On 1/10/07, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would add to that, welfare and public housing should be available only > to > those that test negative (also for alcohol).
Test for alcohol? I think you'd have to have a serious problem for alcohol to show up anywhere. Doesn't it "evaporate" pretty quick? Testing is crap, what we need is people, who know people. Cross discipline type stuff- you know, I've heard it takes a village, or whatever... Don't think the detached "we'll test 'em" type stuff has really worked for us, IMHO. In many places. All driving and vehicle operation laws should be as tough or tougher than > alcohol. Tougher? And what about people being effected(affected?) differently? does testing really tell us how drunk someone is, say, or how stoned? There's more to us than just the "parts per" argument. But I guess, if it works, ya know- that whole argument. Road blocks seem pretty lame to me-- little too "show us your papers" and whatnot- not in line with the founding beliefs or whathaveyou. But hey, if whatever works, neh? These things are SAVING LIVES! And if it saves JUST ONE LIFE, hell, we don't need to be free. And what's freedom, but nothing left to lose? Hehe. Seriously, i'd be fine with similar stuff as al-keyhall, but truth fully, I think this is all more a problem of culture more than anything else. Laws and such don't make a good society. Nope. Not 1 whit. Not really. There's a lot more wrong with alcohol than weed-- I don't buy the "like alcohol" argument. Nope. Herbs don't even compare. Finally, all crimes committed with drugs in the mix (in posession or tested > for) should add percentage penalty to the sentence. What are drugs? And I guess we're saying it's ok for someone to make poor choices, so long as they're not "on something". Or it's worse for the person who's driving stoned (there's a roach in the ashtray) than for the person who's driving half awake, even though if there was a "test" of reflexes given the sleepy person fared worse. REally I have a problem with "percentage" sentences, or pre-defined terms of incarceration (the Grid? Three strikes? Sure... NOT!). We've already dumbed down the jury to the point of... well, you get pulled if you, for instance, know that the jury overrides the judge. They don't like people knowing. That. Sorta like the whole income tackses payment is voluntary type stuff. Far out stuff. WHoops. Someone somewhere wants people to be dumb. Who is this person? O MY GOD! IT'S *US*! It's crazy but true. Crazy like a fox. With those factors in mind, I say legalize it tomorrow. Legalize today!!! What are we getting out of prohibition? Seriously? Don't we all recognize that all prohibition does is put money in the pockets of organized crime (and the government-- the two sides not as far apart as one would wish ;)? Yet here we are, doping our kids up at the drop of a hat, etc..-- And moaning about an herb?!?! Something that used to be a forced crop? Give me a break. Legalize NOW. No, YESTERDAY. No, way back- when homecheese said the bit about regulating masturbation he was right on. Guillani or some such. Not the current dude, but a mayor or something of New York, iirc. Poor memory. Poor Memory. Poor memory. Poor what? Show of hands: who's watched the movie "Grass"? Dude from natural born killers narrating? Good stuff, biased, sure, but plenty of facts (real facts, not the fake, made up, pretty much just lame "facks" parroted by those with Agendas) to dig ones teeth into. I still wouldn't use, but that is a personal preference (the same reason I > no longer drink enough to get drunk). That's cool. It's the regulating of others that bugs me, not the regulating of self. Personally, I subscribe to the sorta wiccanish bit of "if it doesn't harm others" type deal. It's rough, cuz I can still die because of what someone else does, and all I've got to blame is myself, but I wouldn't trade it. Responsibility is awesome. As in Awe. Awe. Wow. I wish we could take care of ourselves, instead of placing all this faith in a "system" of some sort. We're still kinda animals tho, so... I get it. Somebody Else's Problem. Hell, I subscribe too. Sorta. Sorry for the tirade. Blame it on the moon/stars, etc.. Friday. Sorry So Sloppy too. I need to make more sense. We need a law for that! Denny shall always be crystal clear, on pain of wet noodling. Yup. =] On 1/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The easy way to legalize: > > > > Legalize pot with these caveats > > > > 1) it must be in a packaged form (ie: pre rolled cigarettes) > > 2) it must be sold in the same way that alchohol is, with special state > > required licensing or in state owned stores > > 3) a measure of "proof" like alchohol must be established (THC by > volume?) > > 4) it must be taxed like alchohol > > 5) can only be sold to those over 21 years of age. > > 6) "grow your own" laws similar to home brewing statutes (200 gal/per > year > > max) > > > > This gives the cigarette manufacturers something to sell when tobacco is > > banned, it's a huge new tax source, and it's regulated. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:225256 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
