cannabisnews.com: Pot Proposal Stinks Up the Joint 





Pot Proposal Stinks Up the Joint 
Posted by CN Staff on August 26, 2002 at 08:56:17 PT
By Susan Snyder
Source: Las Vegas Sun 
They must think we're dopes. Who? Those promoting the smoke screen that is Question 9 -- the November ballot initiative that would allow "otherwise law-abiding citizens" to possess three ounces of marijuana.This has nothing to do with medical marijuana. Those who need that still would have to register with the state. This is about being allowed to possess and use pot -- and its byproducts such as hashish oil -- for fun.
Now, three ounces of pot is a small amount -- at Woodstock. Visualize a one-quart sandwich bag, fat and about two-thirds full. That's three ounces and enough to make about 250 joints, Todd Raybuck, a Metro Police narcotics officer, told a group of community leaders who met Wednesday to learn more about the initiative and the drug.While we're visualizing, let's think about a dad and his 11-year-old son sitting on the living-room sofa watching a movie and sharing a joint.Under this initiative you could get away with that, same as you can now get away with giving your kid a sip of your beer, Raybuck and Clark County Prosecutor Gary Booker said. Nothing like helping bad parents be worse ones.Possession of an ounce (about 80 joints) or less already is a misdemeanor that gets you only a citation. Why not make the "small amount" an ounce?Smoking marijuana is different from alcohol consumption. Booze is water soluble. It goes into the bloodstream and dissipates over a matter of hours. Marijuana is fat soluble, which means it goes into the fat where it disperses more slowly, Raybuck said.A person who smokes pot at home on Sunday might not feel high Monday morning, but his judgment can still be clouded or impaired, Raybuck said. No biggie if you work in a record store.What if you drive a school bus?If passed, Question 9 would make it unconstitutional for employers to ban employees from smoking pot. You can do whatever is legal on your own time. Why not demand marijuana intoxication tests? There isn't one. Tests only show whether it's in a person's system, Booker said.He should know. Booker prosecuted Jessica Williams, who smoked pot two hours before she veered off Interstate 15 and killed six kids who were picking up trash. Booker says a driving under the influence conviction was rejected because pot intoxication can't be determined.Question 9 doesn't provide testing standards. It says you can't drive "dangerously," and then fails to define that. When do we define that and how?Theoretically, a 21-year-old could drive to Primm, buy enough pot to roll 250 joints and take them back home to California to sell. Don't for a second believe people will not take it out of state. How much will be in the cars clogging I-15 from Las Vegas to the state line each Sunday?Or maybe visitors will just smoke it in their Las Vegas hotel rooms and be free to drive around until they drive "dangerously."Taxes and licensing costs probably will be so high that few stores will sell it or few people will be able to afford it -- legally. Who pays for the state-funded growth, regulation and distribution?The answers to Question 9's unanswered questions don't matter because this isn't up for revision under legislative scrutiny. It's a constitutional amendment, yes or no. Is this the quality of life and governance we want?Are we dopes?Susan Snyder's column appears Fridays Sundays and Tuesdays. Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV)Author: Susan SnyderPublished: August 23, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.Contact: letters lasvegassun.comWebsite: http://www.lasvegassun.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Vote May Affect National Policyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13805.shtmlAre Nevadans Ready To Roll Dice on Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13765.shtmlPot Proponents Have Good Points http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13757.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #31 posted by VitaminT on August 28, 2002 at 15:32:34 PT
Thanks ff
You gave me exactly what I asked for and it helps. I sent the LTE as originally posted and I was satisfied even with the inaccuracy in it.You make a very good point, which you attribute to observer, the onus certainly should be on prohibitionists to justify their ATROCITIES! See, now I'm motivated to write a few more letters!Thanks again!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by freedom fighter on August 27, 2002 at 19:08:33 PT
Testing done!
Someone should also state that a, "ONE", tobacco cigarette equals 1.1 gram.To standardize the "size" of a joint is to follow the norms of current "legal" standard. So, it's one, "1", gram to a joint or marijuana cigarette. Someone should show 5 packs of tobacco cigarettes and state this equal to 3 ounces of cannabis.Oooops!, forgot to mention that 5 packs of tobacco cigarettes equal 100 grams! Gee! Slight mishap in reading the measurement. Sorry folks, but 5 packs of nail coffins packed extra 6 grams. It's obivious that 3 ounces of cannabis equal 84 grams. And goood grief!, I also forgot to mention that I do not have to go to JAIL for carrying 5 packs of tobacco cigarettes. It's so awesome, that one with 84 grams of cannabis can sit in cage for years.ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by freedom fighter on August 27, 2002 at 18:46:27 PT
VitaminT, Just a friendly reminder
You asked and you shall recieve! Your article is great except for the fact that we had to "defend" ourselves. Our great observer often pointed out this fact that when prohibitionist start to write, they almost never mention the word, "JAIL". According to observer, attack the prohibitionist's stand by asking WHY do prohibition put a human being in a cage for a plant?For example, "Today, while I am visualizing, let's think about a dad and his 11-year-old son sitting on the living-room sofa watching a movie and sharing a joint.
 
Suddenly, doors burst wide open, 10 strange human beings invading the house. Held up at gunpoint. Handcuffed and forced into Police car heading to JAIL. The son get taken over by the Social workers who have to deal with 300 other children. He, too, heads out to another JAIL. The father lose his job, his house, his bank account and his son. He goes to a prison all because he grew a plant. You know, a cage for next 2-5 years costing the taxpayers 40 grand per year since we have to hire the guard. Since, dad no longer could take care of his son, it cost the state another 50 grand taking care of his son.But why? my dear, Mrs. Synder? Why did you, Mrs. Synder have to come up with so many excuses (real or not real) to justify punishing the majority by putting these human beings in cages for consuming cannabis? Is this the quality of life and governance we want? Let's demolish the "dad"'s life because he is a dopehead even if he is responsible pot consumer? Is that what Mrs. Synder meant to say?"Just brainstorming up a cloud! Maybe we could blend the flavor that pack the punches!!ffff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by whatever on August 27, 2002 at 07:02:43 PT
Nuevo Mexican and mayan
thanks for the links. I'm in a debate with my father over this, who is from the old school and its hard cracking his stubborn head.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by knox42897 on August 26, 2002 at 22:20:58 PT:
my response
Hello Susan,
I wanted to comment on your article. It is clear that you are not in favor of question 9. However I wish you would resort to telling the truth. Question 9 does have something to do with medical marijuana as it clearly states that the legislature will be required to provide medical marijuana for patients who qualify for the program. The statement about the father sharing a joint with his 11 year old son is a blatant lie. This provision will outlaw such activity. Please try to imagine a father sharing a cigarret with an 11 year old son, this rarely happens. I'm not going to say that it would never happen but clearly that is not the norm. As for the argument about one ounce or three ounces, this is a smoke screen. All amounts of marijuana should be legal as no one has ever died from over dosing.
I can assure you that if question 9 passes the police department will have a smoke test available to them once its legalized. 
As for californian's clogging I-15 just to purchase marijuana seems ridiculous. Have you made ANY serious calculations as to how many people that would require? Californian's clogging up I-15 for marijuana, Susan what are you smoking?
Why would you state that taxes and licensing costs would probably be so high that few stored will be able to afford it. The initiative clearly states that marijuana will be taxed just like cigarrets. Clearly that is a blatant lie. Do you have ANY information as to the licensing fee's? The fee's would actually be very reasonable as they would have to be inline with tax revenue.
Your statement about few stores will sell it and few people will be able to afford it is just a blatant lie. This also conflicts with the nonsense about I-15 being clogged. 
Further more your last statement about this initiative not being under revision of the legislature is another lie. It clearly states that the legislature will work out all the questions that the initiative has not answered.
Please, next time you write another article, take the time to atleast read the article. 
Finally, I would like to answer your last question Are we dopes? You most certainly are a dope.
Thank you,
Las Vegas Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement,
Pierre 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by knox42897 on August 26, 2002 at 21:38:51 PT:
This article is just stupid
Hey I live in Las Vegas and I was wondering if any people that post messages are from here? If you are please email me.
Pierre
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on August 26, 2002 at 18:32:07 PT
Hi VitaminT
Thanks for sharing your letter you sent. No need to critique though because that's your opinion. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by VitaminT on August 26, 2002 at 18:24:21 PT
Please critique
There's so much to attack in this peice of tripe but since the Las Vegas Sun limits letters to 250 words I tried to confine myself to just the first few outlandish assertions. Please tell me where I'm not clear.Editor:
  I read Susan Snyder’s column with equal measures of amusement and disgust. Prohibition polemics often exclaim - “The sky is falling” and certainly Snyder can match wits with Chicken Little, but not with thinking citizens.
  Snyder’s column is rife with hyperbole: Three ounces of pot, enough for 250 joints! So what? A carton of cigarettes is at least a quarter pound, pre-rolled in 200 cigarettes - big deal. Are pot smokers going to smoke a 2 month supply in a few hours then rampage helter-skelter to rape and pillage?
  That didn’t happen in Ohio. You can possess up to 3.5 ounces there and all you risk is a fine of $100! It’s been the law for years - but no mayhem.
  More hyperbole: Imagine a father smoking pot with his 11 year old. Come now! How many parents are doing this? Sure it’s not unheard of, but since most pot-smoking parents are responsible adults - isn’t it more likely they would take the opportunity to open a rational discussion with their kids about substances - the risks and benefits? I believe that discussion would be the rule and sharing joints with 11 year olds only the rarest exception.
  So what’s the real point? - Prohibition hasn’t ended bad parenting! How could regulating Cannabis make bad parents worse?
  Snyder quotes Mr.’s Raybuck and Booker to support her belief that parents are inept at rearing their kids - that parents were waiting for question 9 so they could “get away with” smoking pot with their kids? - utter foolishness!
  Nevadans should reject hyperbole - vote yes on question 9 and bring Cannabis under regulation where it belongs.VitaminT
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by mayan on August 26, 2002 at 17:47:24 PT
whatever...
IMHO, I think Mike Ruppert has gathered the best evidence for U.S. Government complicity in the Sept.11 attacks. his site is http://www.copvcia.com or http://www.fromthewilderness.comRuppert will be speaking in NYC on Sept.7th. This from http://www.unansweredquestions.org -We're organising another event !This time we will be in New York City, on September 7. Some of the highlights include:- The premiere of a 10-15 documentary short produced by Sundance Film Festival award-winning GNN.- The first U.S. appearance of author, Nafeez M. Ahmed, who wrote The War on Freedom, a 400pp book with 720 references which clearly calls into question many facets of the official story about what happened on September 11th. Nafeez will also be presenting new research recently compiled for the second printing of this shocking expose. ( For more information on this book check out http://waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net. ) - Michael Ruppert, retired LAPD Narcotics officer speaks regularly nationwide and in Canada and Australia to packed houses on the subject of 9/11 and related topics, will be speaking. (Visit Michael's ground breaking website http://www.fromthewilderness.com. ) - Copies of The War on Freedom will be available at discount.- More information will be available here as our plans firm up.The event will be $15 for the general public, $10 for students and free to NYFD, NYPD, and other emergency workers. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by The GCW on August 26, 2002 at 16:50:47 PT
Stop caging humans for using a plant. HELLO!
Cannabis = plant.Prohibitionists = dopes.Prohibitionists are the problem, not cannabis.Christ God gave it to Us, who though takes it away.Two opposites. One = Good God, giving. The other prohbitionists, taking what Good God gave.And their goal is to remove cannabis from earth.I guess, they do not like Our Father's creations. Many of these are foolish enough to rationalize killing.Makes Me think, Susan Snyder, is a candidate for bearing the children that will go on to use doggie Uppers and doggy downers for flying the great killing jets.Do You think she would approve letting her children use CLASS A narcotics to fly killer jets, and partake in killing humans? And at the same time, attempt to cage humans for using a plant?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Nuevo Mexican on August 26, 2002 at 15:45:47 PT
Go Conyers!!! Here's the links for whatever....
Updates can be found at Indymedia.org9-11: links re suspect 'facts' from Feb. http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=137139&group=webcastto 911:AXIS OF EVIL:Creating New Enemies & Preparing For Perpetual Wars-U.S. Foreign Policy In The Middle East By Richard Becker (audio)
by RADIO QUINTOSOL
http://nm.indymedia.org/feature/display/186/index.php
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by AlvinCool on August 26, 2002 at 15:22:36 PT
My response to them
I sent this as a response to this article, although the newspapers never respond!"While we're visualizing, let's think about a dad and his 11-year-old son sitting on the living-room sofa watching a movie and sharing a joint.Under this initiative you could get away with that, same as you can now get away with giving your kid a sip of your beer, Raybuck and Clark County Prosecutor Gary Booker said. Nothing like helping bad parents be worse ones."Why would you think that someone would give their children marijuana? Think they give them scotch shooters now? Nobody believes this statement. You are actually helping pass this amendment. Thanks"Theoretically, a 21-year-old could drive to Primm, buy enough pot to roll 250 joints and take them back home to California to sell. Don't for a second believe people will not take it out of state. How much will be in the cars clogging I-15 from Las Vegas to the state line each Sunday?"I can't argue with that, however don't you think they will be setting up roadblocks at the state line to catch those people. Just like the Italians fish for their citizens coming back from Switzerland. Vegas will be the top tourist spot of America, no doubt."Taxes and licensing costs probably will be so high that few stores will sell it or few people will be able to afford it -- legally. Who pays for the state-funded growth, regulation and distribution?"You can't help but trip over your statements, are you a real journalist? First you expect so many people in the state that the roads won't be able to handle the load, then you can't see how money would be generated. Well which is it?Wipe your mouth, you simply hate legalization so much you apparently slobber on your keyboard as you write this drivel and ignore common sense.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by whatever on August 26, 2002 at 13:54:41 PT
off topic
does anyone have the links to the connection between the bush admin. and the sept. 11 attacks?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by BGreen on August 26, 2002 at 13:43:39 PT
The "SIZE" smokescreen
I can go into a store and purchase a keg or several kegs of beer with no questions asked (the lines on my face say I'm over 21.) I can purchase cases of cigarettes without any prerequisite except having the cash.Why do they think the "3 ounces" argument holds water in regards to cannabis?I endured driving in traffic today with an unbelievable amount of people talking on their cell phones. One guy had his cigarette and cell phone in one hand held up to his ear while trying to yield onto a busy road, using his "free" hand to work the stick shift and the steering wheel. It's horrible around here, and I'm really sick of them telling me I'm going to smoke cannabis and kill somebody when I'm driving. Between the old people and distracted drivers, I guarantee you I'm one of the safest people out there, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on August 26, 2002 at 13:29:06 PT
Thanks Kapt
I don't post the links to the author because Richard said I shouldn't but go ahead and write her. You posted it, I didn't. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on August 26, 2002 at 13:19:36 PT:
Since they so thoughtfully provide us with
the contact info for Ms. Snyder at the following link: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2002/aug/23/513892296.html?Susan+SnyderSusan Snyder's column appears Fridays Sundays and Tuesdays. Reach her at snyder lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4082.Why not let her know how much you appreciate her bile?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on August 26, 2002 at 12:53:00 PT:
They FINALLY got it
In referrence to the Conyers position on the Feds in general and the DEA in particular abrogating the Hatch act. At last somebody high up in the governmnet is taking this eggregious breach of law as seriously as it deserves to be.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by krutch on August 26, 2002 at 12:47:52 PT:
Another Analogy
The clownish author says:"While we're visualizing, let's think about a dad and his 11-year-old son sitting on the living-room sofa watching a movie and sharing a joint."Let us continue this experiment:Picture a Dad and his 11 year old son sharing a bottle of Jack Daniels. Booze is legal. People OD on it and die all of the time. Decriminalization does not mean that it is legal to furnish the drug to children. Your vision is nonsense. Try again.Also, if you look at the SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on driving and MJ use you find that it does not significantly impair a drivers ability the morning after. Booze on the other hand makes you hung over the next day, even though their is none of the alcohol itself left in the body, the metabolites still impair you. That is why you have a pounding headache after you drink too much.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by BGreen on August 26, 2002 at 12:11:54 PT
On the TV show Appraise It
Somebody had prescription whiskey bottles from 1924. I wasn't aware that alcohol was available by prescription during prohibition. Apparently whiskey is medicine but cannabis isn't, and the pharmacies did big business being the only legal purveyors of liquor.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on August 26, 2002 at 12:04:40 PT
If you can't wait to vote, write!
Letters to the Editor before the big vote are a great way to influence public opinion. Write this paper and let them know what you think about articles like this. Be nice - but not too nice! Here's one I just sent to the LV Sun:-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-  In her article about Question Nine, Susan Snyder presents us with the image of a hypothetical father sharing a joint with his also-hypothetical oh-let's-say-eleven-year-old son. She is outraged at this imaginary scene, and says, "Nothing like helping bad parents be worse ones."  No doubt this scene happens from time to time, legal or not. Question Nine merely asks how society would deal with it. By opposing Question Nine, she is supporting the current system, under which the father would face fines and imprisonment. How would this help the hypothetical family's quality of life? The scene in question may be an example of bad parenting, but the response is certainly one of an even worse government.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on August 26, 2002 at 12:04:33 PT
Thanks BGreen!
Yes I did see it but haven't had a chance to view it yet. I've been archiving older articles and will check it out when I'm caught up a little better. Is Ed still in jail? I haven't heard anything.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by 2Spooky on August 26, 2002 at 12:00:51 PT
thanks
Some great links on this page...And the new compression software makes it so I can actually hear Pot TV news almost completely without the "buffering" interruptions...the video is still like a slideshow, however =)I tried to let the folks there know, but the link pops up Outlook Express..which I despise and have disabled.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by BGreen on August 26, 2002 at 12:00:20 PT
Did you see my post FoM?
I saw the link on Pot-TV which redirected to the CRRH website.
Ed "N.J. Weedman" Forchion's Ads Are Online!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 26, 2002 at 11:54:56 PT
Thanks Dan!
Thanks Dan,I just archived the press release that you posted and if anyone wants to comment on it here it is!Conyers Questions DEA On Use of Federal Funds 
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13886.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by p4me on August 26, 2002 at 11:52:59 PT
Yellowtimes has the paragraph of the day award
I am grateful that we have the internet and such websites as Yellowtimes. I admit no bias in saying that the paragraph of my day came from Yellowtimes. I am most impressed with the quality of some of articles at Yellowtimes in cluding this one: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=621&mode=thread&order=0The article's title,"Speed", is all about propaganda news thrown at in a 5 minute barrage. The second paragraph is copied below:The "News," of course, is a ludicrous hand job - nine minutes of government-approved pabulum, delivered at a lightening-fast pace, cleverly sliced with advertisements, and falsely labeled "in- depth team coverage." Talk Radio news reports are as cheerfully misleading as the nurse who comes to the ailing patient with a needle the size of Topeka and says, "Now you may feel a little discomfort…" But they serve the needs of the homeland power brokers nicely, as all good propaganda does, breeding both ignorance and arrogance into the listeners in equal measure. ----------------------------1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Dan B on August 26, 2002 at 11:50:29 PT:
NORML Alert: Conyers V. The DEA
I thought I'd post this for anyone interested. Strange, isn't it, that it has not yet made it to the news?Date: Sunday, August 25, 2002 11:26 AMFrom the office of:
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
Fourteenth District, Michigan
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee Dean of the Congressional
Black Caucus
Contact: Deanna Maher (313) 961-5670 Cell: (313) 737-7944Ted Kalo, Judiciary Committee
(202) 225-6906FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 23, 2002CONYERS QUESTIONS DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSESDetroit, MI - Congressman John Conyers, Jr. has requested an immediate investigation by the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, Asa Hutchinson, of DEA's possible misuse of federal funds without proper authorization by Congress and in intravention of existing law.. Conyers said: "It appears that the DEA has been actively engaged across the country in collaboration with groups who are opposed to ballot proposals involving reform of our drug laws. Michigan is one of the states which will have a proposal of this kind on its November ballot. Citizens opposed to this kind of ballot initiative clearly are permitted to campaign and lobby in support of their point of view in an effort to
win public support for their position.This is what our democracy is all about. But it is far from clear whether federally funded agencies and their employees can be used to spread a message or promote a campaign for or against a ballot initiative, on federal property and on government time.""The use of our local DEA office by those opposed to the Drug Reform ballot initiative seems clearly in violation of Section 601 of Public Law 107-77 (November 28, 2001), which clearly states that no part of any appropriation for DEA can be used for 'publicity or propaganda purposes' not authorized by Congress"."I am concerned that DEA has actively been involved in a campaign, both locally and nationally, to oppose drug reform proposals which have been properly and legally put before the citizens of this state for their approval or rejection. There seems little doubt that the appropriations
for DEA are specifically prohibited from being used for this purpose.This apparently unlawful involvement of the DEA to promote a political agenda must cease immediately. We cannot allow the integrity of our national government to be compromised for any purpose, regardless of the intent of these over zealous federal activists. I am shocked that judges in violation of their Canon of Ethics would participate as well."
--The DEA's page in question is at
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/legalization.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on August 26, 2002 at 11:07:20 PT
Vote and
forget about all of the dumb rhetoric.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by legalizeit on August 26, 2002 at 10:26:12 PT
How does this "woman" sleep at night?
>This is about being allowed to possess and use pot -- and its byproducts such as hashish oil -- for fun. So?? Other far more harmful drugs are already allowed to be possessed and used for "fun". Only the byproducts of one include violence and death, and the other just death.>While we're visualizing, let's think about a dad and his 11-year-old son sitting on the living-room sofa watching a movie and sharing a jointLet's not. This worn and tattered Reefer Madness crap doesn't fly anymore. >A person who smokes pot at home on Sunday might not feel high Monday morning, but his judgment can still be clouded or impaired, Raybuck said.Raybuck is a NARK. Does that automatically make him an authority on cannabis physiology? What study proves this? Something funded by NIDA no doubt? Anyway, we KNOW this to be the case for alcohol, and it is legal to drive or even fly a plane eight hours after drinking ("eight hours from bottle to throttle".)>You can do whatever is legal on your own time. Why not demand marijuana intoxication tests? There isn't one. A shred of sensibility. Too bad Snide-r used it sarcastically.>Booker prosecuted Jessica Williams, who smoked pot two hours before she veered off Interstate 15 and killed six kids who were picking up trash. Booker says a driving under the influence conviction was rejected because pot intoxication can't be determined.Circular argument!! If intoxication can't be determined how did they know she smoked up two hours before? And didn't she have other stuff in her system? I seem to recall that being the case.>Are we dopes?Yes. You and your prohib cronies definitely are.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by John Tyler on August 26, 2002 at 10:06:44 PT
No more puns please
Is anybody else tired of the same old puns? Smokescreen, joints, up in smoke, etc., ha ha. It may sound witty when speaking, but it sounds lame when written. Actually this whole article is lame. Is this the best argument she can come up with? The question is, should people be subject to criminal sanction for the responsible use of a plant? The answer is no. This is the quality of life and governance we want.
Pardone me, but we would be dopes if we settled for anything less.The Nevada vote is 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by p4me on August 26, 2002 at 10:02:15 PT
An improvement for our #1 tool
I just watched today's pot-tv: http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1488.html They have the announcement up about new compression software. The new software upgrades are most significant for 56K speeds, but it is an improvement that helps us all. I thought the Indymedia coverage of the protest in Seattle showed the power of the people to use the internet to break the blockade of information by our free press. The same could be said for the MMJ protesters in Toronto. Internet video is going to be making converts that swell the reformers into a clear majority on the issue of legalisation.The Kubbys today were enthusiastic and broadcast the great job the Canadian press is doing and said that change would be imminent. Yesterday I went to see some friends that have a computer they only use for word-processing and emails and collecting dust. I put up a few bookmarks for them on their dinasour computer and dwelled on the fact that they would see the world completely different if they regularly used the internet. The fact that there are two worlds with two different realities cannot be seen by the world that gets their news from the paper and television. OK, where is the Gallup poll? The month ends on Friday and it sure would look strange not to have the annual question on MJ legalisation.1,2 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on August 26, 2002 at 09:06:15 PT
I am glad you asked.
Is this the quality of life and governance we want?Are we dopes?It is no where near the way life should be. The most negative governance in my life are the unjust and unconstitutional marijuana laws. And I am no dope but I do believe you are.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment