If Jenna Bush is a pothead, is it news?

[mc mark]

The media has been silent about the National Enquirer's recent allegation that the first daughter is a marijuana user. Is the press giving the drug war's commander in chief a break?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James Pinkerton

March 23, 2001 | Should Jenna Bush, the 19-year-old daughter of the president, be in jail? Or at least be arrested? That's a conclusion to be drawn from a recent report in the National Enquirer that asserts she smokes marijuana. After all, some 600,000 Americans are arrested every year for marijuana possession -- including about 13,000 teenage girls. Some would say, of course, that Jenna Bush shouldn't be hassled for allegedly smoking pot, but then maybe nobody else should either.

The charge that Jenna smokes marijuana is found in the Enquirer's March 20 issue; the tabloid quotes two unidentified fellow students, one of whom says, "Jenna came over one night and we all did some doobies together. I wouldn't say she's a major pothead but she likes to toke up when it's around." Can unnamed sources be trusted?
The answer to that question usually depends on the reputation of the publication.

Starting from a low base, the Enquirer's rep has been rising in recent years. It had so many scoops on the O.J. Simpson case that even the New York Times had to acknowledge its journalism; in the Ennis Cosby murder, the reward it offered broke the case. And just in the past few weeks, it scooped the establishment media on Jesse Jackson's "love child" and Hugh Rodham's receipt of $400,000 to influence his brother-in-law on presidential pardons.

One reason the Enquirer gets scoops like these is that it hunts for them, while other publications are leery of "scandal-mongering." But as media critic William Powers observed recently in the distinctly unsensationalistic National Journal, sometimes the real news is scandal: "Despite their well-known flaws, the tabs are now serious players because they know that great journalism isn't just about bloodless policy and issue debates. It's about ethical foibles and hypocrisies of the powerful."

Speaking of the powerful, George W. Bush, who refused to answer questions about his own drug use during the campaign, now finds himself as commander in chief of the worldwide drug war, being fought all over the Third World as well as on Mean Streets, USA. But if the Enquirer's pot-puffing allegation is to be believed, Bush's own daughter is nevertheless safe and sound, actively protected by the U.S. Secret Service -- this in the Lone Star State, where conviction on possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana leads to a jail sentence of up to 180 days.

The White House dismisses the Enquirer report as not being worthy of comment. Noelia Rodriguez, press secretary to the first lady, said only this much on the record: "Our position on the daughters is that they're private citizens."

Fair enough, although that position doesn't shield others from being hassled over their activities as private citizens. As the drug war escalates, Uncle Sam's reach extends further. In 1998, Congress amended the Higher Education Act in an effort to exclude students with past drug convictions from receiving financial aid. According to Students for Sensible Drug Policy, some 8,600 college kids have lost some or all of their benefits during the current school year after revealing a drug conviction on their application form. Another 278,000 refused to answer the question; Congress is poised to tighten restrictions further to de-fund those students, too.

In other words, between drug busts and aid cuts, young people and pot is a big story. So why has there been utter silence -- a database search finds not a single reference to the Enquirer story in the two weeks since its publication -- on the Jenna Bush allegation?

Three explanations present themselves. First, reporters have found no evidence to corroborate the Enquirer's allegation. Fred Zipp, managing editor of the Austin American-Statesman, said in an interview, "From time to time we have pursued tips about the behavior of the Bush daughters" -- that is, Jenna and her twin sister, Barbara -- "but we didn't find anything newsworthy."

A second possibility, of course, is that the major media aren't much interested in marijuana-crime stories. Why not? Maybe because reporters, who may have had countercultural-pharmaceutical-type experiences in their own pasts, tend to empathize with marijuana dabbling. And so journos might not think that dope smoking is a crime worth getting revved up about. According to a Pew Center poll released this week, 38 percent of Americans admit they've experimented with marijuana.
Extrapolated to the entire U.S. population, that's over 100 million experimenters. So maybe the media deserve credit for realizing that marijuana use is no big deal -- even when, allegedly, the "criminal" in question is a president's daughter.

A third possibility is that the non-tabloid pressies are simply afraid to follow the truth if they think it will lead them into trouble. Jane Hall, professor of journalism at the American University in Washington, observed in an interview, "It's not going to win reporters any points with the public to go after this story." But what about the law, which goes after plenty of pot users? Hall answered by noting the current split between popular culture and the legal culture: "The American public is forgiving; the penal system is not forgiving."

Needless to say, President Bush and the entire White House apparat would probably not feel forgiving toward the media entity that pursued a story about drug use in his family. That means no state dinner invitations for Enquirer editor Steve Coz. But it also might leave people wondering what revelations are being squelched by the reporters and editors who do show up at presidential fetes.

Who could blame Bush for feeling unforgiving and unfriendly toward those who would violate his family's privacy? But who could blame any other father for feeling similarly -- but perhaps unavailingly -- protective toward his own children as they are drug-busted?

This much is certain: The law is not nearly as forgiving to the nonwhite and the non-protected. According to the Sentencing Project, African-Americans account for 13 percent of the drug-using population, but a disproportionate 55 percent of those convicted of drug offenses.

Jenna Bush, of course, has been convicted of nothing. But the legal system her father now oversees looks increasingly guilty of discrimination against the weak and hypocrisy in favor of the strong.

And that should be a big story.

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/23/jenna_bush/index.html

------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[Space Ghost]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mc mark:
[i]The media has been silent about the National Enquirer's recent allegation that the first daughter is a marijuana user. Is the press giving the drug war's commander in chief a break?
</font>

Uhhh ... exactly when have the press listen to the National Enquirer? Or anyone else for that matter.

Now I wouldn't doubt that she uses Marijuana, but who is running the country? She is over 18 and she's an adult so she can pretty much do anything she wants w/out pappas Bush's permission, so I don't think this really involves him.
I guess she should be arrested just as much as everyone of you who has used Marijuana.



------------------
Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!

[Surfguy]

I figure most college students experiment with pot at one time or other. Considering what her father did, I would say this is not news. The stupid Enquirer has got nothing better to write on. If GW is your Dad, you would probably toke on a few, too.

Surf

------------------

[mc mark]

Let me just say right here that I was not making a comment one way or the other. I was just posting an article I found amusing.

Thats all, not trying to start another flame war.


------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[JuanValdez]

We should definitely have that pothead arrested and sent up the river. The National Enquirer has two unnamed sources who swear that she smoked pot with them! I suppose we'll need to give them immunity so they can testify without being afraid they'd get the chair.


Oh yeah, to answer your question: no, it's not news. I'd assume any and all Bush children use pot; same for Gore and Clinton and the rest of the decadent fat-cats.
------------------
RealGM (http://www.realgm.com/)
Gafford Art (http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/)
Artisan Cakes (http://www.artisancakes.cjb.net/)

[This message has been edited by JuanValdez (edited April 03, 2001).]

[RocketMan Tex]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Surfguy:
If GW is your Dad, you would probably toke on a few, too.
</font>

If GW was my Dad, I'd probably be mainlining the white powder by now to medicate my embarassment! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif



------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

[Achebe]

'mainlining'? Is that an 80s term Rocketman Tex? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
(===)

[Rocket River]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Space Ghost:
Uhhh ... exactly when have the press listen to the National Enquirer? Or anyone else for that matter.

Now I wouldn't doubt that she uses Marijuana, but who is running the country? She is over 18 and she's an adult so she can pretty much do anything she wants w/out pappas Bush's permission, so I don't think this really involves him.
I guess she should be arrested just as much as everyone of you who has used Marijuana.

</font>


It is only news to expose hypocracy
If her dad becomese mr ZERO TOLERANCE on drugs
and MJ smokers should be under jail
IF
he is also COVERING for her. . then it would
show a level of lack of integrity on his part

until G-Dub starts spouting such a HARDCORE
stance on the thing. . . .I don't see how
it would be relevent.

Rocket River


------------------

[RocketMan Tex]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Achebe:
'mainlining'? Is that an 80s term Rocketman Tex? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

</font>

I believe it's a little older than that, whippersnapper! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

[Clutch]

So did she inhale?

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET (http://www.clutchcity.net)

[mrpaige]

The problem is the hypocracy of the parent in question. How can a leader support such a tough, unforgiving law against those who smoke while knowing that his daughter may or may not have done it.

It's only hypocracy if President Bush wouldn't support the same punishment for his daughter should she be caught be the police as he would for any other person charged with the same crime. Since Jenna has yet to be caught by any law enforcement agency (as far as we know), we don't know whether the President would be against his daughter receiving the same punishment as anyone else convicted of the same offense.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[Hydra]

How is a drug law unconstitutional?

------------------
Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to me.

[Major]

I'd have to agree with mrpaige here. Unless there's an arrest (or a lack of an arrest because she is Bush's daughter), I don't think it's a story.

For example, rumors of Austin's favority bongboy sitting naked in his living room smoking is not a story -- his arrest, however, is.



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Achebe]

mrpaige, where's this distinction between 'doing the crime' and 'getting caught for the crime' in the philosophy of the drug war?

Is the act wrong? Does the act merit a legal sentence?

If President Bush knows that his daughter smokes pot, and he honestly thinks that it is a crime that merits a sentence... then as the President of the United States... the Chief Executive Officer he has an obligation to have her arrested.

Since it is of course absurd for a father to have his daughter arrested (not rely on his daughter's arbitrary luck or discretion), then President Bush shouldn't be so hard on drug users. That is hypocritical.

BTW, if one of his new bills boosts the 'youthful indiscretion' limit to over 30, I take this all back. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Achebe (edited April 03, 2001).]

[Major]

If President Bush knows that his daughter smokes pot

We don't know if this is the case, though.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Band Geek Mobster]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Achebe:
If President Bush knows that his daughter smokes pot, and he honestly thinks that it is a crime that merits a sentence... then as the President of the United States... the Chief Executive Officer he has an obligation to have her arrested.</font>

I'm glad he doesn't do that. Imagine how scary that would be if he went around arresting people that he knew smoked pot.

So long Snoop Dogg.

------------------
Peter: Lawrence what would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'd tell you what I'd do man...2 chicks at the same time man.
Peter: That's it? If you had a million dollars you'd do 2 chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight, I always wanted to do that man.

[Turbo]

Amen, Brother SpaceCity!
Speak the truth!

-Turbo

[mrpaige]

Of course, you are assuming that he knows his daughter smokes pot. There's no evidence to support that contention. (There's no hard evidence to support the contention that she even does partake in the smoking of the weed).

Secondly, you're assuming that the President supports the idea of parents turning their children over to the police for drug violations. I've not heard the President make such a statement. If anything, I would venture to bet that the President would support the idea of intervention and counseling prior to an arrest. There's no way for us to know whether the President has done that or not.

You apparently want the President to tell the DEA (or FBI or local police) to set up surveillance on his daughter in order to catch her in possession of drugs. (Simply reporting to the police that his daughter may take drugs outside of his presence is not sufficient to warrant an arrest of the President's daughter or anyone else), and unless the President makes such an order, he's a hypocrite.

So because the President is unwilling to order the DEA, FBI or local police to stake out his daughter in order to catch her using drugs or in possession of drugs so she can be arrested, the country should then go easier on all the drug users who are arrested and convicted.

Or do you want the President to ignore the law and simply have his daughter arrested without any evidence at all? Personally, I would think that we'd all be against the President having people arrested and put on trial when there is absolutely no evidence. And I don't recall the President ever suggesting that people should be arrested and put on trial for drug crimes based solely on whether someone else thinks that person has done drugs at some point. I can't recall a single case ever where a person was arrested without any evidence at all.

So, President Bush is a hypocrite because his daughter gets the same treatment that everyone else does regarding drug crimes?

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[Achebe]

Sorry I went from the hypothetical "if" to the conclusory "therefore". I've been postponing the trip down to the coffee garden, sorry. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

BTW, he's a hypocrite b/c he enforces a law that he didn't obey himself. He's also the Chief Executive Officer, and he hasn't executed anyone since he left Texas. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

I still don't see where you're making the distinction between the intent of the law and the actual execution of the law. Are you privy to a legal intuition that I merely do not see here? It seems to me that if an act is against the law, someone has done a wrong whether or not they were caught by the police. I'm not too caught up into the other elements (parental disclosure, etc.) of your post. I merely think that it's silly that as a 28 year old the government wants to hold my hand when it comes to pot.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So because the President is unwilling to order the DEA, FBI or local police to stake out his daughter in order to catch her using drugs or in possession of drugs so she can be arrested, the country should then go easier on all the drug users who are arrested and convicted.</font>

Kind of. The President should recognize that if his little Jenna is smoking pot then perhaps it's not that big of a deal. Through extending our moral umbrella we recognize that there are people that we care about that do things that aren't that big of a deal. In the legal sense, they're huge deals... and that dichotomy can only be bridged by the people in charge. If the people in charge don't extend the umbrella, then what are they suggesting is the single difference between the people that they care about and the other less fortunate people? Luck? Is our entire penal system based on luck? That's not too cool. Is it based on race? That's certainly worse. So again, if Bush supports a law to imprison drug users... and if his very own daughter is using, he should reexamine his stance. He's either a schmuck that would actually support the arrest of an 18 year old girl for smoking pot, or he would support favoritism, or he would want to disband the law (btw, the President just revoiced approval for the federal laws against marijuana just a few days ago).

------------------
(===)

[Major]

So again, if Bush supports a law to imprison drug users... and if his very own daughter is using, he should reexamine his stance.

You're again assuming that Bush would think his daughter should get a lighter penalty for it. What if he thinks Jenna should get the same punishment as everyone else?

If Jenna commits murder or arson or fraud, does Bush need to re-think his views on murder, arson, or fraud too?



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[mc mark]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Achebe:
(btw, the President just revoiced approval for the federal laws against marijuana just a few days ago).
</font>

Achebe can you provide a link?

thanks




------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[Achebe]

mc mark, I heard it on NPR (I think probably weekend edition but I can't remember). It had something to do w/ the fact that he supported state rights on the matter, yet also revoiced support for the federal laws.

shanna,

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You're again assuming that Bush would think his daughter should get a lighter penalty for it. What if he thinks Jenna should get the same punishment as everyone else?</font>

I already covered that one: then he's a schmuck. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If Jenna commits murder or arson or fraud, does Bush need to re-think his views on murder, arson, or fraud too?</font>

Not IMO. Those crimes all affect other people though. Murder obviously harms someone else. Arson is generally a violent act towards someone else, or an act of insurance fraud... which affects other people's premiums (I guess that's why you mentioned fraud).

I generally can't see justification for laws against drug users. I'm merely trying to say that if he likes Jenna then maybe he'll realize that there are nice people that break this law... there isn't some intangible 'element' that he can feel fine about when it comes to enforcing it. It affects real people... himself, his daughter, his 2000 Presidential opponent.

------------------
(===)

[Hydra]

You don't see any justification for laws against drug users. How do you think many drug users get the money to buy drugs? Being a crackhead just doesn't pay that well.

------------------
Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to me.

[Major]

I generally can't see justification for laws against drug users. I'm merely trying to say that if he likes Jenna then maybe he'll realize that there are nice people that break this law... there isn't some intangible 'element' that he can feel fine about when it comes to enforcing it. It affects real people... himself, his daughter, his 2000 Presidential opponent.

But see, now you're just arguing that he's hypocritical for not seeing that drug laws are bad -- basically, for not agreeing with you.

He could very well see drugs as something that should not be tolerated in the US (many people do). There's nothing wrong with that. Many laws prevent things that are not harmful to others but they still should be enforced.

To be honest, I'd be more worried if he did change his mind just because of his daughter, because it means his views weren't very well thought out in the first place.



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[jamcracker]

But Jenna won't get caught, because the war on drugs focuses on inner-city minorities, not on white college students.

Jenna's not the only Bush to smoke dope. I've seen another Bush (a grandchild of George H Bush) smoke dope and inhale with my own eyes multiple times.

I think people would start changing their minds about the drug war if we started arresting white college students instead of inner-city blacks.

Two cites from a great book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060951656/o/qid=976585711/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/105-7777952-6976722):

"African-American arrest rates for drugs during the height of the 'drug war' in 1989 were five times higher than arrest rates for whites even though whites and African-Americans were using drugs at the same rate. [emphasis in the original]

"In New York City [in 1991], 92% of drug arrests were of African-Americans or Hispanics. In St. Paul [in 1991], African-Americans were 26 times as likely as to be arrested on a drug charge as whites."

[This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited April 03, 2001).]

[SpaceCity]

I thought I peppered my post with "if she did" and "if it's true".

No need to talk about how nothing has been proven. That's not the point here.

Much of this discussion is hypothetical.

How are the drug laws unconstitutional? Seems to me that women have the right to do what they want to their bodies. Why can't I? What business is it of the government what I do in my own home? Cigarettes are leagal and the government is making a fortune from their sales. Instead of banning them they tax them. That's a solutions isn't it? What about alcohol? Same thing.

I smoke cigarettes and drink booze. I am responsible with my drinking. I have a strong mind and personality. I know when to say when. I know when not to drive. I even know that cigarettes will ruin my body if I continue to smoke them for life. But it is a choice that the government allows us all to make.

Why are they so concerned about weed? Why is it not my right to smoke something less dangerous, to me and others, than booze and cigs? Doesn't drunk driving fatalities rival that of cancer? (not sure about that one)

How whack is it that two of the biggest killers (cigs and booze) in this country are supported and allowed by the government? Yet there are no know deaths related to just smoking a joint. How often do you hear about stoned-related fatalities? You don't. At all.

That in itself is hypocracy of the government.



------------------

[SpaceCity]

Oh, just to make it clear:

I'm not saying the government should ban alcohol and cigs. That would make me a hypocrite! I just think there should be a level playing field. Why are 2 dangerous substances legal and yet a less-dangerous substance is not?

------------------

[mrpaige]

I guess I am a hypocrite for supporting drug laws while not turning all of you on this board who have admitted past drug use over to the police.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[SpaceCity]

Prove it!

------------------

[jamcracker]

mrpaige-

You should turn in outlaw, too. I bet (I hope http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif ) he's been guilty of homosexual deviant sexual intercourse.

Next time you break the speed limit, turn yourself in. Next time you see me throw a cig butt out my window, turn me in for littering. Call the police if you see someone jaywalking downtown.

[Hydra]

1. Just because cigarettes are legal and abortions are legal, that does not make drug laws unconstitutional. I doubt there are any mentions in the constitutuion of drugs, out side of the prohibition amendments.
2. Maijuanna cigarettes do much more damage to your lungs than tobacco cigarettes.
3. Abortions and drug use do affect other people. If someone steals my car stereo to go get some drugs, that affects me. If a woman has an abortion that affects the father of the child, as well as the child itself.

------------------
Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to me.

[mrpaige]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SpaceCity:
Prove it!

</font>

I don't have to prove it, remember? If it is hypocritical for the President to not turn in his daughter if he knows she smokes pot, then it would be hypocritical for me not to turn in those who I "know" smoke pot. Actual evidence to support an arrest is not important in regards to keeping me or the President from being a hypocrite.

As for the deviant sexual lifestyle stuff and the speeding stuff, I'm not really opposed to either of those things, so turning other people in for things I'm not against would also make me a hypocrite.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[jamcracker]

As for the deviant sexual lifestyle stuff and the speeding stuff, I'm not really opposed to either of those things, so turning other people in for things I'm not against would also make me a hypocrite.

OK OK you win http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

[SpaceCity]

Ok, maybe it's not 'unconstitutional' per se.

Isn't it funny how automatic weapons and handguns are protected by the constitution yet there is no mention of either in the constitution.

When it comes to other 'freedoms' people are quick to embrace the constitution.

All I'm saying here is that I should have the freedom to do what i want to do in my home as long as I am not hurting others.

Hydra,
I doubt very seriously too many stoners are stealing car stereos so that they can go get another bag. But on the other hand i don't doubt that people who steal car stereos are prone to light it up every now and then.

Couldn't you say the same thing about thieves who drink? Sometimes they steal so that they can actually eat. So, in your example food itself can affect you in a negative way too. Crime is not a byproduct of drugs. You can't say there is crime because there are drugs because that is simply not true. Money is the root of crime, not drugs. I don't see anyone calling for a ban to the monetary system. (I'm being extreme to make a point)

Sure many criminals do drugs as well as do crimes. But on the other hand, there are many more who do drugs and do not do crimes (other than taking the drugs).

------------------

[Major]

Isn't it funny how automatic weapons and handguns are protected by the constitution yet there is no mention of either in the constitution.

Have we forgotten the second amendment? Granted, it can be interpreted in many ways, but it does discuss this specific issue.




------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[SpaceCity]

Shanna,
That's exactly what I am saying here.

We have the right to bear arms. This used to not be so vague because when it was written automatic weapons and handguns did not exist.

We had muskets and rifles. I'm all for that freedom to bear arms. You can't hide a musket or rifle in your pants, shirt, backpack or briefcase.

You can't kill 20 people in less than a minute with a rifle or a musket.

Now why is it that weapons of mass destruction are protected by a vague law that never envisioned such a thing? Yet I can get up to 6 months in jail for burning a doob. In some states I'd be better off killing someone rather than getting busted in my home smoking a joint.

Just doesn't seem right now does it?

All I'm saying is that I should be able to make that choice on my own.

Place a joint on a table next to a gun and tell me which one has a better chance of ending someones life.



------------------

[Jeff]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hydra:
2. Maijuanna cigarettes do much more damage to your lungs than tobacco cigarettes.</font>

That is false. Actually, it is the opposite. The smoke from cigarettes has been tested as strongly carcinogenic by the American Cancer Society. The smoke in a joint (depending on the wrapper) is only mildly carcinogenic to not at all.

What I find hypocrtical is the fact that many, MANY pain medications legally prescribed by doctors have far higher concentrations of addictive substances than marijuana ever dreamed of having. The fastest growing segment of addiction is people addicted to pain medication.

I'm not saying it's wrong to prescribe them. Some people need them to deal with painful surgeries, etc. However, to say that Vicatin or Xanax is ok for a prescription and marijuana is not is just ridiculous. Hell, you can even prescribe morphine!!!

------------------
AAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

[Major]

Just doesn't seem right now does it?

I'm not arguing the right or wrong behind these laws... I was just pointing out why one is a constitutional issue and the other is not. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Major]

I'm not saying it's wrong to prescribe them. Some people need them to deal with painful surgeries, etc. However, to say that Vicatin or Xanax is ok for a prescription and marijuana is not is just ridiculous. Hell, you can even prescribe morphine!!!

The difference is that one is prescribed and thus controlled. Doctors can regulate how much you're allowed to take, etc, to prevent addiction. It is illegal to go out and get any of these items without a valid prescription.

Legalized marijuana -- without a prescription -- is a totally different issue because usage in not in any way monitored or controlled. Marijuana, WITH a prescription, is slowly becoming a more acceptable idea.

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[This message has been edited by shanna (edited April 03, 2001).]

[mrpaige]

I took a trip the other day, which means that I was listening to talk radio for a spell (always a mistake). I don't know who the guy was, but he was railing against marijuana. He was trying to draw a distinction between marijuana and cigarettes and trying to justify why one is legal and one is not. His own argument was that marijuana is "proven" to be a gateway drug (meaning that people who use marijuana will use other, more potent drugs later).

His "proof" that marijuana was a gateway drug? Studies that show that most people who have used hard drugs had also used marijuana at some point. Talk about making a dubious connection not supported by the evidence. This is akin to the idea that broccoli causes death because most people who are now dead ate broccoli at one point in their lives.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[Hydra]

What other drugs should be legalized? MDMA? LSD? Cocaine? Heroin? Some of these are no more dangerous than pot. I think that they should legalize all drugs, but in addition, they should notify everyone of who is on drugs. This way people can be taxed heavily on drugs as they are on cigarettes and booze. The registration of drug users would let you know if your pilot or something of that nature is on drugs. It would also help in detaining the people who do go out and rob someone to get their next fix.

Jeff,
Damn that stupid D.A.R.E. program for feeding me these lies about marijuanna. Is it possible the filter has something to do with it?

------------------
Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to me.

[Turbo]

Jeff, way to do your homework bud!

Oh and yeah, it's also proven that Tylenol, NyQuil, and even Flintstones vitamins are gateway drugs - due to the fact that people on hard drugs have taken one or the other at some point in their life. These are the type of people that keep marijuana illegal even though they have no evidence to support their cause.

-Turbo

[Achebe]

shanna, I had dropped the 'hypocritical' charge on that account in the previous paragraph.

also mrpaige, hopefully you weren't making those sarcastic 'hypocritical' posts for my benefit. I thought that my 'concession' in the following sentence was my response for that matter:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Sorry I went from the hypothetical "if" to the conclusory "therefore". I've been postponing the trip down to the coffee garden, sorry. </font>

But since we keep going down this path... http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I guess I am a hypocrite for supporting drug laws while not turning all of you on this board who have admitted past drug use over to the police.</font>

If you truly support drug laws, then you should turn everyone here over... and hell, you're not even the President of the United States, sworn to uphold all laws and ensure their enforcement.

Those 'ifs' get lost in the post... but I'll pretend for a second that I'm on debate club and I have to make the argument that Dubya is horrible (this argument is fraught w/ fallacy but I'll do it anyway): President Bush is sworn to uphold the law. If he has knowledge of criminal wrongdoing, he should alert the appropriate authorities. Period. Is possession of marijuana a federal offense? There are federal laws governing its possession... Dubya oversees said laws and isn't truly fulfilling his duty as President should he not persue all leads.

Jeff, the funniest comment on this subject was in an episode of Arlis when Coolio pointed out that 10 out of 10 kids started out on milk.

Hydra, one other thing to ponder is that many pot users also use water bongs which filter out the carcinogens. There's also a miniscule connection between crime and drug use... poverty. I doubt Dubya, for example, ever had to steal from daddy to pay for the 'mainlining' ( http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif), whereas many poor people have to steal regardless of their drug use.

------------------
(===)

[Jeff]

The difference is that one is prescribed and thus controlled. Doctors can regulate how much you're allowed to take, etc, to prevent addiction. It is illegal to go out and get any of these items without a valid prescription.

But they don't regulate it enough to prevent addiction. I read recently that presciption drug addiction is the fastest growing addiction including alcohol. I agree that uncontrolled marijuana is differnet, but it is far less dangerous than the vast majority of prescription drugs. Just because they are prescribed doesn't make them safer.

Jeff,
Damn that stupid D.A.R.E. program for feeding me these lies about marijuanna. Is it possible the filter has something to do with it?

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif DARE is just trying to do what it thinks is best to keep people away from drugs. I don't blame them. Doing drugs is a BAD thing in terms of health. If you want long-term health, you should avoid drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. That's just common sense.

As for cigarettes and their damagin effects, the additives cause the real problems. Marijuana cigarettes are just weeds and paper - if you use simple organic rollers, you have very few carcinogens. Cigarettes include different chemicals designed to keep them burning longer and make them easier to inhale.

When cigarettes had tar in them, they were even worse.

This is not to say inhaling smoke of ANY kind is good for you. In fact, the inhaling or injesting of anything burnt is actually not good for you. The crust on overcooked meat is actually loaded with carcinogens.

However, there are plenty of things that are terrible for us that we do all the time. The legality is the issue.

------------------
poopy times twoopy

[Achebe]

You smoke you poke.

[RocketMan Tex]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Clutch:
So did she inhale?

</font>

Does she know how? I mean, c'mon, her father will never be confused with a brain surgeon, ya know! Hope she didn't get the "dumbass" chromosome! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

[Smokey]

I'm proud to say I have a little Dubya in my class. Talks like him too http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Actual quote informing the class: "Books are long. Books have chapters." No Sh!t! That's why we call them books.


[This message has been edited by Smokey (edited April 03, 2001).]

[rockHEAD]

Bush (R)=Cokehead
Gore (D)=Pothead
Clinton (D)=Pothead
Jenna (?)=Pothead

who knows, maybe there's hope for her!? She could end up Democrat, Green Party or Libertarian!! haha

Jenna... is she the blond? I'd toke up with her!! hehe

rH

[Space Ghost]

A movie to watch similar to this would be Traffic.

------------------
Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!

[SpaceCity]

As one who is know to get irie every now and then, I find this disturbing if it's true.

The question is not whether she was bad for smoking, if she did.

The problem is the hypocracy of the parent in question. How can a leader support such a tough, unforgiving law against those who smoke while knowing that his daughter may or may not have done it.

I don't beleive she needs to go to jail or anything. The laws concerning personal use is completely whack and unconstitutional.

If true, all this does is show just how out of touch and close minded this Nation is when it comes to the 'drug war'.

Why waste this country's money and time on petty, recreational pot smokers? Why do these people get sent to jail in the first place? Up to 180 days in jail if busted with less than 2 ounces of bud?! Come on! Are you telling me that 6 months with rapists and murderers is the suitable punishment for being caught with a single joint?!

On the other hand, it would only be fair that she be subject to the very same law and punishment that every other American has to cope with. She is no different or any better than any of us 'private citizens'.

Either enforce the law or change it the law.

This country could learn a lot from Amsterdam. Some drugs are legal there. They have a lower addiction rate than any other country. They have less violent crimes.

When you educate a child early on about drugs and sex you will find that these kids grow up and make better educated choices. Amsterdam also boasts the lowest teen pregnancy rate. The lowest rate of sexually transmitted diseases. The lowest AIDS rate.

How many billions of dollars must we waste before we realize we are going about it all wrong?


[This message has been edited by SpaceCity (edited April 03, 2001).]