I can't believe it passed ...

S.486, which I brought up in this thread, passed the Senate … UNANIMOUSLY!

The intent of the bill, to quote from Sen Feinstein’s web page :

Bans the dissemination of drug “recipes” and other demonstrative information relating to the manufacturing and use of methamphetamine and other controlled substances. The bill amends the anti-drug paraphernalia statute to clarify that advertisements for sale include the use of any communication facility, including the Internet, to post or publicize in any way any matter, including a telephone number or electronic or mail address, knowing that such matter is designed to be used to buy, distribute, or otherwise facilitate a transaction in drug paraphernalia.

High Times magazine and website will be gone. Online headshops, gone. Even the Media Awareness Project, a site that contains nothing but clippings of drug-related news articles and OPED pieces. Yet Drug Czar Barry McAsshole accused them of distributing information to support the manufacture of criminalized drugs. Nothing like that has EVER appeared on their site. Check outthis page on MAP’s site about the bill.

Illegal under this bill will be telling an addict to clean his needle with bleach to prevent the spread of AIDS. Not to mention information for medical marijuana users.

This is a fucking sick, brutal RAPE of the first amendment! Makes me want to fucking vomit! Maybe I should smoke some marijuana to ease my nausea…


`The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws’
– Tacitus, Annals III 27 -

Sorry, screwed up the Media Awareness Project link.

Oh damn. I meant to post this in the pit. Sorry for the strong language in MPSIMS …

whoa.

that really sucks.



Teeming Millions: http://fathom.org/teemingmillions
“Meat flaps, yellow!” - DrainBead, naked co-ed Twister chat
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com

Hey, the 2nd Ammendment has been trashed. So has the 4th Ammendment. It’s about TIME they started on the 1st Ammendment! disgusted sigh

Don’t say no to drugs. Say, “No, THANK YOU.”

Say No to drugs

If there’s anybody watching.
Yeah, man, like, the government’s, like, slaughtering our rights, man, ya know, dude?

Sorry, but the people at marijuana.com


I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

I beg your pardon, but that is not correct.

The bill (S. 486) provides in relevant part:

Cleaing a hypodermic needle does not constitute manufacture of a controlled substance, nor is it a Federal crime, nor is it an act in furtherance of a Federal crime.

Since this is MPSIMS, I will offer one further observation. There is a certain hysterical tone about your post that suggests the evil government is clamping down on these great activities.

I express no opinion on the overall wisdom of S.486. But I do think that there is no constitutional right to use drugs, and those people who promote the use of illegal substances are neither heroes nor civil-rights champions.

  • Rick

Guess they can find a web host off US land…there is a reason it’s called the “World Wide Web”

Yep, this should be in GD boards.

Damn the government…ARRRGH

Drugs should be legal as far as I am concerned. I don’t use them, 'cept the occasional toke, shotgun, from a friend. But why should the government give a rats ass if I am enjoying a doob on a Saturday night? I’ve tried meth, it’s a nasty drug, will never do it again, but why do they care and why is it considered illegal?

To make more prisons I guess. Let’s put people in prison for drugs, give them high sentences and less the chance that a murderer will stay in prison for their full term. < rolling eyes >

Well, let’s not get too hysterical about this just yet. This sounds like congressional posturing, which no one expects to actually stand up in the Supreme Court, should anyone challenge it. This, too, shall pass.

Boy,here I thought this was about your kidney stone…

Just for pure cussedness and mischief, I wonder if this applies to the home beer and wine stuff as well? Beer and wine are controlled substances.

Okay, all you home brewers, hide the bottles! The Revenooer’s is comin’! Only this time it’d be the feds who could confiscate your house for it.

My, my, and what were we saying about stamping out ignorance???

Veb

Elsewhere in the statute, they define “controlled substance”… ‘as defined in schedule wa-wa’; it’s only drugs that aren’t booze. :slight_smile:

Soryy for quick post but the game’s back on; battle of the defenses.

  • R

I’m sure nobody wants me to contribute anything here but…

I’m smiling :slight_smile:


-PIGEONMAN-
Returns!

The Legend Of PigeonMan - By Popular Demand! Enjoy, enjoy!

HELP!!!


Zymurgist

Look it up!

No more High Times website? AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!

So Big Brother wants to start regulating the type of information we can get on the Internet. Or in other forums, presumably this would apply to the press eventually. I’m getting worried…


The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.

Bricker:

What about the whole “Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” part? While recreational drug use may not be part of your lifestyle, I think it can reasonably be argued that others may find it necessary for their happiness.

I realize that this phrase comes from the Declaration of Independance and may not technically be considered part of the constitution (I don’t know). But so does the phrase “all men are created equal”.

I see this as just another in a long line of personal liberty casualties resulting from our misguided war on drugs.

Not to tempt GuanoLad into anything…

… but while I am steadfastly against the use of both marijuana and meth… I recognize it’s not a moral issue.

The classic example is imagining a man walking down the street with an ounce of gold, a flask of whiskey, and an ounce of marijuana in his pockets.

At some point in the past hundred years, all of those have been both legal and illegal: gold between 1933 and 1972, whiskey during Prohibition, and pot after the thirties.

Making something illegal doesn’t create a morality or immorality.

But I contend that marijuana is destructive and a poor practical choice… though it is, of course, a morally neutral one.

In any event, as I said before, the people that publish High Times et. al. are not folk heroes or civil rights crusaders, and I find it difficult to cheer for them under any circumstances. And if I am disdainful towards them, the people that are publishing meth lab plans are positively repulsive.

But I’m not prepared to agree that their conduct should be illegal.

I’m also not prepared to agree it should be legal.

Let’s see if it passes the House and if the Pres signs it.

  • Rick

hardcore says:

As you correctly observe later in your post, this phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution.

It is perfectly appropriate for states to prohibit any drugs they wish. Your argument appears to be that yes, they can, but they shouldn’t.

If pot were legal, perhaps the dramatic social ills associated with it would vanish, and it would be no more of a blight than tobacco. I don’t know.

But even mighty tobacco is taking some beatings lately. Fwiw, I think the method is wrong in those cases; it is the province of the state legislature to prohibit such things, not the judiciary.

In any event, as things stand now, I suggest that anyone using pot is making a questionable judgement call, exposing themselves to legal risk as well as health risk.

Certainly meth, the subject of the OP, enjoys not even a slight benefit of the doubt.

  • Rick

As mentioned previously, this discussion probably would be better off in GD. :slight_smile:

Yes, I do tend to lean toward the anti-prohibition stance. But that also applies to tobacco. And I, like you, don’t agree with the beatings the tobacco industry has taken lately, but probably for a different reason. I feel that adults should be responsible for their own actions, which includes an assumption of risk.

I agree that meth is reprehensible. But the dissemination of information about it should not be illegal. I think that is the real subject of the OP.