I respect your opinion, and your right to have and voice it. I don't
understand though, the fact that you seem to base your opinion, at least in
this statement, on the possibility of the inability of someone else to be
responsible enough to not involve others in all the factors that are
negative in substance use. I know that in any action there are reactions and
to limit or deny anything based on possible reckless behaviour of others
will only deny the majority of a recreation of any kind of it's
availability. We can go off on any number of tangents and talk about the use
of the automobile. I can say that because of the fact that this Janklow jerk
decided to speed, then we shouldn't allow cars because someone else might
abuse their privilege and kill someone else.I don't mean to seem harsh or
to seem like I'm attacking you, if I come off that way I apologize before
and it's not my intention.
Just my opinion, Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Inbred Redneck" <bugbor@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <virago@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: The Janklow Saga
> Your views are yours, mine are mine. At this point in time this member of
society sees no need to change the laws concering the use of marijuana. Most
users I've known over the years (myself included) have been in such denial
as to any negative effects that they (or we, including myself in the old
days) blindly advocated the unlimited use of the stuff even when presented
with scientific evidence that it leaves measurably slower reaction times
after 24 hours. Lots of dopers will give anecdotal evidence of their
abilities to function un-impaired, but even most doctors who might recommend
pot usage aren't aware of how long the effects may last.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm just as down on those who drive under the effects
of booze or meds. I'm just saying that if you're going to legalize one more
thing that can put impaired drivers (or riders) on the road, let's keep in
mind the product liability aspect. Any user who causes an accident should
have to pay, as well as the doctor who suggested the use and any
suppliers/growers on up the chain. If our society can put Dow Corning out of
business just because they were accused of causing unproved ill-effects in
women who paid some doctor to hack up their bodies I see no reason not to
let everyone know up front that there is liability in turning more
inebriates loose in society.
> And please keep them away from where I and mine ride.
> Just my opinion, of course.
>
> Rob J
> ///////\\\\\\\\
>
> Dave Cramer <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, this is how laws get changed. At some point in time society
> determines that the majority of people think something should be illegal
> and a law is created.
>
> When the majority of people in that society determine that this activity
> is no longer illegal the law needs to be changed.
>
> There are many instances where laws are appropriate at a given time and
> then become inappropriate.
>
> Dave
> On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 10:16, Inbred Redneck wrote:
> > Ed- just thought I'd point out that the only way anybody makes a
criminal out of a "user of weed" is by using a substance that is illegal.
That's the way the law is written. The concept of "ex post facto" works both
ways. You can't be convicted of doing something that wasn't a crime at the
time you committed the act, and if you did something your knew was illegal
you've no legitimate right to claim that you shouldn't be prosecuted. Get
the law changed and you can then perform the act with different
consequences.
> > Of course, it does get a little more convoluted here in California.
Charles Manson is convicted of horrendous crimes, sentenced to fry. Death
penalty tossed out. Death penalty re-instated by voters. Does Charlie do the
cyanide shuffle? Seem logical to me that he should, but no, we keep that
useless sack of doo-doo around in the prison system for years. Sure glad I
don't think like a lawyer. Trying to follow their "logic" usually gives me a
headache.
> >
> > Rob J
> > \\\\\\\\////////
> >
> > Ed wrote:
> > Jimbo, surely you don't mean for marijuana use? I'm no way a user of any
> > kind at all. I'm just curious of what you meant. I do not see the reason
to
> > make any kind of a criminal out of a user of the weed though. If you are
> > talking about the dangerous offenders, thieves, and sexual offenders,
and
> > so on... then I heartily agree.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Fallon"
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:15 AM
> > Subject: RE: The Janklow Saga
> >
> >
> > > These people exercise their democratic right to make themselves
available
> > > for prison, who are we to stand in their way. Jimbo.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-virago@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-virago@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > > Behalf Of Unit282@xxxxxxx
> > > Sent: 27 September 2003 09:51
> > > To: virago@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: The Janklow Saga
> > >
> > >
> > > You should see some of the draconian legislation he ramrodded during
his
> > > tenure as Gov. He almost got a bill passed requiring mandatory jail
> > > sentences for
> > > any marijuana posession conviction. As if we as a nation haven't got
> > enough
> > > of
> > > a prison population! I may be wrong, but doesn't the good ol' USA have
> > more
> > > persons incarcerated than everywhere else in the Western world
combined?
> > >
> > > Zak
> > >
> > > In a message dated 9/27/03 1:30:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > > rscorrigan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > There is truly NO defense available, other than having his head
> > > > permanently stuck up his ass.
> > >
> >
___________________________________________________________________________
> > > (un)subscribe info, archive: http://archives.itg.uiuc.edu/virago/
> > >
> >
___________________________________________________________________________
> > > (un)subscribe info, archive: http://archives.itg.uiuc.edu/virago/
> >
___________________________________________________________________________
> > (un)subscribe info, archive: http://archives.itg.uiuc.edu/virago/
> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> >
___________________________________________________________________________
> > (un)subscribe info, archive: http://archives.itg.uiuc.edu/virago/
> >
> --
> Dave Cramer
> fastcrypt
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> (un)subscribe info, archive: http://archives.itg.uiuc.edu/virago/
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> (un)subscribe info, archive: http://archives.itg.uiuc.edu/virago/
___________________________________________________________________________
(un)subscribe info, archive: http://archives.itg.uiuc.edu/virago/
