XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa   
   From: bliss@sfo.com   
      
   B Sellers wrote:   
   > M_P wrote:   
   >> On Jul 23, 12:49 pm, georgewk  wrote:   
   >>> In article   
   >>> ,   
   >>>  M_P  wrote:   
   >>>> On Jul 22, 8:06 pm, MagneticEnergy  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> Who the hell wants to live in that paranoia?  The feds come in and   
   >>>>> confiscate anything of value when ever they feel like it (usually   
   >>>>> after you make it)?  Gee, your BMW was used in the transportation of a   
   >>>>> controlled substance, it is not yours any more?   
   >>>>> California could not compete with the rest of the country growing   
   >>>>> weed?   
   >>>> I don't understand this comment.   
   >>>>> It doesn't sound smart,   
   >>>> California's decriminalization has been in place since 2000, and 11   
   >>>> other states have decriminalized ... and there has been no explosion   
   >>>> of confiscation or stupid behavior.   
   >>>>> and it doesn't sound like they want to talk   
   >>>>> about the stupid behavior that they will have to control with some   
   >>>>> people they would not otherwise get.   
   >>>> To the extent that people switch from alcohol to marijuana, they'd   
   >>>> have less to worry about behaviorally ... violent behavior is more   
   >>>> prevalent among drunks than stoners.   
   >>>>> Or does this explain why I   
   >>>>> don't rent movies anymore, they are all not worth watching, since they   
   >>>>> are made by pot heads?   
   >>>> There is no evidence for greater pot use under decriminalization.   
   >>> Certainly , creating a "criminal" out of an otherwise law abiding ,   
   >>> tax-payer is a recipe for disaster .  And the police get corrupted.   
   >>> Who Knew?   
   >>   
   >> The Americans who voted to end Prohibition knew. How did we forget?   
   >   
   >     Anslinger's arguments in 1937 were couched in racist terms and the   
   > Congressmen were prevented by his thugs and hired quacks from the   
   > realization that they were being asked to ban a plant that had medical   
   > uses.  But in 1937 the racists were fully in power and a law that seemed   
   > to offer a new avenue to suppress the blacks and Hispanic- surnamed   
   > people was a winner.  Plus it was supposed that the alleged   
   > white culture would be defended against that "jungle" music which   
   > must be kept from the ears of the innocent.   
   >   
   >     Anslinger really needed the money that the Congress would then   
   > grant him to expand and maintain his Federal Bureau of Narcotics.   
   >   
   >     And "we" referencing the Government's action have no memory   
   > of past folly.   
   >   
   >     later   
   >     bliss   
      
   	I had mistyped "week" above meaning to type "weed" but after   
   further consideration decided to use "plant".  It is an industrial   
   level plant producing food, fuel, fibre, other materials and   
   of course medication.  You should read the entry in the 1937 USP   
   where the method of use is described.   
      
   	later   
   	bliss   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)