Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (7192)	10/5/1998 12:22:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>I myself have never used Hemp (let alone "etc.")< Oh come now, surely you've indulged in, at one time or another, in a little etcetera. :-) Drug/Police anecdote: Last week, City of Vancouver, WA police set up a sign beside the road which read "Drug Checkpoint Ahead". After several complaints about the tactic, which complainers said was illegal, the police cheif ordered the sign taken down. In response to media calls to his office, the police chief readily agreed that random stops to search for drugs were unconstitutional---but that there was no such "drug checkpoint", but the sign only. Police cruisers would sit and watch to see which cars turned around and went the other way after seeing the sign--then pulled them over for illegal u-turns. Then once they had them pulled over, they ran a check on them for outstanding warrants, valid license, etc. All in all, a grand fishing expedition. :-) But the chief of police said that he "wasn't completely comfortable with it", and so ordered the operation halted. As for the sign, he said, "you can't believe everything you read. Sometimes you see a sign that says 'speed enforced by aircraft', but there's rarely an aircraft in the sky". (We have those signs in the dry open eastern part of Washington).

To: jbe who wrote (7192)	10/5/1998 3:39:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

jbe, wrt a previous message on this chain, I'm not a libertarian, except on the civil liberties side. But personally, I got to agree with you on the alcohol versus marijuana violence issue. It's been many years since I inhaled, and many years since I got drunk. My alcohol consumption is now very modest, an occasional beer. Marijuana, well I got a house now, and given the rather bizarre drug laws I wouldn't want to put it at risk. But I think the violence point is right on. People smoking marijuana get mellow, people drinking too much get unpredictable. They don't always get belligerent, maybe not even often. But they can and do. When the subject of marijuana comes up, all I can say is I have only fond memories, whereas with alcohol I have memories of many atrocious hangovers. In overall public health effects, is there any detectable damage from marijuana? The damage from alcohol is all too obviously visible. I have two big problems with the war on some drugs. One is the perversion of the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure, that holds that carrying large amounts of cash is sufficient evidence of drug dealing to justify seizing the cash, and putting the burden of proof for retrieval on the victim. Then, you have those "drug dealer profiles" that always have skin color at the top of the list. The other is the complete dishonesty about the harmful effects of drugs, most particularly marijuana. So, smoking marijuana is maybe more harmful than cigarettes, per puff, in terms of cancer threat. So, has anybody ever taken enough puffs of marijuana to come within 3 orders of magnitude of the cigarette puffs taken by an average smoker? Ok, maybe Willie Nelson. . . You lie to kids, they figure it out soon enough. So Clinton lied about sex, kids figure out soon enough how that works too. The war on some drugs lies are much more pervasive, and much more harmful. Cheers, Dan.