a great deal of money could be saved in prison costs. So making
> things buyable at state run
> 'drug' stores would seem to be a good idea.
>

They can't control the flow of drugs now, how will making them legal change
anything?

Dave said...

>
> "hahabogus" > wrote in message
> 47...
>> Gloria P > wrote in
>> on Aug Sun 2009 pm
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany
>>>> that will rock North America?
>>>>
>>>> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...COzYSi8kbAUY1l
>>>> LDdqc4vAD9A70MDO0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels
>>>> will continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels them,
>>>> not some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
>>>> problem, make no mistake.
>>>>
>>>> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
>>>> of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
>>>> INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
>>>> sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
>>>> business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What say ye all?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any
>>> level? That's pretty hypocritical. I can see overlooking the user in
>>> favor of cracking down on the dealers who are profiting mightily, but
>>> if we could ever get the dealing eliminated, what then for the users?
>>>
>>> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there
>>> were no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have
>>> enabled?
>>>
>>> gloria p
>>>
>>
>> If you legalize drugs, you then can enforce trade laws as to quality
>> and generate tax money from
>> it's sales. Those taxes would more than likely be greater the the cost
>> of the trade law enforcement.
>> Plus a great deal of money could be saved in prison costs. So making
>> things buyable at state run
>> 'drug' stores would seem to be a good idea.
>>
>
> They can't control the flow of drugs now, how will making them legal
> change anything?


Control... age old master/slave issue. Look at the US government's wasteful
cost of prohibition. They created a problem they could not solve.

Now take Nixon's DEA and the futile waste of taxpayer funds and tell me
they're worth their salt after 40 years.

If everyone could cultivate and NOT have to buy their drugs, wouldn't that
stop the smuggling/illicit drug trade???

The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?

Picture blocks of inner cities without drug pushers!

Andy

Andy said...

> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?


There's no illicit peyote smuggling trade that I know of.

Andy

Andy wrote:
> Andy said...
>
>> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?
>
>
> There's no illicit peyote smuggling trade that I know of.

But there is for for cigarettes. The black market for pre-tax cigarettes is
huge.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Dave Bugg said...

> Andy wrote:
>> Andy said...
>>
>>> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?
>>
>>
>> There's no illicit peyote smuggling trade that I know of.
>
> But there is for for cigarettes. The black market for pre-tax cigarettes
> is huge.


As true as that is, that's just a cheat-the-system angle.

Like I can buy alcohol in Delaware and save myself the 19% PA sales tax
(issued to aid the Johnstown flood back in 1889).

Johnstown should be a giant metropolis bigger than Los Angeles after so
many years. But NO!!!

And the tax continues to this very day.

Andy
--
I'm no longer a danger to society.

In article >,
Gloria P > wrote:

> hahabogus wrote:
> > Gloria P > wrote
>
> >>
> >> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make
> >> sense.
> >>
> >> If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any
> >> level? That's pretty hypocritical.
>
> >> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there
> >> were no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have
> >> enabled?
> >>
> >> gloria p
> >>
> >
> > If you legalize drugs, you then can enforce trade laws as to quality and
> > generate tax money from
> > it's sales. Those taxes would more than likely be greater the the cost of
> > the trade law enforcement.
> > Plus a great deal of money could be saved in prison costs. So making things
> > buyable at state run
> > 'drug' stores would seem to be a good idea.
> >
>
>
> Recreational drugs aren't a good idea, period. Legalizing them
> is a terrible idea, no matter how much revenue it would generate.
>
> gloria p

Legalizing them would cut way back on deaths from drug related crime
too. It's not just about revenue...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

In article >,
"Dave" > wrote:

> "hahabogus" > wrote in message
> 47...
> > Gloria P > wrote in
> > on Aug Sun 2009 pm
> >
> >> notbob wrote:
> >>> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany
> >>> that will rock North America?
> >>>
> >>> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
> >>>
> >>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...COzYSi8kbAUY1l
> >>> LDdqc4vAD9A70MDO0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels
> >>> will continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels them,
> >>> not some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We ARE the
> >>> problem, make no mistake.
> >>>
> >>> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the back
> >>> of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a GROWTH
> >>> INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in capitalism,
> >>> sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a profitable
> >>> business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the end.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What say ye all?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make
> >> sense.
> >>
> >> If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any
> >> level? That's pretty hypocritical. I can see overlooking the user in
> >> favor of cracking down on the dealers who are profiting mightily, but
> >> if we could ever get the dealing eliminated, what then for the users?
> >>
> >> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there
> >> were no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have
> >> enabled?
> >>
> >> gloria p
> >>
> >
> > If you legalize drugs, you then can enforce trade laws as to quality and
> > generate tax money from
> > it's sales. Those taxes would more than likely be greater the the cost of
> > the trade law enforcement.
> > Plus a great deal of money could be saved in prison costs. So making
> > things buyable at state run
> > 'drug' stores would seem to be a good idea.
> >
>
> They can't control the flow of drugs now, how will making them legal change
> anything?

By removing the profit margin...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

In article >,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Andy wrote:
> > Andy said...
> >
> >> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?
> >
> >
> > There's no illicit peyote smuggling trade that I know of.
>
> But there is for for cigarettes. The black market for pre-tax cigarettes is
> huge.

That's because of heavy taxation. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

"Dave" > wrote in
on Aug Sun 2009 pm

>
> "hahabogus" > wrote in message
> 47...
>> Gloria P > wrote in
>> on Aug Sun 2009 pm
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> Do my eyes deceive me. Has Mexico had a law enforcement epiphany
>>>> that will rock North America?
>>>>
>>>> "Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...lMCOzYSi8kbAUY
>>>> 1l LDdqc4vAD9A70MDO0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, until the US does the same thing, the drug cartels
>>>> will continue to prosper and grow. It's US drug use that fuels
>>>> them, not some campesino leading a donkey and puffing a doob. We
>>>> ARE the problem, make no mistake.
>>>>
>>>> We desperately need the same reform here. Not only to break the
>>>> back of the drug cartels, but to put a stop to what has become a
>>>> GROWTH INDUSTRY! in this coutnry, namely, prisons. I believe in
>>>> capitalism, sure, but making the detention of its own citizens a
>>>> profitable business is beyond abhorent. It's the beginning of the
>>>> end.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What say ye all?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you advocating drug use but not the sale of it? Doesn't make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> If drug use/dealing is bad (yes, it is) why make it legal at any
>>> level? That's pretty hypocritical. I can see overlooking the user
>>> in favor of cracking down on the dealers who are profiting mightily,
>>> but if we could ever get the dealing eliminated, what then for the
>>> users?
>>>
>>> If there were no users, dealers would of out of business. If there
>>> were no dealers, then what, cold turkey for all the users you have
>>> enabled?
>>>
>>> gloria p
>>>
>>
>> If you legalize drugs, you then can enforce trade laws as to quality
>> and generate tax money from
>> it's sales. Those taxes would more than likely be greater the the
>> cost of the trade law enforcement.
>> Plus a great deal of money could be saved in prison costs. So making
>> things buyable at state run
>> 'drug' stores would seem to be a good idea.
>>
>
> They can't control the flow of drugs now, how will making them legal
> change anything?
>
>

It would change who controls them....government control verus gang control. Think proabition.

--
Is that your nose, or are you eatting a banana? -Alan

Gloria P wrote:

> Recreational drugs aren't a good idea, period. Legalizing them
> is a terrible idea, no matter how much revenue it would generate.

I'm for the ban of TV and the legalisation of weed.
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

Dave wrote:

> They can't control the flow of drugs now, how will making them legal
> change anything?

If the weed is sold in state-run shops or in a pharmacy, no more blacks and
latinos gun-fighting for the control of a dope dealing area, such as a park
or a street. This is the lower level, then there's the upper level, which is
the import of drugs into the nation. In holland they just decriminalisated
the lower level and the coffeeshops get theyr stocks patr from local
growers, and part from "no-name".
The best thing nowadays is people growing theyr own weed: not a single damn
penny to the crime cartels.
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

notbob wrote:

> I make no judgement on drug use, I only despise that it has become a
> criminal epidemic, precipitated by insane laws. Just as Prohibition
> created a whole new class of criminals, so have drugs. The
> prohibition of drugs is worse than the drugs. More people die from
> drug related crime than ever did from the drugs themselves.
> Prohibition has never worked and it never will.

And someone will tell you "As you say, but legalisating is surrendering".
It's so sad to see so many people thinking that way, so many people who
can't understand that every new drug impoundment is not a victory but just
another loss, it's just the demonstration that decades of proibitionism have
done nothing more than trying and jailing people, letting other people die
or ruin theyr lives and suggesting others to buy an assault rifle.

> In the meantime, the mega pharmaceutical companies are coming out with
> mind altering drugs daily. Two page ads in magazines. They make you
> sick, rot your organs, but they make you calm in this harried world.
>
> It's gotta change. The way it is now is total mandness.
>
> (whew! ....pass me valium)

I'd recommend camomile
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

In article >,
"ViLco" > wrote:

> notbob wrote:
>
> > I make no judgement on drug use, I only despise that it has become a
> > criminal epidemic, precipitated by insane laws. Just as Prohibition
> > created a whole new class of criminals, so have drugs. The
> > prohibition of drugs is worse than the drugs. More people die from
> > drug related crime than ever did from the drugs themselves.
> > Prohibition has never worked and it never will.
>
> And someone will tell you "As you say, but legalisating is surrendering".
> It's so sad to see so many people thinking that way, so many people who
> can't understand that every new drug impoundment is not a victory but just
> another loss, it's just the demonstration that decades of proibitionism have
> done nothing more than trying and jailing people, letting other people die
> or ruin theyr lives and suggesting others to buy an assault rifle.
>
> > In the meantime, the mega pharmaceutical companies are coming out with
> > mind altering drugs daily. Two page ads in magazines. They make you
> > sick, rot your organs, but they make you calm in this harried world.
> >
> > It's gotta change. The way it is now is total mandness.
> >
> > (whew! ....pass me valium)
>
> I'd recommend camomile

"Chamomile". <g>
Catnip is not bad either, as are Hops, Passionflower or Valerian...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

Andy wrote:
>>
>> Control... age old master/slave issue. Look at the US government's wasteful
>> cost of prohibition. They created a problem they could not solve.
>>
>> Now take Nixon's DEA and the futile waste of taxpayer funds and tell me
>> they're worth their salt after 40 years.
>>
>> If everyone could cultivate and NOT have to buy their drugs, wouldn't that
>> stop the smuggling/illicit drug trade???
>>
>> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?
>>
>> Picture blocks of inner cities without drug pushers!
>>
>> Andy
>>

Andy, now I am worried. You are starting to make sense. ;-)


Becca

ViLco wrote:

> And someone will tell you "As you say, but legalisating is
> surrendering". It's so sad to see so many people thinking that way,
> so many people who can't understand that every new drug impoundment
> is not a victory but just another loss, it's just the demonstration
> that decades of proibitionism have done nothing more than trying and
> jailing people, letting other people die or ruin theyr lives and
> suggesting others to buy an assault rifle.

I think perhaps there is the idea that there is a huge part of the
population that doesn't take drugs because it's illegal, and if it's
legalized, drug use will skyrocket. In fact, it's pretty clearly not a
deterrent at all. I can't think there's anyone who thinks the war on
drugs has been a winner.

nancy

ViLco wrote:

> And someone will tell you "As you say, but legalisating is
> surrendering". It's so sad to see so many people thinking that way,
> so many people who can't understand that every new drug impoundment
> is not a victory but just another loss, it's just the demonstration
> that decades of proibitionism have done nothing more than trying and
> jailing people, letting other people die or ruin theyr lives and
> suggesting others to buy an assault rifle.

I think perhaps there is the idea that there is a huge part of the
population that doesn't take drugs because it's illegal, and if it's
legalized, drug use will skyrocket. In fact, it's pretty clearly not a
deterrent at all. I can't think there's anyone who thinks the war on
drugs has been a winner.

nancy

Andy wrote:
> Andy said...
>
>> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?
>
>
> There's no illicit peyote smuggling trade that I know of.

There must be because it is available on the black market.

Indians seem to be able to do lots of things that the rest of us can't
do. They can hunt and fish where no one else can and the don't have to
worry about fish and game seasons like we do. They are allowed to hunt
and trap because it is their traditional lifestyle. A lot of Europeans
are traditionally hunters and trappers. Canada and the US were opened up
for settlement by hunters and trappers. There were a lot of Europeans
who were in the whaling business for generations spanning centuries,
but only natives can kill whales now.

Nancy Young wrote:


> I think perhaps there is the idea that there is a huge part of the
> population that doesn't take drugs because it's illegal, and if it's
> legalized, drug use will skyrocket. In fact, it's pretty clearly not a
> deterrent at all. I can't think there's anyone who thinks the war on
> drugs has been a winner.


Back in the 70s the Canadian government looked into legalization of
marijuana. The LeDain Commission on the Non Medical Use of Drugs
recommended that marijuana be taken off the list of narcotic drugs and
controlled in the same way as alcohol. One of their concerns was that
legalization would lead to greater use. I have seen reports that that
indicate that alcohol is responsible for more health, personal, family,
work, financial, criminal problems and accidents that all the illegal
drugs combined. I went to high school in the 60s and university in the
70s and just about everyone I knew smoked pot. Very few went on to
harder drugs. Some did. Some even died of overdoses. Some became
alcoholics. A lot of us went on to productive careers. I know doctors
and lawyers who were and still are regular pot smokers. Some of us just
stopped doing it. Maybe we grew out of it.

Dave Smith said...

> Andy wrote:
>> Andy said...
>>
>>> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?
>>
>>
>> There's no illicit peyote smuggling trade that I know of.
>
> There must be because it is available on the black market.
>
> Indians seem to be able to do lots of things that the rest of us can't
> do. They can hunt and fish where no one else can and the don't have to
> worry about fish and game seasons like we do. They are allowed to hunt
> and trap because it is their traditional lifestyle. A lot of Europeans
> are traditionally hunters and trappers. Canada and the US were opened up
> for settlement by hunters and trappers. There were a lot of Europeans
> who were in the whaling business for generations spanning centuries,
> but only natives can kill whales now.


Ya know, I'd be willing to bet if we let America follow the Indian tribal
traditions the world would be a better place.

After all, they were here first. What did we do? We shoveled them off onto
reservations. The most shameful thing ever! Society is so misled!!!

Imho,

Andy

Becca said...

> Andy wrote:
>>>
>>> Control... age old master/slave issue. Look at the US government's
>>> wasteful cost of prohibition. They created a problem they could not
>>> solve.
>>>
>>> Now take Nixon's DEA and the futile waste of taxpayer funds and tell
>>> me they're worth their salt after 40 years.
>>>
>>> If everyone could cultivate and NOT have to buy their drugs, wouldn't
>>> that stop the smuggling/illicit drug trade???
>>>
>>> The Indians can cultivate peyote. Why can't we?
>>>
>>> Picture blocks of inner cities without drug pushers!
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>
> Andy, now I am worried. You are starting to make sense. ;-)
>
>
> Becca


Becca,

From time to time, I am capable! <VBG>

Best,

Andy

Andy wrote:

>>
>> Indians seem to be able to do lots of things that the rest of us can't
>> do. They can hunt and fish where no one else can and the don't have to
>> worry about fish and game seasons like we do. They are allowed to hunt
>> and trap because it is their traditional lifestyle. A lot of Europeans
>> are traditionally hunters and trappers. Canada and the US were opened up
>> for settlement by hunters and trappers. There were a lot of Europeans
>> who were in the whaling business for generations spanning centuries,
>> but only natives can kill whales now.
>
>
> Ya know, I'd be willing to bet if we let America follow the Indian tribal
> traditions the world would be a better place.


I'm not so sure about that. Life in the Americas was not all fun and
games before the arrival of Europeans. There was no indigenous " first
nation" in the Niagara region. The Indians who lived here had been wiped
out in a war between the Iroquois and the Hurons. There was a lot of
warfare between the indigenous people, and slavery was common. We are
all supposed to buy into the idea of their inherent respect for nature,
like how they used every bit of the animals they killed. Of course they
did. They had to because when they moved into an area they killed
everything they could, and then they had to move on to someplace where
the game had not all been killed off. Europeans use everything from the
animals they raised and slaughtered. There isn't much left from a cow
that is raised. Carcasses are rendered and used for all sorts of things.


> After all, they were here first. What did we do? We shoveled them off onto
> reservations. The most shameful thing ever! Society is so misled!!!

Those of us with European roots also saw other groups moving in and
taking over our land. It has happened all over the world, and sometimes
good things came of it.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>
>> I think perhaps there is the idea that there is a huge part of the
>> population that doesn't take drugs because it's illegal, and if it's
>> legalized, drug use will skyrocket. In fact, it's pretty clearly
>> not a deterrent at all. I can't think there's anyone who thinks the
>> war on drugs has been a winner.
>
>
> Back in the 70s the Canadian government looked into legalization of
> marijuana. The LeDain Commission on the Non Medical Use of Drugs
> recommended that marijuana be taken off the list of narcotic drugs and
> controlled in the same way as alcohol. One of their concerns was that
> legalization would lead to greater use.

Even if that was true ... and?

I don't have some ax to grind, I've never been one to use illegal
drugs, but the law has zip to do with that. I've known too many
people who use(d) pot and were leading full and productive lives
to believe it should be illegal. Of course there are people who use
too much. I think it's likely there are far more people who use
alcohol to excess.

> I have seen reports that that
> indicate that alcohol is responsible for more health, personal,
> family, work, financial, criminal problems and accidents that all the
> illegal drugs combined.

I wouldn't be surprised at that at all.

> I went to high school in the 60s and
> university in the 70s and just about everyone I knew smoked pot. Very
> few went on to harder drugs. Some did. Some even died of overdoses.
> Some became alcoholics. A lot of us went on to productive careers. I
> know doctors and lawyers who were and still are regular pot smokers.
> Some of us just stopped doing it. Maybe we grew out of it.

At some point I think it does lose its appeal. It does chap me that
even people who would be greatly helped by marijuana use are
denied. It's just bullheaded stubbornness. I would think there would
be enough of our generation in power by now to stop that kind of
nonsense.

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>
>> I think perhaps there is the idea that there is a huge part of the
>> population that doesn't take drugs because it's illegal, and if it's
>> legalized, drug use will skyrocket. In fact, it's pretty clearly
>> not a deterrent at all. I can't think there's anyone who thinks the
>> war on drugs has been a winner.
>
>
> Back in the 70s the Canadian government looked into legalization of
> marijuana. The LeDain Commission on the Non Medical Use of Drugs
> recommended that marijuana be taken off the list of narcotic drugs and
> controlled in the same way as alcohol. One of their concerns was that
> legalization would lead to greater use.

Even if that was true ... and?

I don't have some ax to grind, I've never been one to use illegal
drugs, but the law has zip to do with that. I've known too many
people who use(d) pot and were leading full and productive lives
to believe it should be illegal. Of course there are people who use
too much. I think it's likely there are far more people who use
alcohol to excess.

> I have seen reports that that
> indicate that alcohol is responsible for more health, personal,
> family, work, financial, criminal problems and accidents that all the
> illegal drugs combined.

I wouldn't be surprised at that at all.

> I went to high school in the 60s and
> university in the 70s and just about everyone I knew smoked pot. Very
> few went on to harder drugs. Some did. Some even died of overdoses.
> Some became alcoholics. A lot of us went on to productive careers. I
> know doctors and lawyers who were and still are regular pot smokers.
> Some of us just stopped doing it. Maybe we grew out of it.

At some point I think it does lose its appeal. It does chap me that
even people who would be greatly helped by marijuana use are
denied. It's just bullheaded stubbornness. I would think there would
be enough of our generation in power by now to stop that kind of
nonsense.

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>
>> I think perhaps there is the idea that there is a huge part of the
>> population that doesn't take drugs because it's illegal, and if it's
>> legalized, drug use will skyrocket. In fact, it's pretty clearly
>> not a deterrent at all. I can't think there's anyone who thinks the
>> war on drugs has been a winner.
>
>
> Back in the 70s the Canadian government looked into legalization of
> marijuana. The LeDain Commission on the Non Medical Use of Drugs
> recommended that marijuana be taken off the list of narcotic drugs and
> controlled in the same way as alcohol. One of their concerns was that
> legalization would lead to greater use.

Even if that was true ... and?

I don't have some ax to grind, I've never been one to use illegal
drugs, but the law has zip to do with that. I've known too many
people who use(d) pot and were leading full and productive lives
to believe it should be illegal. Of course there are people who use
too much. I think it's likely there are far more people who use
alcohol to excess.

> I have seen reports that that
> indicate that alcohol is responsible for more health, personal,
> family, work, financial, criminal problems and accidents that all the
> illegal drugs combined.

I wouldn't be surprised at that at all.

> I went to high school in the 60s and
> university in the 70s and just about everyone I knew smoked pot. Very
> few went on to harder drugs. Some did. Some even died of overdoses.
> Some became alcoholics. A lot of us went on to productive careers. I
> know doctors and lawyers who were and still are regular pot smokers.
> Some of us just stopped doing it. Maybe we grew out of it.

At some point I think it does lose its appeal. It does chap me that
even people who would be greatly helped by marijuana use are
denied. It's just bullheaded stubbornness. I would think there would
be enough of our generation in power by now to stop that kind of
nonsense.

nancy

Nancy Young said...

> At some point I think it does lose its appeal. It does chap me that
> even people who would be greatly helped by marijuana use are
> denied. It's just bullheaded stubbornness. I would think there would
> be enough of our generation in power by now to stop that kind of
> nonsense.
>
> nancy


And while we're dreaming, illegalize tobacco?

Andy

Andy wrote:

> As true as that is, that's just a cheat-the-system angle.

A cheat-the-system that brings in millions to organized crime, death, truck
hijackings, and illicit sales.
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On 2009-08-24, Dave Bugg > wrote:


> A cheat-the-system that brings in millions to organized crime, death, truck
> hijackings, and illicit sales.

Yes, as in brings in millions to FOREIGN organized crime, as in
millions of cash dollars are exported --lost!-- to the US.

nb

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:04:40 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Andy wrote:
> >
>> After all, they were here first. What did we do? We shoveled them off onto
>> reservations. The most shameful thing ever! Society is so misled!!!
>
> Those of us with European roots also saw other groups moving in and
> taking over our land. It has happened all over the world, and sometimes
> good things came of it.

good things for the people who move in and take over, maybe. for the
displaced, not so much.

blake