[] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: Nuclear power



On 21 Nov 2013, at 03:54, Chris de Morsella wrote:

 >>We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington



>Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path!


Amsterdam & Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works
here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states.


>> I hope so.


You, me and a whole lot of other people as well J




and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening.
Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be
able to sell to anyone of legal age.


>> I just hope the feds will not come with tanks!

They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of
confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the
Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees - as
the workers in these state stores would be - becoming arrested for
trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion
locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is
that they will not be rolling in with the tanks - or making arrests. It
remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the
American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being
directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such
federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in
Southern California - the region this individual was districted in. So until
this insane prohibition - purely for the benefit of organized criminality is
overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy
change rollback.

I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent
state governments over this issue, but we shall see.



>>You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and
two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still "schedule
one" at the federal level.


Yes. see above.


>> You worry me a little bit .... I was joking with the tanks ... (Well I
was hoping being joking ...).


I do worry that some federal prosecutor (with jurisdiction in Washington or
Colorado) will go on a personal Jihad or that a new federal administration
will decide to impose its will on the states.



>>The "schedule one" notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is
considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not
making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule


Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic
than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How
many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the
original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy
research that has since been discredited.  And yet the prohibition policy
has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for
decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded
in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every
dimension of life - perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy
from the very beginning.


>>I think that the evidences go in that direction. 


Either this is evidence for the terrible momentum of bad ideas or of
something much more sinister working to preserve a status quo that is
harmful for society because some narrow interests benefit from said policy.


Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I
think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated,
decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de
facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing,
though, for some finite period of time.


Agreed - though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and
Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason these
nations did not legalize is the international treaty obligations. Perhaps
ignoring them was the best they could do in that time. Washington and
Colorado are now pushing the envelope; I hope this busts the criminal
blocking of a return to sanity.



>>Those international treaties are a mystery for me. Also how quick all this
happened. Prohibition seems to be an international criminal decisions at the


That is what it seems like - the lockstep coordination, and the weird lockin
of all these countries into this system and the evident fear or perhaps I
should say reluctance of countries from Holland, to Denmark, Portugal,
Switzerland, Mexico (which was considering ending the prohibition on drugs
when I was living there). of all these and more countries to take on this
treaty system. International treaties are flouted with a surprising
regularity by a lot of nations. I am curious why this particular system of
treaties has such a grip on nations and why they seem to not want to cross
that line.

Why the fear?



>>>I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last the
official result of the "Tadam Project", which has consisted in providing
heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege). 

It is considered by the experts involved as an important success, but the
government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to approve it, and
to decide to pursue it. 

Since the project has been stopped, already three heroin users have died.


Most of the time it isn't Heroin that kills the addicts; it is what it has
been cut with by criminal gangs that are without scruples. Although it
saddens me personally when I see a junkie - it is very much a waste of life
(but excellent for dulling pain), I would far prefer that  addicts could get
--- at a reasonable price  and quality - the heroin they need. And be able
to inject their drug in a safe environment - again I believe they should pay
some small fee for this too.



>>Just to prevents the spreading of AIDS, legalizing heroin (even if
medically prescribed) is common sense.

Exactly.. As well as all the street crime. Imagine how much more street
crime there would be if alcoholics had to work up $100 or more in order to
get their illegal bottle of bad beer, wine or rot gut liquor. If Heroin
addicts could get a decent supply for a decent amount say around $20
(heavily taxed to cover health and recovery treatment) for a fix they would
not be committing the street crime or prostituting themselves to earn the
money they need for their fix.

Same for cocaine. If it was affordable there would be no crack whores.


This would have an immediate dramatic effect on street and property crime -
a junkie needing to make $100 to $150 and up each and every day in order to
support their habit and the organized criminals profiting off of them is a
veritable street crime wave.

I believe that drugs such as heroin or cocaine, or tobacco or alcohol for
that matter that have known chronic health costs and pose risks of death and
physical and mental deterioration of the users should be taxed so that users
of these drugs can fund the costs society must bear because of their use.

Heroin or cocaine could be produced for far less than they are currently
marked up by the mafias that distribute these drugs globally; so there is
plenty of room for a large tax on them while still bringing down the cost
for the addict into a realm where they are not doing desperate things - like
stealing cars or prostituting themselves - in order to get a fix.

I have lost a good friend - a drummer I used to play in a rock band with (20
years ago) - to heroin. We (the other guys in the band) actually were
thinking about kidnapping him and taking him to a cabin in the forest to
sweat out his withdrawals, I guess because we knew his habit was going to
kill him. But the legal implications - a potential kidnap charge (even if
the motive is pure) is a powerful inhibitor. Three weeks later he was dead.
Who knows if it had been legal he might still be alive. perhaps.


>>Sorry for your friend. This last year I lost two close friend. One for
overdoing with a legal antidepressant, and the other succumbs to a
radiotherapy and I am pretty sure that both would be alive if some herbs
were used instead. Hard to prove, but I have the intimate conviction on

How many death brought by prohibition? Millions if not billions.


Thanks, he was a really great drummer. one of the best I ever played with. I
have sometimes wondered if his overdose was really a suicide. The life of a
musician can be very hard and the dichotomy between mastering music (no easy
thing to do) and being regarded and treated by society as one step from
being a worthless bum - the fate of many non-establishment artists, poets,
writers and musicians who do not become one of the very few who obtain
commercial success. But that is another story.

The legal anti-depressants kill so many people - how many thousands of
suicides a year can be statistically linked to anti-depressant use. A friend
of mine just lost a friend of his - who was a tech lead in a big software
company - who recently jumped over a waterfall to his death while taking

Yet this stuff continues to be marketed and pushed. Imagine if a herb caused
people using it to have suicidal ideations - how illegal that herb would be
made. Some herbs are in fact very hard to get - and we (my wife and I) get
them with difficulty - because one or two people have died from misusing
them - put a warning for sure - but prohibition?

Compare this to big Pharma drugs such as viox, which is statistically
implicated in 30,000 to 50,000 heart attack and stroke deaths in the 1990s,
and which was withdrawn for a few years, but is being marketed and sold
again. If some herb had caused that many deaths can you imagine how illegal
it would be?

I am sorry for your friends, radiotherapy has terrible side effects and a
dubious benefit IMO, except perhaps for very specific cases. Putting
radionuclides into the body is a bad idea.

The only drugs that should remain illegal or at least be highly controlled
are those that induce extreme violence in those who take them.


>>I know only alcohol for being like that. Prohibition of alcohol has not
worked. Let us make "violence" illegal. It is enough.


I can agree with that - I was thinking of rarely used strange drugs such as
those bath salt drugs that have been linked to some bizarre cases of extreme
dissociative violence such as the case of that man in Florida who began
eating a homeless man's face while he was alive and screaming and kept on
cannibalizing him even when the cop showed up screaming at him to stop. he
was shot and killed and the homeless man actually lived through it (at least
last I heard.. who knows if he is still alive though after that kind of

In principal I agree with you - that what needs to be illegal is the
violence itself.


In general it is my belief that it is only when using something or doing
something becomes a clear and clearly demonstrable danger for others that
the state should be able to legislate. For example, why were anti-sodomy
laws still enforce in 15 states in the US, until struck down in a 2003 US
Supreme court decision? This is none of the state's business, and states
should not be in the business of enforcing codes of behavior.








You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to