No problem, Ed. I might have 3 or 4 beers a year myself. My point was more that we can have un-informed folks (the electorate) making decisions that upon reflection might be seen differently.
Case in point, in November the people of my state saw fit to (barely) re-elect our Governor, even though he admitted (under intense questioning) that he'd run us into a small $13 billion problem. Shortly after the election it came out that the problem was more like $24 billion, then $38 billion. Now there's a recall election. Do you think that if we'd all known how bad it was in the first place Davis would have even had a chance? I'd like to think not.
If you'd like to discuss this more we can take it off-list. Contact me at bugbor@xxxxxxxxx and if that doesn't work I've another addy or two.
Rob J
\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////
Ed <epsrm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I said was, I don't see a reason to make a criminal out of a marijuana
user. What I meant by this was, that I believe there should be reformed laws
about it, so that simple possession and use would not make ordinarily very
law abiding people into criminals, for laws that the general public is
starting to believe in startling numbers is out dated.
I don't mean throw it out all together either, that would start an entirely
new set of problems, just revise it to allow it to be available in a
controlled and legal system.
I understand the concept of not breaking the law to maintain your law
abiding status, I should have made the intention of my statement more clear.
I also want to add that I am not even a casual user of marijuana or do I
have any interest in becoming one. It's not a choice because of the law, I
just don't choose to use it. I'm actually even a very light and infrequent
user of alcohol (just a point of fact , and maybe interest )
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Inbred Redneck"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: The Janklow Saga
> 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/
___________________________________________________________________________
(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/
