U.S. Law
Controlled Substances vs. Compassionate Use
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington: Watch Ashcroft v. Raich carefully. The government is upset that your citizens are finding relief for terminal and chronic conditions without lining the pockets of Pfizer, Merck and their co-conspirators.
What's the deal with drug laws anyway? They're so arbitrary, they don't even make any sense. "Uhh, tobacco, yeah that's legal because it's just a plant. It grows naturally. Marijuana on the other hand, well, yeah it's a plant too -- but it's an EVIL plant. You can tell because it's pointy."
Other ridiculousness:
-The TV ad that claims marijuana use is bad because it "often involves criminal activity." Well, no fucking shit. It's illegal. Would it often involve criminal activity if it weren't illegal? Is murder bad because it involves criminal activity, or is there another reason? This is like the poll after the election that showed 51% of the country satisfied with the results. I could have told you that, and I didn't need to conduct a poll to do it.
-The radio ad which claims that marijuana use is bad because "all teens who use cocaine also used marijuana." Therefore (the ad claims) marijuana use leads to cocaine use. Following the same logic train, all people who have been to the moon are men. Therefore, all men have been to the moon. More seriously, it seems much more likely that the kind of person who uses cocaine isn't likely to say to themselves: "Yeah, I do coke, but I draw the line there. That marrajoowanna is some wack shit."
Given the efficacy of the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on terror, I'm glad that the government and the 51-ers have declared war on science and logic. Things are looking up for the results-oriented, reality-based community.
(Incidentally, while searching Google for a picture of a tobacco leaf, I came across this picture. I think it's supposed to illustrate something about smoking, but I came away with a different impression.)
Hate Amendment Can't Even Make it to Vote
The Hate Amendment didn't even make it to a vote in the senate yesterday. Most of the headlines on online news sites are heartening (Bush's Push for Gay Ban Blocked By Senate) in that they clearly link the proposed constitutional amendment with Bush himself.
The measure only received 48 votes for cloture (60 required), meaning that less than half of the senate even wanted to vote on it. Had the measure gone to vote, the level of support would have been even lower because of a number of Republicans who opposed the amendment itself even though they supported taking it to vote. I doubt that the amendment would have gotten even 40 senate votes of 67 required.
It's a Good Thing There's No Winter in Texas
In Austin, TX, a radio host was arrested after wearing a ski mask into a convenience store, purchasing a pack of gum and leaving (Boston Globe). The charge? Making a terrorist threat.
It's a good thing there's no winter (or even skiing) in Texas. I don't even think that George W. Bush, a boatload of arrogance and an imperial war for Iraq could create as many terrorists as winter in Texas would.
Boston-Bound Buses Searched
The Boston Globe has a story about how Police are beginning searches of buses leaving the Londonderry, NH Concord Trailways station. If my understanding (based on the article) of this situation is correct, I have no problem with it whatsoever although I still object to the "random" searches on Boston's MBTA trains and buses.
First of all, Concord Trailways is a private company which runs a transportation service on private property (buses). Based on this article, it seems that the company is voluntarily complying with a police wish the search buses. Passengers who refuse to be searched are refused a seat. Since we're talking about a private company, I have no problem with that.
Assault Weapons Ban Sunset
As I have done before, I'm posting this here but not on my personal journal, simply because I don't feel like writing something long and biting, but I think people should be aware.
No surprises here: there is a site dedicated to preventing the 1994 assault weapons bans from being renewed when it expires in 11 weeks. Of specific interest to me was the Why Would Anyone Want to Own One? section. It occured to me as I read the essay on this page that with only the sightest of modification it could easily be changed to Why These Weapons are so Horrifically Dangerous.

Latest Comments
by poot
7 October, 2007 - 9:27pm
by thinksinpictures
14 September, 2007 - 11:31pm
by thinksinpictures
8 August, 2007 - 3:48pm
by poot
8 August, 2007 - 3:23pm
by thinksinpictures
6 August, 2007 - 5:57pm
by thinksinpictures
6 August, 2007 - 5:56pm
by tenacity
6 August, 2007 - 3:22pm
by deterb
29 April, 2007 - 6:42am
by BabyJune
26 August, 2006 - 5:50pm
by thinksinpictures
2 August, 2006 - 1:54am