Cannabis News DrugSense
  America Loses Taste for 'Zero Tolerance'
Posted by FoM on September 08, 2001 at 22:01:52 PT
By Peter Beaumont 
Source: The Observer  

justice The United States, notorious for its massive prison population, draconian sentencing and enthusiasm for capital punishment, is quietly abandoning its appetite for the toughest penal policies in the developed world.

States across a nation that fired British politicians of both Left and Right with an enthusiasm for 'zero tolerance', boot camps for delinquent juveniles, electronic tagging and 'three strikes, you're out' laws are giving up on their most controversial penal policies.

They now favour better community policing and treatment - rather than jail - for drug addicts, who make up a huge percentage of the prison population.

Details of the creeping liberalisation have emerged as official figures show a big fall in executions for the second year running. Forty-eight people have been executed so far this year, down 27 per cent from this time last year. With 14 executions scheduled, this year's total could be down 30 per cent on 1999, when 98 were put to death.

Most significant has been the decline in executions in President Bush's state of Texas, and also in Virginia. This year Texas has put 12 people to death, compared with 40 last year. Virginia has executed one inmate, compared with eight executed in 2000 and 14 in 1999.

A 20-year trend towards ever tougher sentences is apparently in reverse. There is evidence the states with the toughest penal policies have been no more successful in fighting crime than those with more humane regimes.

In the past 12 months four states - Louisiana, Connecticut, Indiana and North Dakota - have abandoned mandatory minimum sentencing, which made criminals serve long sentences without the possibility of parole.

Other states - including New York, Georgia, Idaho, Alabama and New Mexico - are re-evaluating state laws to reduce prison populations, which quadrupled in the US between 1970 and 1995.

Most surprising is the reform in Louisiana - whose prison system has a brutal reputation. In six years since the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing, its prison population has jumped by 50 per cent, while state prison expenditure has risen by 70 per cent.

A new law - supported by a right-wing Republican, Governor Mike Foster, and a Democratic senator, Donald Cravins - eliminates mandatory prison terms for crimes such as burglary, minor drug possession, fraud, prostitution and obscenity.

'We had half the population in prison,' Cravins told the New York Times last week, 'and the other half watching them. We were pouring money into a bottomless pit.'

The reappraisal of sentencing follows a decade-long decline in the number of crimes logged by the FBI's annual survey, the Uniform Crime Report .

The change in the US political landscape over high levels of incarceration - some two million Americans are in jail - comes as the annual prison bill has reached $30 billion (£20bn) during an economic slowdown.

A significant change in penal policy is emerging in California, the state responsible for introducing the 'three strikes, you're out' policy that gave mandatory life sentences to offenders on their third conviction.

According to recent research by the Sentencing Project in Washington, the biggest resistance to the law is from within the judicial system.

Introduced in 1994 by the Governor at that time, Pete Wilson, it was touted as the solution to the problem of the most serious, habitual and repeat offenders that by 31 May this year had seen more than 50,000 offenders admitted to prison. While the crime rate in California has declined, other states without a 'three strikes' law have seen a similar decline.

Marc Mauer, one of the authors of the Sentencing Project's report on California's 'three strikes' law, told The Observer: 'Practitioners in the criminal justice system, the public and politicians are all changing their outlooks.

'President Clinton positioned himself as being tough on crime, meaning there was little difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issue. But in last year's presidential campaign we heard very little about crime.'

In California, says Mauer, opposition to the 'three strikes' law is led from the legal establishment. 'It is being chipped away by prosecutors and judges who don't want to use it.'

Mauer believes the decline in executions is linked to nervousness among practitioners within the judicial system following a number of cases of innocent men on death row being released following DNA tests that proved their innocence.

Note: States find that draconian laws don't cut crime.

Newshawk: Greek-Philosopher
Source: Observer, The (UK)
Author: Peter Beaumont
Published: Sunday, September 9, 2001
Copyright: 2001 The Observer
Contact: letters@observer.co.uk
Website: http://www.observer.co.uk/

Related Articles:

Europe's Antidrug Bastion Reconsiders
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10764.shtml

A Debatable War on Drugs
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10725.shtml

A Quagmire for Our Time - American Prospect
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10426.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #35 posted by Silent_Observer on September 10, 2001 at 10:33:04 PT
speaking of Independents...
The Senate already has one - Jim Jeffords, when he defected from the Republican Party.

So...say we get one more when Jesse Helms leaves...another when Phil Gramm leaves...

Hmmmm..are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #34 posted by Silent_Observer on September 10, 2001 at 09:54:03 PT
dddd, thank you
for your kind words. I have enjoyed reading your posts quite a bit as well.

To answer your questions, I think I may have been a lurker for about six months before posting. While a lot of outrageous incidents have occurred in the name of the WOD, I htink the Rainbow Farm incident was the one that catalyzed my decision to start posting. One of the reasons, of course, is that this kind of incident provokes considerable anger and remorse; and lends itself to the encouragement of ill-advised acts.

Nobody wants another Timothy McVeigh.

So, I thought a few comments on the dispassionate and legal way to solve this problem might be welcome - not that there have been any radical postings here, I'm glad to note.

Please keep us informed as usual.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #33 posted by dddd on September 10, 2001 at 09:24:32 PT
Silent_Observer
..I'm not really that pessimistic,,I just like to pretend I'm
radical sometimes.......I think it's great how you have joined
in here...I enjoy your commentarys......I wonder how many
other shy readers have been lurking silently....

How long was it before you decided to become a non silent,Silent_Observer?

..In reference to your noble hopes for a third party solution,,I agree with
what you say,,and I have been a third party voter for some time,,,,but
there's one problem that is built in to the two party domination scheme,,
and that is,,the dreadful fact of how the congress and the supreme court
are set up....As we have seen,the lamentable consequences of the new
republican dominated regime,have been most unpleasant,,and will continue
to be.....Now,,as far as I'm concerned,republicans and democrats are pretty
much the same breed of demagogs,,,but I gotta admit,that the republican
takeover of the whitehouse,has not been a good thing,,it's been a nightmare.
..the pros and cons of third party reality is too complex to go into,,,but dont
worry about me,,,I've been known to say way too much,,and flippantly toss
around provocative comments that are heavy on words,yet questionable on
meaning,,but my true spirit is optimistic and hopeful...I kinda got the Charleton
Heston attitude,,,,,The day I give up,,is the day they have to pry the big ol'
reefer out of my cold,dead hand!

May JAH shine on You Always................peace......dddd

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #32 posted by Silent_Observer on September 10, 2001 at 06:18:10 PT
dddd, this is what they want you to think...
and this is exactly what breaking the stranglehold is all about. As long as people stay discouraged and believe in the two-party myth, this domination will continue. But remember, you and I are the ones who can change this - not the parties.

Let me give you two reasons why pessimism is really not necessary. When Jesse Ventura ran in Minnesota, his odds of winning were less than 10%. That was less than the actual votes that Ross Perot got the first time. Of, course, history proved otherwise. This means that no matter what the pollsters say, the real truth is....you never know!

Another reason is that a third party - any third party - does not really need to win. This has been mentioned before by other posters, but all that is needed is a critical mass of voters to potentially change minds in Washington.

Last night during one of my favorite talk shows, I realized that not only was Jesse Helms not running again, neither is Phil Gramm from Texas. There are two more Republican Senators not seeking re-election.

You can't tell me this is not an opportunity. Think how effective we would be if we sent a scare through NC, Texas and New Jersey with very strong Libertarian candidates - even if they didn't eventually win!

Keep your spirits up - its not that bad at all. That is, of course, if we don't let these opportunities slip by.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #31 posted by Silent_Observer on September 10, 2001 at 06:09:36 PT
Lehder, thank you
for the brief tutorial on taxation!

Obviously, we'll pay somewhere else, but I see your point insofar some of those components are within the power of the payer, rather than some central authority.

As I said, I have a long way to go in order to be able to understand the ins and outs of macro-economics.

Nevertheless, I'm a Harry Browne supporter and trust that he knows what he's talking about..:)

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #30 posted by dddd on September 10, 2001 at 04:02:28 PT
Another senselessy depressing blurb
....I think,,,that realisticly,,a third party will ever make it,it
will not be allowed,,,the two parties have tweaked things to the
point where a third party might make a few waves,,but a third
party will never be allowed to become a viable contender nationally..
..the good ol' boys are far too deeply entrenched,and are fraught
with eminant corporate colussion......I think we have reached a
point where the masses can be effectively influenced by these
dark powers,,,and the future looks bleak....

disgusted
discouraged
disillusioned
doomsayer


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #29 posted by Lehder on September 10, 2001 at 03:54:49 PT
George Who?
They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & tousurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~aahpat/gw.htm


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #28 posted by Lehder on September 10, 2001 at 03:44:17 PT
registering independent
Can we just register to vote without designating a party (no party affiliation)? Is that what Independent is for? I’ve been a life long Democrat and I’m going to be change my party affiliation soon. Any advice? --Imprint

http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~aahpat/iv.htm

For anyone who disagrees with me:
http://www.crank.com/crank2/crank2_trepan4.html
http://www.crank.com/crank2/crank2_trepan3.html
(please print instructions if you or anyone you know
needs them - site vanishes on Sept 30)


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #27 posted by Lehder on September 09, 2001 at 19:49:57 PT
Let me tell you how it will be....
there's property tax - real property tax and personal property tax, state local and federal sales tax, lodging tax, customs and import duties, inheritance and estate tax, union planning tax, capital gains tax, cigarette tax, distilled spirits beer and wine tax, gas tax, kansas i think has a MARIJUANA tax and America was born of revolution over a stamp tax! in addition to taxes there are monies collected for fishing and hunting licenses, professional licenses, all kinds of fees, others i don't want to think of the oppressive list of fees and taxes!

http://www.worldbook.com/fun/taxation/html/major_types.htm
http://www.mof.go.jp/english/tax/tax001/tax05.htm

I am having trouble seeing how you run a country without any taxes.

But the Libs don't say "No taxes" - you see there are quintillions of taxes to run the country, states and cities with. They seek to abolish *income tax* in order to eliminate the abuses of the IRS - easy to look up on the Internet. It has often acted as a punitive agency, destroying people of its choice, same as is done with forfeiture under drug laws.

If you drive a car I'll tax the street
If you try to sit I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk I'll tax your feet
Taxman

Beatles

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #26 posted by Imprint on September 09, 2001 at 18:53:52 PT
Third Parties
Can we just register to vote without designating a party (no party affiliation)? Is that what Independent is for? I’ve been a life long Democrat and I’m going to be change my party affiliation soon. Any advice?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #25 posted by FoM on September 09, 2001 at 17:28:48 PT
Silent_Observer
Thanks Silent_Observer,

Just like in life there is no such thing as a perfect person also in politics there is no perfect party. I won't believe too hard in one person or one party because when they goof up I feel bad because I believed in them. I just don't have the answers. I wish I knew more. I'll keep learning though.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #24 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 17:23:32 PT
FoM..I can fully understand
your position. I think you'll also agree that you can never agree with every issue on a party's agenda.

I guess my view on all this is - whatever it takes to get the job done.

In my mind, Gary Johnson is not going to make it, only because he's a Republican. He's going to have to leave the Republican Party to be effective. Kurt Schmoake of Baltimore has had the same thougts for several years and has made them public - to no effect. Even ultra conservative William Buckley Jr wants drugs legalized!

But I understand what you mean...

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #23 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 17:17:59 PT
Lehder, this exchange
has certainly been a pleasure for me too.

I know about Harry Browne's formidable intellect, his authorship of several books and I also know that if allowed to debate, he would smoke anyone else out there..well...not too inappropriate a choice of expression here, I hope..:)

I have to admit - I still have trouble understanding econimic theory to the point where I can intelligently argue the effectiveness of alternative sources of income. But, given my current rudimentary state of financial acumen, I am having trouble seeing how you run a country without any taxes.

But, as always, I'm open to education..:)

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #22 posted by FoM on September 09, 2001 at 17:16:43 PT
I understand
I understand but I was always taught not to argue party beliefs because they only cause disagreements. My family, when I was young, taught me that and that is why I avoid party issues. I love Harry Browne. He's a great guy.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #21 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 17:13:23 PT
FoM, your opinion..
is well taken.

But may I suggest that at this time, no individual person can make a difference in the Republican on Democratic parties. Examples include, as you mentioned, Gary Johnson who regularly finds himself distanced because of his position on drugs. The trouble is that you run the risk of these individuals being marginalized by the party. Take Pat Buchanan, for example. Much as I disagreed with him, you will have to admit, that it took his leaving the Republican Party to get his voice heard.

Thats is why it is very important at this stage in the game to work with the right party, rather than the right individuals in the wrong party.

When the mainstream parties begin to realize that their status is by no means guaranteed, THEN we can look to individuals inside them.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #20 posted by Lehder on September 09, 2001 at 16:07:12 PT
Silent_Observer
by the way, Browne you may already know is the author of numerous books on economics, some of them best sellers in the eighties. He has a better understanding of fiscal matters than our typical politicians by far. As the manager of a mutual fund for many years ( The Permanent Fund (?)) he's somebody whom people trust with their money - that's hard to say about other politicians - and, guess what, he doesn't want it!

In a debate on this question he would wipe them all out. Too bad debate is forbidden.

I guess you noticed I'm a Libertarian, too.
nice talking to ya today.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #19 posted by Lehder on September 09, 2001 at 15:59:20 PT
you're gonna like it Silent_One
"The other issue is the elimination of the Federal Income Tax altogether. It sounds good on the surface of it, but I have yet to be convinced that we could meet national security and infrastructure issues that way."

What we spend on "national security" is absurd. We got by without income taxes for more than a hundred years. We were a better country then too. Twice the supreme court ruled income tax unconstitutions. The government has many, many sources of revenue. That money doesn't just disappear, you know - it gets spent more wisely by you and me and generates more money and lots of other things better than drug wars, global domination, FBI, CIA, government schools and a lot of other crap that doesn't work and will get the boot along the the IRS.

No income tax - and how we will all manage to live and prosper without it - is why, more than the drug issue, the dems and reps are afraid to let Browne debate.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #18 posted by FoM on September 09, 2001 at 15:57:23 PT
My Opinion
My opinion about different parties is they all have good points and bad. I tend to believe in a person rather then a political party. I am not a republican but I really appreciate Gary Johnson's efforts. You see what I mean? The one thing I do know about being too hard lined on a party is it can cause fighting between people. Just my 2 cents.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #17 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 15:50:33 PT
Mr. Greengenes..
I also agree that most people tend to be naturally Libertarian - certainly everybody would like to be left alone to pursue their selected course of happiness as long it doesn't infringe on someone else's.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #16 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 15:47:48 PT
Mr. Greengenes and Intent..
Intent, it makes a lot of sense to become the swinger voter bloc - you'll see the immediate rush to meet your needs.

Mr. Greengenes, I tend to agree with you in that a lot of people have not seriously looked into the Libertarian platform. There are a few points that may bother some people. For example, I'm not so sure I'd feel safer with everybody on the street carrying a gun, but, truth be told, nobody has been able to make a compelling case to me for eliminating gun laws - except Harry Browne. He seems to make the best point, but I'm not sure I'm convinced.

The other issue is the elimination of the Federal Income Tax altogether. It sounds good on the surface of it, but I have yet to be convinced that we could meet national security and infrastructure issues that way.

My point is,however, that even if you disagree with some of the issues, it is worthwhile to support the Libertarians for one simple reason. The mainstream parties will wake and see the futility of continuing the WOD - not because they suddenly agree with us as to how illogical it is, or not because they suddenly realize that incarceration is not the way - but because they will realize that they may get booted out of office!

We have to appeal to very selfish interests here, don't you agree?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #15 posted by mr.greengenes on September 09, 2001 at 14:08:39 PT
I don't think
it would be a good idea. Most voters don't know what the Libs stand for as it is just because they're too lazy to investigate for themselves. Usually all they hear about the Libs are their position on the drug issue and that scares them away right off the bat. If they're walking through the mall and see a table with the Libs name sandwiched between Nazi's and Commies, it's just going to confuse them more.
It may work better to include the Dems and Repubs and to have a side by side comparison of all the parties platforms and positions on various issues.

http://www.lp.org/
I think a lot of people are actually already naturally Libs just by the way they view government and life in general, but they don't realize it yet. Like I said in another post, if more people voted Libertatarian, we may not get our guy elected, but if the dems/reps start losing enough close elections because of third parties, they may start to change their positions to match the third parties views.
The libs could become the most influential public opinion poll there is, if only the masses took the time to find out what they stood for.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #14 posted by Imprint on September 09, 2001 at 13:55:57 PT
Third Parties
I’m beginning to think that third party registration is a good idea (regardless of the party and its exact platform). We need to keep the two big parties wondering which way we will go and this will force them to be more progressive to get our vote. If the third party pool of voters becomes large enough they will become the swing vote that will be hotly sought after. Is this dreaming or does this make sense?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #13 posted by Lehder on September 09, 2001 at 10:46:12 PT
that is
- one of the 3 you mention.
outta here now.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #12 posted by Lehder on September 09, 2001 at 10:44:04 PT
yes,
of course, we would get all the drug warriors signing up as nazis.
i'll see what one of them, if they have an office, has to say.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #11 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 10:39:20 PT
Lehder, I like the idea but....
sometimes the independent parties don't necessarily agree.

But you definitely have something here. If I may make a suggestion, it would be to perhaps stay limited to the Libertarian, the Green and the Reform Parties.

I'd be very interested in what you find...

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by Lehder on September 09, 2001 at 10:26:57 PT
Silent_Observer
Bravo for you!
But I want to vote today. And the idea of voting with counted registrations and changes of party registration is the ticket. Not to wait another year. I'll be going into the big city next week, and if I can find an office for any third party I'm going to drop in and see how they like this idea. Tell me what you think.

I envision the usual political registration tables along the sidewalks and in the malls. But instead of pushing one party only, each of the third parties gets equal sized placards. The table clerks do not push any one party over any other and can come from any of the parties. They do not divulge or promote their personal ideology. They just take registration forms for third parties - any third parties, but no dems or reps - and turn them in at the courthouse. It's a way of uniting a lot of fragmented movements. It seems crazy - libs, nazis, socialists, greens, natural party, pansexual peace party, and there are others. The only common ground is that all are unhappy with the machine as it is.
Tell me - could this fly? I find out for myself next week and share the pie in my face with you. I see no other way at the moment of achieving any unification against the system.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by E. Johnson on September 09, 2001 at 10:25:28 PT
Is there a good collection fo their writings?
The irony/stupidity of this law is that two of our founding fathers (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) both grew millions of cannabis plants every year. They both wrote in their letters and memoirs what a wonderful plant it is. Most historians believe that both these men grew cannabis strains for hemp and for smoking.

Well, who are these historians and where are their books?

I see these random odd quotes on the Internet. I think it would be good if someone could make a comprehensive collection of everything they ever wrote about their plants.

If someone hasn't done it already...



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by E. Johnson on September 09, 2001 at 10:18:35 PT
Drug executions are extra-judicial
The Miami police and the Ramparts posse performed executions of drug suspects, but then planted guns on them and claimed it was self defense.

But we could consider that a form of extra-judicial capital punishment in America.

Peter McWilliams' death sentence was more clever. The proesecutors and judge were told that denying him marijuana could result in his death, and they chose that path anyways.

There didn't seem to be any form of due process to get in the way of THAT kind of execution, where the prosecutor decides that it doesn't really matter if you die in custody before you ever get to trial.

When Asa Hutchinson vows to enforce the federal ban on medical use of marijuana, he is threatening to execute some people. Some people would definitely die if he were able to carry out his threat.

That's a kind of execution, but again, it's done in the old extra-judicial manner.

Meaning you don't get the option of a capital crime jury that can consciously weigh the facts and decide whether you actually do deserve to die.

There are all kinds of drug executions going on in the jails and prisons. I was at a national Academy of Sciences meeting where they had a session on torture. First they had all these people from Bosnia and Rwanda and Turkey and Tibet.

Then they had a doctor from the American prison system, talking of drug addicts with diseases that need medical care, and how they are actually deliberately denied this medical care in many cases because their jailers feel they are just "dirty druggies" who are destined to die anyway, so why not now?

Bosnia, Turkey, Tibet, Rwanda, the US prison system....?

What a meeting....


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 07:51:02 PT
Let me get the ball rolling...
Let me be the first update.

As you know, I'm already registered, so there's nothing more I can do from that standpoint.

But, I just went to the Libertarian site, found the Gubernatorial campaign and sent in a contribution to the campaign of the Maryland Libertarian candidate, Spear Lancaster.

Who's going to be next?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by Silent_Observer on September 09, 2001 at 07:19:13 PT
Losing our freedoms?
Yes, there is a real danger of that happening. Remember that even Democracies breed power, and we all know what power does.

I would like to propose a course of action here that was suggested by Lehder in a previous post.

Could we take an informal voluntary poll to find out how many of us have acted by some time next week? Just post saying which party you de-registered from (if you were, in fact, registered) and which party you registered with. I don't want to make this any more onerous than it has to be, but perhaps we can get something going here. Then maybe we could even communicate what is happening here to our favorite public figures - Harry Browne, Jesse Ventura, Gary Johnson.

What do you say?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by The Offspring on September 09, 2001 at 06:27:45 PT
Communist Regime?
I hate to say this but it seems like Americans are losing more of their freedom every decade. The Government and Law Enforcement Officials are Power Hungry and they will not stop until they have complete control of everything and everyone.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #4 posted by rabblerouser on September 09, 2001 at 05:56:08 PT
executions
It seems to me if a murderer is caught murderering, arrested, arraigned, brought to trial, convicted, incarcerated, paroled and released somehow has received more respect than a guy who wants to have a few parties and have a good time with friends. No, let's execute him before anything else.

A wild, uncaged animal is on the loose and buzzing around it like a bunch of flies hoping to feast on the carrion after it dies is not going to happen. The wild, uncaged animal has to be boxed into a dead end canyon and not let loose until it is tamed. In fact, keep it corralled indefinitely until it comes to its senses. Feed it, be kind to it, give it a name and a darn good reason to exist. If you do that, it will recognize itself as a definite entity and glady let you ride it for good reason. Until that happens , you can forget it.

It could even be a mustang stallion roaming the open range out in the wild, wild west. His tail will swish away the flies with no problem. He will break into a gallop and leave the flies behind. He will never be corralled, or so he thinks. However, with more cunning and intelligence, that stallion will be happy just the same if his owner is good to him and treats him not like a wild, uncaged animal but like a good horse.

I think by now, you can catch my drift.

'Oh, the buzzards in the sky get so dizzy they can't fly just from sniffin' that good ol' mountain dew'
'I'll shut my mug if you give me a jug of that good ol' mountain dew'

Meaning, I won't tell the revenuers where you are. 'I'll take a jug of mountain dew and you will remain in business.' 'I'll be happy and so will you.'



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by JohnnyO on September 09, 2001 at 05:47:04 PT
Executions
The Offspring:

Unfortuneately, we do execute people for drug offenses. We have a law called "The Drug Kingpin Law". It is mostly designed to target major drug cartels running cocaine and heroin, but of course there is a marijuana section to the law. That section states that anyone who is convicted of growing more than 60,000 cannabis plants can and will be executed.

The irony/stupidity of this law is that two of our founding fathers (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) both grew millions of cannabis plants every year. They both wrote in their letters and memoirs what a wonderful plant it is. Most historians believe that both these men grew cannabis strains for hemp and for smoking.

If these men were alive today, they would not be considered revolutionary heros, but drug kingpins and they would both be executed by W.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by The Offspring on September 09, 2001 at 04:28:09 PT
Executions?
Can anyone tell me what crime you have to Commit to get executed in the U.S. I hope they only execute murderers and not Drug Offenders. The way the article goes it sounds like the U.S. Government was executing drug offenders. Sounds like something China does.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by bruce42 on September 08, 2001 at 22:26:09 PT
woo hoo
"Note: States find that draconian laws don't cut crime."

'bout freakin' time!

Maybe people will start waking up... I hope.

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on September 08, 2001 at 22:01:52