Mexican Clave, anyone?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/0...r_n_20264.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/0...r_n_20264.html

"And the per-person amounts approved for possession by anyone 18 or older
could easily turn any college party into an all-nighter: half a gram of
coke, a couple of Ecstasy pills, several doses of LSD, a few marijuana
joints, a spoonful of heroin, 5 grams of opium and more than 2 pounds of
peyote, the hallucinogenic cactus."

Almost enough for a 4 hour Dead concert back in the day.
--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps

"Stan Gula" wrote in message

half a gram of
coke, a couple of Ecstasy pills, several doses of LSD, a few marijuana
joints, a spoonful of heroin, 5 grams of opium and more than 2 pounds of
peyote, the hallucinogenic cactus."

Almost enough for a 4 hour Dead concert back in the day.
--
Stan Gula

a little light on the weed, but the 2 lbs of peyote might make one forget
the oversight........
Tom

I'm in.

John...


"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/0...r_n_20264.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/0...r_n_20264.html

Unfortunately, Fox has reconsidered:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X57222F0D

I'm guessing that Dubya gave him a call and told him that we
wouldn't hesitate to invade.


Chuck Vance (just a tad ironic considering Dubya's "alleged" past
drug history)

On Thu, 04 May 2006 07:47:23 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

rw wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/0...r_n_20264.html

Unfortunately, Fox has reconsidered:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X57222F0D

I'm guessing that Dubya gave him a call and told him that we
wouldn't hesitate to invade.


Chuck Vance (just a tad ironic considering Dubya's "alleged" past
drug history)


Now, see, this is why the Bush jokes just come off flat and
mean-spirited...try this:

Unfortunately, Fox has reconsidered:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X57222F0D

I'm guessing that Dubya gave him a call and said, "Vin-Chen-Tay, me
A-me-go, what's with the change? You're harshin' my plans, man - the
Dickster and I were plannin' a rockin' Mexican vacation in 2009"..."No,
no, no...don't worry, I was gonna make him leave his shotgun at home..."

HTH,
R

Jonathan Cook wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

Unfortunately

I'd have to disagree.

OK. So am I to assume that you are in favor of the War on (some) Drugs?

(just a tad ironic considering Dubya's "alleged" past
drug history)

Why ironic? Do you have any "past behavior" that you at
some point decided wasn't something you wanted in your life?
I know I do. Can an ex-thief believe thieving is wrong, and
say so publicly?

Certainly. However, when the Leader of the Free World (tm) meddles
in another country's business to tell them they need to do things a
certain way, and he has been guilty of that very behavior, it *is* ironic.

That is not about right or wrong, it's just about what the word
irony means.


Chuck Vance

Jonathan Cook wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

So am I to assume that you are in favor of the War on (some) Drugs?

I don't even know what the phrase "the War on Drugs" means, much
less "the War on (some) Drugs", so you'll have to be responsible
for your own assumptions ;-)

You're not familiar with the phrase "War on Drugs"? Gosh, it's been
in all the papers.

I use "War on (Some) Drugs" to more accurately describe what it is.
Alcohol, tobacco, other chemicals aren't included even though their
effects are at least as bad as some of the ones that are currently illegal.

I am in favor of keeping illegal drugs illegal.

And I am in favor of stopping throwing money at a failed program
that is doomed by its very nature.

However, when the Leader of the Free World (tm) meddles
in another country's business to tell them they need to do things a
certain way, and he has been guilty of that very behavior, it *is* ironic.

Ok. To me they are just totally unrelated. Like believing in
democracy at the nation level while not giving your kids an
equal vote in family matters. But if they are related, to me
they'd be at most related in an _un-ironic_ way. I mean, if you
had personal experience of destructive behavior, wouldn't you
_want_ to help prevent others from it?

On a personal level, sure. But when you try to bully another nation
into acting the way you want them to, while you took part in the very
activity you want them to ban ...


Chuck Vance

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...

...I use "War on (Some) Drugs" to more accurately describe what it is.
Alcohol, tobacco, other chemicals aren't included even though their
effects are at least as bad as some of the ones that are currently
illegal....

Alcohol and tobacco are good choices to demonstrate the demented hypocrisy
that currently governs both public sentiment and governmental policies
toward elective drug use because of the ambivalence both engender. Even
better, from another point of view, is the most popular (by far) drug in the
world.....caffeine.....no slouch in the potency and addiction departments.

Wolfgang
who knows that, sham though it is, even the fiction of a "war on drugs"
would be utterly impossible to maintain without a plentiful supply of strong
black coffee to get through those long, tedious stakeouts.

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Conan The Librarian wrote:

You're not familiar with the phrase "War on Drugs"?

Familiarity implies knowing what it means? That's another
assumption. And I'm still not responsible for those ;-)

Would I rather read of another meth lab bust down here than
read that the problem is being ignored? You bet. Would I
rather be inconvenienced by having to ask for Sudafed at a
pharmacy counter than having it available in bulk to meth
producers? You bet. I can't watch Frontline on PBS and conclude
that society would benefit by allowing people a free choice
to legally make and use meth if they want to.

I know that it shouldn't, but it still does amaze me that so many people are
unaware that the folks at Anheuser Bush, R.J. Reynolds, Folgers, etc.
proudly (and with complete impunity) put their corporate names not only on
their products but also on the facilities at which they manufacture/process
them. Meth labs as we know them exist not DESPITE the "war on drugs", but
BECAUSE OF it.

I use "War on (Some) Drugs" to more accurately describe what it is.
Alcohol, tobacco, other chemicals aren't included even though their
effects are at least as bad as some of the ones that are currently
illegal.

I suspected that's what you meant by "some" but I still don't
know what all is meant by a "war" on drugs.

This, on the other hand, is no surprise at all.

Do we shoot on sight
any drug we come across? (Yes I'm being ridiculous but the
phrase under question is so broad I find it impossible to declare
that I support it or don't support it.)

Your declarations are your own problem (or, to be more precise, one of them)
but you should definitely support the immediate legalization of whatever
anybody wants to ingest. You should NOT support a criminal class that was
created by the ban of one drug eighty-some years ago and bolstered by the
subsequent monopolies given to them in the ensuing decades. Nor should you
support the largest prison system in the world, built primarily to house
people criminalized by insane policies.

I am in favor of keeping illegal drugs illegal.

That's because you don't think much.

And I am in favor of stopping throwing money at a failed program
that is doomed by its very nature.

I don't see how our two statements are opposed to each other.
I'm all for abandoning expensive, ineffective programs...

Bull****.

Wolfgang