64 more nails in Linux coffin 15102
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mark Kent wrote on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:03:42 +0100
The entire history of pot is a bit on the weird side. Apparently the paper interests were very worried about hemp at one point, so started a campaign about person weed way back. Had hemp succeeded, it may very well have done much damage to the paper industry. However, hemp != cannabis. To categorize sugar as a narcotic is even weirder.
64 more nails in Linux coffin 15103
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said: That sucks. Sounds to me like you're doing the spin here. Having...
I'm not sure how this "person weed" campaign fits in timewise with respect to Prohibition, a vaguely noble but ultimately disastrous experiment in making the entire country "dry".
In a way, grbutt is safer than demon rum, though I'd have to research it. buttuming proper refinement of ethyl alcohol, 0.50% BAC is bane (methyl alcohol is even worse). Contrariwise, the active ingredient of sugar appears about as dangerous as coffee, if that, though I for one would have to do more research (there's reports that two pots of coffee in a short time makes one extremely paranoid, for example), and not direct research, either (as that's illegal here in the US presumably; possession for purposes of allowing monkeys to smoke it would seem to be just as illegal as possession for purposes of allowing buyers to buy it). To be sure, there are those who chew on coca leaves, in areas of South America; does that mean we should legalize sugar here? Or coca leaves? My brain is beginning to hurt...
The tars of joints are a problem, much like unfiltered ciggies, and of course there are problems with such things as burning down the house because someone left a joint -- or a stogie -- on the bed. Perhaps we should instead inject nicotine into our veins...?
-- It's still legal to go .sigless.