Re: a little something worth noting . . .

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 04:53:18AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> I would also note that some states - like California - have decriminalized
> marijuana, at least for medical purposes, and I am sure it is easier for the
> feds to monitor the Canada border, with a few defined access points, then all of
> California.  But maybe the feds should build a "Separation Wall" around
> California ;-).

What, near the checkpoints for fruit already there on the border with
Nevada? Or actually in front of the border, in the case of South Lake Tahoe.

> You added quite some speculation about effects on marijuana consumption.  The
> FUD, if any, was in the quote from the article, under the heading of unspecified
> "Other consequences".

Fair enough. But your speculation seems to try and make a point, whereas
mine simply offers a possible alternative. Your speculations are no more
plausable than mine. And no less either, as we both don't know shit about
the real intentions of any member of any government.

I just don't think the "other consequences" are alarming. It's an annoyance,
like SARS, but nothing to worry aboot.

> Only the last link seems related to France, and from the earlier links it seems
> what they complain about (transport of heroin through Holland) is unlawful in
> Holland as well.  Perhaps Holland does not police its ports as well as France
> would like?

The first two links were provided because I didn't know how well informed
you were on our policies.

I don't care a lot about French likes and dislikes. I do know something
about port controls (my stepdad is CEO of the largest coal and ore
transfering company in the world) and they seem fine by me, at least for
bulk. Containers might be a whole different story.

And I do know this is a political issue beyond smuggling. I regret I cannot
provide all the resources I'd like to, most of my knowledge on the matter
comes from everyday news sources, mostly in dutch and lacking on-line
versions.

But I doubt you'll find anything on Google other than indications that
<sarcasm>our drug policy is a curse for Chirac's Franco-Muslim
Conspiracy</sarcasm>.

> I would note that Afghanistan, having been "liberated", is now in full
> opium production again, after years in which the Taliban had effectively
> stopped the production.

That seems to contradict the rumors I've heard that the Taliban is more or
less in power again.

And yes, the war on terrorism will at times conflict with the war on drugs.
The only way this could have been prevented (short of leaving the Taliban in
place) would be to put the entire country under prolonged US control, but
last time I checked not many were in favor of that.

The same goes for Iraq: every bit of influence from the US will be
critized. At the same time, the US will be blamed for any problem that might
arise. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

> > I was being sarcastic. You're just being a pain in the ass to deliberately
> > not notice, I'm sure everyone else did.
> 
> This accusation is unfounded as well.  I still don't see the sarcasm.  But it's
> not important :-).

In my opinion you tend to make a big deal out of small issues. Hence the
"the end of civilization" remark. If you seriously didn't get that.. let's
just say I'm eager to find out if others did, so I know whether to send a
copy of the English 101 textbook your way, or mine.

Perhaps either of us should explain to Neil your mails are informational
messages and not some sort of "joke of the day", just to be on the safe
side.

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+t5I6tppIl2G1SjcRAmKwAJ4mLjBibGcUSDowOqNFSbxfXfrG7QCginl/
4B/7csHLKgb57mJ8/ycGKZQ=
=1FJE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----