cannabisnews.com: Antidrug Activist Says She Was Barred From Signing Antidrug Activist Says She Was Barred From Signing Posted by CN Staff on May 26, 2003 at 08:18:58 PT By S.A. Miller Source: Washington Times Maryland antidrug activist Joyce Nalepka said she was barred from the public ceremony in which Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. signed a medical-marijuana bill into law. Mrs. Nalepka, who fought against the bill that reduces penalties for possession of marijuana for medical reasons, said police singled her out of the crowd and turned her away from the bill-signing ceremony in the governor's reception hall in the State House. "I was casually walking along with the crowd when a police officer came to me and said, 'You can't go in,' " said Mrs. Nalepka, a Silver Spring grandmother who for 25 years has led grass-roots opposition to drug legalization. Mrs. Nalepka said she asked for an explanation and was told by the officer: "Those are my orders." Ehrlich spokesman Henry Fawell said he was unaware of orders to bar Mrs. Nalepka from the ceremony and questioned her version of events. He said it was "highly unlikely" the governor would have given such orders. "That's just not the governor's style," Mr. Fawell said. "The governor has always welcomed viewpoints that conflict with his own. He considers it part of the democratic process." Mrs. Nalepka said when she demanded a further explanation from the officer, his supervisor came over and "curtly repeated that I wasn't allowed to go in there and that I needed to leave the second floor," of the State House, home to the governor's office and reception room. "I was outraged and stayed until I was certain he was going to physically remove me," Mrs. Nalepka said. "Not wanting to embarrass myself, I did leave. But the more I think of their gestapo tactics, the angrier I get." Mr. Fawell said he saw Mrs. Nalepka on the second floor but witnessed no confrontation with police. "Those who spoke with her, including myself, were very courteous and happy to listen to her remarks," he said. "I didn't see anybody give her a hard time or escort her out of the building." In signing the bill, Mr. Ehrlich defied White House pressure for a veto to become the first Republican governor to sign a bill keeping medical marijuana patients from going to jail. Closer to home, Mr. Ehrlich bucked a prolific letter-writing, e-mail and telephone lobbying campaign by Mrs. Nalepka and her group, Drug-Free Kids. Maryland law now recognizes a "medical necessity" defense in marijuana-possession trials. Defendants who prove a medicinal need to possess the drug will face a misdemeanor conviction, a maximum $100 fine and no jail time. The law previously prescribed sentences of up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine for all cases of marijuana possession. Since the bill passed the Maryland Senate by a 29-17 vote and the House by a 73-62 vote, Mrs. Nalepka, a lifelong Republican, had implored the governor to veto it. She and other opponents of the law say softening penalties for possession of illegal drugs sends the wrong message to children. They also point out that medical marijuana doesn't have U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval and federal law still classifies marijuana as a dangerous and illegal narcotic. Proponents of the law say smoking marijuana helps people with AIDS, cancer and other illnesses because it restores their appetites and relieves nausea from chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Mr. Ehrlich, who supported similar legislation as a U.S. congressman, signaled his intention to sign the bill from the start, though there were rumors his position had wavered as the veto deadline approached. He dispelled those rumors Thursday by signing the bill. Mrs. Nalepka said she was "horribly disappointed" by the governor. "I think he should be removed," she said. "Civilized people don't poison their children.... The message to the kids is horrific. He's saying to all the kids, 'It's OK by me to use marijuana.' " The Marijuana Policy Project, a D.C.-based group dedicated to reforming marijuana laws that also lobbied heavily in support of the Maryland law, praised Mr. Ehrlich for his courage in signing the bill. "Maryland's elected officials have rightly rejected the position of a hostile White House and drug czar, who believe that marijuana-using cancer patients should be incarcerated like common criminals," said Robert Kampia, the organization's executive director. Complete Title: Antidrug Activist Says She Was Barred from Bill-Signing CeremonyNewshawk: puff_tuffSource: Washington Times (DC)Author: S.A. MillerPublished: May 26, 2003Copyright: 2003 News World Communications, Inc. Website: http://www.washtimes.com/Contact: letters washingtontimes.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Marijuana Law Makes a Humane Distinction http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16383.shtmlMd. Lowers Medical Marijuana Penalty http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16370.shtmlPropaganda Czar - Baltimore Sunhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16365.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #21 posted by kaptinemo on May 27, 2003 at 17:06:39 PT: Dan, it's quite all right... I am the way I am partly because I have been on the receiving end of their 'tender mercies' before. The experience left me both traumatized...and, yes, more than a little vengeful. I live for the day when I can march into some Federal office and spit in the face of the Feeb b*****d who ruined me oh so casually with one phone call. (I doubt I was so lucky that he had been promoted to New York and died on 9/11.)When and if cannabis is legal again in the US - and I am not going to hold my breath, despite the latest good news from Maryland - then I shall be magnanimous in restricting my 'payback' to a little saliva.But there's plenty out there tonight who are languishing in jails cells and prisons who might not be so restrained when it's their turn. And I wouldn't blame them one little bit; "I was only following orders." wasn't good enough for Germany; why should it be for the Good Ol' US of A? [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Dan B on May 27, 2003 at 14:49:06 PT: Agree to disagree on this one? Kaptinemo,I guess I'm just not ready to break with common democratic polity yet. Perhaps it's the long break I took (for my own sanity's sake, among other reasons) from commenting on this issue. At any rate, I appreciate your point of view and ask respectfully that we simply agree to disagree on this issue. If there's one overarching truth about us pro-freedom folks, it's our ability to live and let live. Would that the jackboots who run this country could learn to do the same.Take care.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by kaptinemo on May 27, 2003 at 12:29:20 PT: Dan, I coudn't agree more about the need to maintain our moral high ground.There's just one problem with that; the antis will never concede in the slightest that they are wrong so long as they perceive themselves as winning, because they believe themselves to be occupying those heights.They are fundamentally (pun intended) incapable of even entertaining for a millisecond that they might be wrong. To do so is to cast doubt upon the entirety of their 'enterprise'. And to place themselves squarely on the side of the very evil they continually rail against.Somebody once told me that ' "the louder the singing in church, the more to cover the sound of someone being strangled in the pews" '. Antis are full of sanctimonious hymn-singing righteousness - while what they do aids and abetts the very depravity they claim to be trying to eradicate. And they can't for a single instant acknowledge that our side has a valid argument. To do so is to open the door into public (rather than just safely impotent and academic) speculation as to whether their efforts were worthwhile at ALL. This is why they always try to avoid debating with us, because honest answers to the questions we have to ask will destroy their fragile credibility. So they lob manure at us politically, knowing that so long as some of it sticks in the public's mind, they can continue to get away with it.This isn't chess we're playing, but mud wrestling. We're not dealing with ethereal Bobby Fishers but your average steroid addled WWF bruiser. Play by their rules and we get hammered, every time. The only thing that counts with such people is winning. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Dan B on May 27, 2003 at 10:19:05 PT: Kaptinemo--I see what you mean . . . I wholeheartedly agree that Nalepka got what was coming to her and, as I said, "I must admit that I was initially glad to read that Joyce Nalepka may have been turned away from this signing." And, I am still happy to see one of "them" being treated like one of "us." Of course there is more at stake than whether it was proper or not to exclude her from the signing. But let me assure you that, if it is in fact true that she was barred (I have my doubts as to the veracity of her story), it is as wrong (in what is supposed to be a democratic society) to exclude her as it is to exclude anti-Bush activist from his public appearances, or to exclude people with certain national origins from the voting booth. To stifle either side of the debate is wrong. The fact that our voices have been stifled in far harsher ways for far too long does not justify the removal of a citizen from participation in the political process. We whose voices have been stifled the most should be most sensitive to this issue.I assure you that I do not approach this issue as an intellectual exercise. If we are to show that we have truth on our side then we must be willing to acknowledge the failures of our own side of the issue even as we acknowledge the horrors associated with the other side. Is this reported "slight" against Nalepka ever so slight as to be insignificant in comparison to the travesties committed against peaceful cannabis partakers and other victims of the war on some drugs? Absolutely. Even so, we can at least acknowledge that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than those of our enemies. So, feel free to smile and even laugh at the exclusion of Joyce Nalepka from this bill signing. You have that right, and you are fully justified in using it. I have done the same. At the same time, we can (I hope) acknowledge that some tactics are best left out of politics altogether, and exclusion of anyone from participation in the political process is one such tactic, no matter who is using it. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by kaptinemo on May 27, 2003 at 05:43:54 PT: I'm sorry Dan, but there's more at stake than a perception of whether Nalepka was improperly excluded from the signing ceremony.It was people like her who led the drive to shut down the head shops in Maryland in 1980, putting hundreds of people out of work during the doldrums of the first Reagan recession many years ago. How many people lost everything in that?Emboldened by their success (and let's face it, our failure to meet this threat face-on for what it was, rather than just dismissing them as just a bunch of bored, control-freak housewives looking to flex anemic political muscle and assuage 'suburban guilt') they proceeded to make life worse for us...and the pols, smelling our blood in the water and knowing that we had no one to effectively speak for us, sensed an easy kill and made tons of political capital out of this. And thousands of our brothers and sisters either languished (and continue to suffer) in jail or have had their lives destroyed by the increasingly Draconian laws.Thanks to people like Joyce.So, now, Joyce says they were rude to her? They intimidated her? She felt angry and frightened? The long expected and hoped for whine escaped her lips: "IT'S NOT FAIR!"? She's far too ossified in the cranial department ever to tumble to the irony of what she is saying. But what she has done with the assistance of her supposed 'friends' has caused untold suffering and pain. Thanks to her, the cancer-riddled old lady I took care of couldn't have cannabis and wouldn't take it for fear of losing all her goods. My own Mother could have survived the ravages of Crohn's Disease if she had had access to cannabis, as towards the end she was weakened by a lack of appetite.This is not an intellectual exercise, my friends; they declared war upon us for no reason other than prejudice and hate. In that war, they have used every dirty tactic possible to keep us down and excluded from the political process. The results have been tragic.So, when one of them gets just the slightest, barest taste of what they have done to us? I wish you could see my smile. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Dan B on May 27, 2003 at 04:40:04 PT: Do Unto Others? First, let me say that there are two issues here: (1) was Joyce Nalepka refused entry into the signing of the bill, and (2) was such an action appropriate. The answer to the first question is that we do not know, but it is her style to make such an accusation solely as an effort to paint those who would support this bill in a bad light. I doubt seriously that the turning away ever occurred, particularly since the only eyewitness accounts contradict her story. That brings up the second issue, and the remainder of these comments treat that issue as though Nalepka had been turned away.I must admit that I was initially glad to read that Joyce Nalepka may have been turned away from this signing, but that happiness was quickly shattered by another feeling. While it is somewhat heartening to read of a person like Nalepka getting her due, there is a larger issue at work here: should a government official be allowed to turn away a citizen from a public signing of a bill into law simply because that person disagrees with the contents of the bill? In a free society, the answer is no.No matter the circumstance, Nalepka should not have been turned away from this public signing. Signings of bills are made public so that the citizens can witness the passing of legislation into law; thus, there is no circumstance (barring a physical threat against the crowd, the governor, or the governor's staff) under which an American citizen and citizen of the state of Maryland should be turned away from the signing of a state bill into law.I don't support Nalepka, but I also do not support policies that inhibit the rights of citizens to participate in their government. The fact that prohibitionists are dictatorial, hateful and cruel in terms of their behavior toward the rest of us does not give us the right to treat them accordingly. Many here have brought up the "Do unto others" argument. That is all the more reason to not turn Nalepka away from this event. If we want to succeed in showing the prohibitionists that we are correct in our thinking, we must first show them that we are correct in our behavior. That means treating all people equally, whether they are prohibitionists or not. Bigotry can swing both ways, but we gain the moral high ground if we show that it doesn't have to swing away from us.Furthermore, if the officials had not turned Nalepka away (or if she hadn't made this claim), there would be no story other than the signing of the bill and, perhaps, some opposition to it, and she may have also been denied the opportunity to vent her venom through this notoriously prohibitionist newspaper. Something to think about.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by freedom fighter on May 26, 2003 at 20:18:29 PT Here to our drug-free kids by the year of ? "He's not a threat to the atomization of society or property forfeiture; indeed, it appears he has no property. He acquiesces the justice and need of our prison system. He's weak and has no desire to fight. He's too intimidated to be a trouble. He agrees that he's talking about an important law and a grave social problem, that he could be incarcerated. He's respectful to the doctor. He is wasted to 90 pounds, afflicted with the most dreaded of diseases. He has accepted the prescribed treatment. All his functions and will to live are decimated by chemo. He's too weak to move and can barely speak. He's nauseated. He brought a letter from an authority to testify that he is sick. We can be certain that his death is imminent. He's come to the emergency room, not to waste resources or take bed space in the ward. His case will not be seen; he seeks no notoriety, has no complaint. No one hears his name, and he is known only to us as "old man." He doesn't overtly admit to marijuana use, but still....All of us are wary of this fellow. Will the drug war be weakened? Are profits or ideology at risk? Some of the jury consider that there's been outside pressure, a threat of publicity. How can this incident be quashed? Where is the greater threat? Perhaps this is a case where compassionate conservatism could be applied. But is he sick enough? Is he truly ill?Judgement: $100. You are free to go, old man."Some smart dude said that... Buried somewhere here in the Cnews.. Can Joyce explain the compassionate conservatism here?An old man and a child snitch.pazff [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Lehder on May 26, 2003 at 18:58:16 PT unnatural selection They can lie and propagandize over marijuana forever, but there is one huge difference in attitude between herbalists and prohibitionists that overrides all other contention. We are perfectly happy to live and let live, but they demand that we live as they do and cage or kill us if we choose not to live and preach as they. I've no objection to prohibitionists practicing whatever bizarre religion that deludes them, drinking themselves to oblivion, smoking radioactive carcinogens, paralyzing their minds with television and right-wing radio, breaking their children's heads on football fields, even making fools of themselves as they condemn marijuana. BUT LEAVE US ALONE in our homes.Why are they so desperate to have us live as they do? They have IR cameras to see if someone is smoking a joint in his bedroom, search planes to see if someone has a plant in the forest, surgical instruments to look up people's behinds for a reefer.You would think that if their way of life were so marvellous it would attract people by its own merits. Yet they must go to repulsive extremes to impose a rote mimicry of their odd behavior on endless millions who detest them.Surely this is some form of mental disease. It's stagnating to human culture, and an evolutionary dead end. Already it's distasteful to associate with these people, but one day we'll find that prohibitionists cannot even breed with normal beings our differences will be so insuperable. Homo Sapiens then will branch into two species as hominids did eons ago, and theirs will all die off. Our descendants will dig up their bones, note the small cranial capacities, the puritan-dwarf genitalia, and the forensic scars of pharmaceutical and alcoholic self-abuse.... Nah, better to leave them in the ground. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by afterburner on May 26, 2003 at 18:37:22 PT: Your Brother, Love Him or Hate Him 9 "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. 12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake." 1 John 2:9-12 -Bible Gateway http://www.biblegateway.com/Mrs. Joyce Nalepka, do you love your brother, Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.?"they can't see that when you circumscribe the rights of one group, you have endangered the rights of all." On a related issue here are some Toronto voices about forced DNA testing of innocent citizens.May. 26, 2003. 10:43 AM - Voices: Blanket DNA testing http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1053600492788&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037 [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by The GCW on May 26, 2003 at 17:31:33 PT Children should be shown to ask the right ???s And so the question the children should ask in DARE class:Officer, have You ever put anyone in a cage for using a plant? (persist, just the pure plant material, sir).Yes, bless the children. And may they ask questions, to not only Our Father, but the teachers as well. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by The GCW on May 26, 2003 at 17:12:25 PT The real issue wiht the children. When they say they are worried about the children, realize they are doing the devils work and as far as the children are concerned what they are afraid of is the chance that the children will find out and know THE TRUTH.And this is an easy one... I’ve helped My kids with this on a child level that everyone should expose to all children, especially those of the prohibitionists.(to the Our children) If You hear anyone ever say or indicate that it is ok to cage a human for using a plant, You must compare that to that the Bible says about the plants on the very 1st page, which says they are all good, and so even in its location, You are able to always know where to go to know which side to believe, in order to avoid the sin that causes blanket separation from the Holy Spirit of Truth. =-=Kids should realize that if the devil is going to separate You from Christ God, He is going to try to do that on the very 1st page and not put it off. The devil has been extrordiarily successful at stumbling people on this 1st page issue.Kids, the very 1st page is how You know who loves Christ God Our Father, and who has traded Christ God for a lie.Bless the children, may Our Father forgive them for their sins and expose them to the spirit of truth and then may they share it with Us.What can the deluding influence do to the children through people like Joyce?What does Joyce tell the children?Can she, will she be held responsible, Biblically?Talk about someone who needs Our prayers.Lord Father, through Christ I pray that Joyce and her types realize the Holy Spirit of Truth. Save them from their stumble and bring them home.Joyce if full of zeal. With the Holy Spirit of Truth, she would make Paul proud. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on May 26, 2003 at 17:01:49 PT I Really Don't Understand This part of the article bothers me. "I think he should be removed," she said. "Civilized people don't poison their children.... The message to the kids is horrific. He's saying to all the kids, 'It's OK by me to use marijuana.' " This was a law to help sick adults. It has nothing to do with children. Children aren't an issue with this law. I find it immature to say that a politican should be removed from office because he made a decision contrary to how an individual feels personally. Who actually are civilized people and what poison is she talking about because it can't be Cannabis. It has never killed even one person? Do I have to go to all the 'in' places to be able to call me civilized? Maybe it's the church a person goes too that will make him civilized.To me using the term civilized is a way of condescending to those who don't believe like me. It's being full of pride and self righteousness?Who is civilized?Did she just call the Governor of Maryland uncivilized? [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on May 26, 2003 at 16:29:26 PT: The crocodile tears of the hypocrite "Justice is what we deserve; Mercy is in not getting it."I'll never understand these people.They promote 'no-knock' entries which have led to the shooting death of children by police...yet they say their crusade is to 'save' children.Then, when police politely restrain them from causing a public scene - said treatment being far more gentle than the police treatment of 'druggies'- they get all hysterical and behave as if they have just been cavity searched by one of their human Dobermans. That's not supposed to happen to them, oh no!That's not supposed to happen to...'good people'. Good taxpaying people who support charities and their schools and PTA groups and their denomination. People who don't hesitate to help when a neighbor's child gets his head stupidly stuch betweeen fence bars. People who give money to beggers even though they know it may be used to buy rotgut instead of food. People who pick up injured animals and carry them to the vet and pay the bill even though it's not their responsibility. People like your neighbors.Good people...like all those who have been savaged by the laws purblind, casually vicious self-appointed moral proctors like Joyce and her equally clueless peers have fronted for.They simply cannot connect the dots; they can't see that when you circumscribe the rights of one group, you have endangered the rights of all. The sheeple never wake up until they feel the blade they trustingly gave the shepherd to use on 'bad people' slicing into their own throats.Power tends to be that way, and any you give away to a government usually requires force of arms to get back. But it is always, blindly, stupidly invested in those who cannot be trusted by those who's understanding of the nature of power equals that of a child. And such childish trust in an entity that can kill you with the very means you gave it is grounds for questioning the donor's mental acumen.Joyce, we have felt the awful crushing weight of the laws you and your ilk have saddled this country with for almost 70 years. And in the last 30, that weight has done more than crushed spirits, it's destroyed rights as well. Those who have felt the full brunt of their force can tell you that you know nothing of 'Gestapo tactics'. Your treatment was far less brutal than the average cannabist receives from your erstwhile friends, the police, who have with one small lesson showed you the dangers that I have written about.Your boo-hooing is music to my ears, Joycie dear. Welcome to the ranks of second-class citizenship...which you put the rest of us into with your Children's Crusade. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by freedom fighter on May 26, 2003 at 16:16:26 PT Barred from Signing? What are you doing there Joyce? Really am curious enuff to find out if she was "armed and deadly" when confronted by the "peace" officers. What was she planning to do? Scream? Pour gasoline on herself and fire it away? I mean what can she say? It is better to put a sick old man into a cage and fine him $1,000 and a year in a cage rather than a 100$ fine because he smokes a joint or two when he, in fact, should be left alone? (Personally, I think the state rather have this law since, they would not have to deal with very sick people)((A mockery of justice!))Pot Prohibition creates so many questions with no known sane answers. There is, however, one sane answer.LEGALIZE Just one word! LEGALIZE, LEGALIZE, LEGALIZE! Strick that word marijuana from the law books forever!Whine all you can Joyciee, We, the CNews invite you to make your hit and run comment here. pazff [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Lehder on May 26, 2003 at 15:48:08 PT " Coffee - Tobacco - Alcohol - Ritalin - Prozac&qu - Television - Public School - Pressure Sports - Crooked Elections - Bigotry - DARE - and Joyce's Drug War Persecutions - all are poison to body and mind. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by The GCW on May 26, 2003 at 15:31:36 PT Jose Melendez is right. I am insulted to hear someone claim "Civilized people don't poison their children."For Me this is many issues, but it is first the issue of Christ God who created it on the 1st page of the Bible and said it was good. Noah reconfirmed this info at Gen. 9:3. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.Through the Holy Spirit of Truth, I am more and more realizing cannabis is the tree of life.To hear one of Christ God’s children insinuate that cannabis is poison, is very much different than what We are told, Biblically. We are told to test the spirits. Joyce, when her spirit is tested, indicates an inability to discern truth as it pertains to Christ God and the HOLY SPIRIT OF TRUTH on this issue.The Bible attempt to help Us not fall into the pit Joyce dwells in. While We are on this side looking out at Her, it is so easy to see the Biblical extent of her blasphemy with basic elementary ease. But with the deluding influence, she looking from the outside, is not allowed to even see in. That would be 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. in the area titled: Man of Lawlessness, For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=2THES%2B2&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NASB&x=16&y=7It would be better to know the Spirit of Truth. Have the Truth of God and never trade it for a lie. It would be good for Joyce to become like Paul and change Her ways.It was good for Me, like it was good for Paul and I know it would be good for Joyce.Let Us pray for Joyce and Her lot.That they would do the works of Christ and not the works of the devil. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on May 26, 2003 at 14:16:59 PT She knows this argument to be false. "Civilized people don't poison their children."- Coffee - Tobacco - Alcohol - Ritalin - ProzacIt's the hypocrisy, stupid. contact ourdrugfreekids.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Shishaldin on May 26, 2003 at 10:32:44 PT To Joyce Does the phrase "hoist on one’s own petard" mean anything to you? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, Joyce. Moralizers/Prohibitionists such as yourself often forget those very important words...Peace and Strength,Shishaldin [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by 2Spooky on May 26, 2003 at 09:01:11 PT Yup That is the exact thing that first came to my mind upon reading that. Hahahahahahah! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Truth on May 26, 2003 at 09:00:33 PT Hey Joyce, How does it feel to be discriminated against for cultural differences? Also, marijuana is not poisonious, are you really that ignorant? Pots killed no one, your policies kill many. Leave our people alone. Do unto others..... [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by TroutMask on May 26, 2003 at 08:23:10 PT What comes around goes around. "But the more I think of their gestapo tactics, the angrier I get."Then I guess you know how we feel every day, Nazi.-TM [ Post Comment ] Post Comment