 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I deny it too. I just think that you can get the same results with smaller factions all vying for power. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yes, there is a benefit. One leadership at that scale cannot see the trees for the forest -- only the big problems could be dealt with, and not the smaller local ones. It is my assertion that I have no idea from here in CA what would suit the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe
|
|
(...) Interestingly, my subs has just been cancelled: ==+== You have been unsubscribed from the mailing list lp-announce by WWW form: (URL) shall miss the paranoia, I'm almost tempted to take the time to subscribe myself. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Right. And I take my read on what's constitutional from what the founding fathers *intended*, not from what the current supreme court says about the matter. As I've said before, many times, effectively answering the question posed. As an (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) They're true assertions about how things operate. Further, they're extremely valid reasons for the powers that be to want drugs illegal although I deny that they've organised into an overarching conspiracy that has thought things through. But (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) There is a FLEXIBILITY built into the system. Sometimes it's a good thing in my view, sometimes it's a bad thing. My argument is less with the govt. system than the people of this country -- they often seem not to care about politics, and when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
I checked. Scott is not subscribed to the LP newsletter under the current email tag on his post: eh105jb@mx1.pair.com... but he WAS subscribed under a tag that was in use some time ago. Not any more. Note that I only tried one address, I don't have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) I must confess that this has always puzzled me. Why are "states" preferable to a single state? I can certainly understand how in earlier times the limits of communications and geography necessitated the subdivision of the nation, but this no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Gn994v.CIp@lugnet.com... (...) Because taxing it at 80,000% would simply continue the demand for illegal, untaxed product lawrence (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) ? I admit I'm not up on the issues, but essentially the reasons you give are "under-the-covers" reasoning. And as such, are they encouragable? IE is having "slush money" and "overseeing drug trade" and "illegally dealing in drugs" something (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
But does your constitution not give you supreme court the right to do “all kinds of crazy things” with your rights? By the way, I was talking about this story: US outlaws 'medical' marijuana (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Depends on the court we are talking about. The current court has done all kinds of crazy things with our rights. That the power of the single state is losing ground to the idea of a single nation in an era of "globalization" is hardly (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Hmmm, no answer to this: (Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe)
|
|
Hmmm, no answer to this: "Does your supreme court agree with that view? I hear not." Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe?
|
|
(...) Youch! An insult. (...) No. (...) Its content is mostly junk. I did not sign up for it. It is junk mail. QED. (...) In what way? I have a lot "priorities", I can't think of any which are directly related to LUGNET. (...) I have said it before, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Oops! (was Re: Medical Marijuana)
|
|
(...) "foreign companies" sould be "foreign countries". yeeeesh! -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
David: I think a lot of that shows a poor understanding of what is actually taking place in our good country. The reasons to keep drugs (currently illicit drugs) ILLEGAL are: 1. Increased government income (nondeclared, slips easily into one's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Ah, so as to make it so ridiculous in cost that nobody would buy it and thus essentially stop drug use? I spose. In any event, I think the pros and cons still apply as to why not legalize it-- just perhaps not for the supposed plan. As for the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Ah, so as to make it so ridiculous in cost that nobody would buy it and thus essentially stop drug use? I spose. In any event, I think the pros and cons still apply as to why not legalize it-- just perhaps not for the supposed plan. As for the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) Yeah, I was trying to formulate a scenario in which the gov't could "allow" marijuana (or the like) but might place some dollar restriction on sales to make the legal purchase undesirable to the consumer. Not sure if it would work, except in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
|
(...) No, it's too plausible not to be true. The government thinks heroin is some big bad thing (it is) that we need to be protected from because we're too stupid (we're not)... so we have wild gyrations in the street price as we either bribe the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
