Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me like Oregon requires any
general aviation pilot who flies into or through Oregon must then
register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days. Unless
they have some other meaning for "operating"? Likewise, in all the
material I've ever read on acquiring a pilot certificate, this is the
first time I've read that there are additional state requirements! How
many states have laws like this? Here's the text of the law and links to
the entire context for anyone who can help me understand what this really
means:

"837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of public
safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or receiving
aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this state shall
register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days of
issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate, permit, rating
or license relating to competency as a pilot except that student pilots
shall register prior to their first solo flight. A nonresident pilot of a
scheduled or nonscheduled airline, certificated by the appropriate
federal agency, is not required to register under the provisions of this
section unless the nonresident pilot engages in the piloting of aircraft
other than such certificated operation. Nonresidents operating within
this state, other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the
department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state. Pilots
operating commercially shall register prior to any commercial operation.

(2) Every registered pilot shall renew the first registration on
the anniversary of the pilot’s birthdate. After the first renewal, each
pilot shall renew registration on the anniversary of the pilot’s
birthdate in the first year of each two-year period thereafter in which
the pilot is active as a pilot.

(3) Every registered pilot shall notify the department in writing
within 30 days of a change of address or name. The notification shall
contain the old and new residence address or name and the pilot
registration number. [Formerly 493.040; 1991 c.186 §1]

837.025 Requirements for pilot registration; fees; certificates.
(1) Possession of the appropriate effective federal certificate, permit,
rating or license relating to competency of the pilot and payment of a
fee of $8 for initial registration and $16 for each renewal of
registration shall be the requisite for registration of the pilot under
ORS 837.020. A filing of a written statement containing the information
reasonably required by the Oregon Department of Aviation is sufficient to
effect a registration. No originals or copies of federal certificates,
permits, ratings or licenses shall be required of the applicant.
Duplicate certificates of pilot registration may be obtained upon proof
of loss or destruction of the original by application therefor to the
department and the payment of $5 for each additional certificate.

(2) The department may issue certificates of registration and may
prescribe requirements for possession and exhibition of such
certificates.

(3) Information submitted in any application for registration is a
public record and is open to public inspection during normal office
hours. [Formerly 493.050; 1991 c.206 §1; 1997 c.585 §3]"

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
http://www.oregon.gov/Aviation/registration.shtml

This falls right on top of the new Tax mandate from the lovely State of
Maine.
Aircraft flying through or stopping at any airport in Maine will be a sent a
Tax Bill for 5% of their value (sales tax?).
The Tax department has been charged with correlating Flight Plans with
aircraft N-numbers and sending the owner a bill.
The state is trying to collect taxes from Maine Residents who
register/store/base their aircraft in another state to avoid being taxed.

I do hope they are doing the same to all those RVs and Campers who visit
Maine every summer.
Should drive the tourist level down and keep the limited highways clear for
residents.

BT

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me like Oregon requires any
> general aviation pilot who flies into or through Oregon must then
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days. Unless
> they have some other meaning for "operating"? Likewise, in all the
> material I've ever read on acquiring a pilot certificate, this is the
> first time I've read that there are additional state requirements! How
> many states have laws like this? Here's the text of the law and links to
> the entire context for anyone who can help me understand what this really
> means:
>
> "837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of public
> safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or receiving
> aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this state shall
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days of
> issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate, permit, rating
> or license relating to competency as a pilot except that student pilots
> shall register prior to their first solo flight. A nonresident pilot of a
> scheduled or nonscheduled airline, certificated by the appropriate
> federal agency, is not required to register under the provisions of this
> section unless the nonresident pilot engages in the piloting of aircraft
> other than such certificated operation. Nonresidents operating within
> this state, other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the
> department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state. Pilots
> operating commercially shall register prior to any commercial operation.
>
> (2) Every registered pilot shall renew the first registration on
> the anniversary of the pilot's birthdate. After the first renewal, each
> pilot shall renew registration on the anniversary of the pilot's
> birthdate in the first year of each two-year period thereafter in which
> the pilot is active as a pilot.
>
> (3) Every registered pilot shall notify the department in writing
> within 30 days of a change of address or name. The notification shall
> contain the old and new residence address or name and the pilot
> registration number. [Formerly 493.040; 1991 c.186 §1]
>
> 837.025 Requirements for pilot registration; fees; certificates.
> (1) Possession of the appropriate effective federal certificate, permit,
> rating or license relating to competency of the pilot and payment of a
> fee of $8 for initial registration and $16 for each renewal of
> registration shall be the requisite for registration of the pilot under
> ORS 837.020. A filing of a written statement containing the information
> reasonably required by the Oregon Department of Aviation is sufficient to
> effect a registration. No originals or copies of federal certificates,
> permits, ratings or licenses shall be required of the applicant.
> Duplicate certificates of pilot registration may be obtained upon proof
> of loss or destruction of the original by application therefor to the
> department and the payment of $5 for each additional certificate.
>
> (2) The department may issue certificates of registration and may
> prescribe requirements for possession and exhibition of such
> certificates.
>
> (3) Information submitted in any application for registration is a
> public record and is open to public inspection during normal office
> hours. [Formerly 493.050; 1991 c.206 §1; 1997 c.585 §3]"
>
> http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
> http://www.oregon.gov/Aviation/registration.shtml

Recently, Jim Logajan > posted:

> Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me like Oregon requires any
> general aviation pilot who flies into or through Oregon must then
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days. Unless
> they have some other meaning for "operating"?
>
As I read it, if you are flying to Washington from California, and make a
fuel stop in Oregon, you then have to register within the 60 day period.
However, it seems to me that enforcement would be practically impossible
in such a case. It would be interesting to see if this rule could really
hold up in court should they try to enforce it.

Neil

I don't see it as terribly unfair to charge $8 per year, even from
transient pilots, to fund rescue services in case of a mishap. It
seems to be a reasonable cause. I always wondered where the money for
search and rescue came from.

This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...Washington has a similar rule. It is
parallel to the rule about registering automobiles after 60 days.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me like Oregon requires any
> general aviation pilot who flies into or through Oregon must then
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days. Unless
> they have some other meaning for "operating"? Likewise, in all the
> material I've ever read on acquiring a pilot certificate, this is the
> first time I've read that there are additional state requirements! How
> many states have laws like this? Here's the text of the law and links to
> the entire context for anyone who can help me understand what this really
> means:
>
> "837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of public
> safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or receiving
> aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this state shall
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days of
> issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate, permit, rating
> or license relating to competency as a pilot except that student pilots
> shall register prior to their first solo flight. A nonresident pilot of a
> scheduled or nonscheduled airline, certificated by the appropriate
> federal agency, is not required to register under the provisions of this
> section unless the nonresident pilot engages in the piloting of aircraft
> other than such certificated operation. Nonresidents operating within
> this state, other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the
> department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state. Pilots
> operating commercially shall register prior to any commercial operation.
>
> (2) Every registered pilot shall renew the first registration on
> the anniversary of the pilot's birthdate. After the first renewal, each
> pilot shall renew registration on the anniversary of the pilot's
> birthdate in the first year of each two-year period thereafter in which
> the pilot is active as a pilot.
>
> (3) Every registered pilot shall notify the department in writing
> within 30 days of a change of address or name. The notification shall
> contain the old and new residence address or name and the pilot
> registration number. [Formerly 493.040; 1991 c.186 §1]
>
> 837.025 Requirements for pilot registration; fees; certificates.
> (1) Possession of the appropriate effective federal certificate, permit,
> rating or license relating to competency of the pilot and payment of a
> fee of $8 for initial registration and $16 for each renewal of
> registration shall be the requisite for registration of the pilot under
> ORS 837.020. A filing of a written statement containing the information
> reasonably required by the Oregon Department of Aviation is sufficient to
> effect a registration. No originals or copies of federal certificates,
> permits, ratings or licenses shall be required of the applicant.
> Duplicate certificates of pilot registration may be obtained upon proof
> of loss or destruction of the original by application therefor to the
> department and the payment of $5 for each additional certificate.
>
> (2) The department may issue certificates of registration and may
> prescribe requirements for possession and exhibition of such
> certificates.
>
> (3) Information submitted in any application for registration is a
> public record and is open to public inspection during normal office
> hours. [Formerly 493.050; 1991 c.206 §1; 1997 c.585 §3]"
>
> http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
> http://www.oregon.gov/Aviation/registration.shtml

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> I don't see it as terribly unfair to charge $8 per year, even from
> transient pilots, to fund rescue services in case of a mishap. It
> seems to be a reasonable cause. I always wondered where the money for
> search and rescue came from.

I guess you don't understand the problem - there are 50 states, an even
larger number of counties, cities, and so on. How do you know where to look
to find out which entity wants to put their hands in your pocket each time
you land at an airport in their jurisdiction? I simply had no idea this law
existed until I went searching for information on registration of aircraft
in Oregon.

And you do realize that the law, as written, seems to require transients to
continue to renew with the state of Oregon so long as they are active as a
pilots? So even a single stop or overflight would require said pilot to
send $8 per year almost indefinitely.

And oh yeah, you have to inform them of every address change. Imagine if
all 50 states had this law and a pilot's flying happened to take her to all
50 states:

50 states times $8/year yields $400/year.

On Jun 11, 11:38 am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> I don't see it as terribly unfair to charge $8 per year, even from
> transient pilots, to fund rescue services in case of a mishap. It
> seems to be a reasonable cause. I always wondered where the money for
> search and rescue came from.

I think you are deluded if you think an $8 charge will do anything
ecept pay for the salary of more bureacrats to administer the
register. Get a grip, your liberties are being eroded under the
pretext of security.

Good luck!

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...Washington has a similar rule.
> It is parallel to the rule about registering automobiles after 60
> days.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any terminology that excludes transient or
itinerant pilots. I see nothing anywhere in the statute that qualifies
the sentence "Nonresidents operating within this state, other than in a
commercial operation, shall register with the department within 60 days
of the date of arrival within the state," to yield the meaning you claim
it has.

The legislative intent may have been one thing, but the wording in the
law seems to say another.

By the way, if you have a link or reference to the Washington law that
would help me understand whether the text of Oregon statute is "unique."


> Bob Gardner
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me like Oregon requires
>> any general aviation pilot who flies into or through Oregon must then
>> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days.
>> Unless they have some other meaning for "operating"? Likewise, in all
>> the material I've ever read on acquiring a pilot certificate, this is
>> the first time I've read that there are additional state
>> requirements! How many states have laws like this? Here's the text of
>> the law and links to the entire context for anyone who can help me
>> understand what this really means:
>>
>> "837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of
>> public safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or
>> receiving aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this
>> state shall register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60
>> days of issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate,
>> permit, rating or license relating to competency as a pilot except
>> that student pilots shall register prior to their first solo flight.
>> A nonresident pilot of a scheduled or nonscheduled airline,
>> certificated by the appropriate federal agency, is not required to
>> register under the provisions of this section unless the nonresident
>> pilot engages in the piloting of aircraft other than such
>> certificated operation. Nonresidents operating within this state,
>> other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the
>> department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state.
>> Pilots operating commercially shall register prior to any commercial
>> operation.
>>
>> (2) Every registered pilot shall renew the first registration on
>> the anniversary of the pilot's birthdate. After the first renewal,
>> each pilot shall renew registration on the anniversary of the pilot's
>> birthdate in the first year of each two-year period thereafter in
>> which the pilot is active as a pilot.
>>
>> (3) Every registered pilot shall notify the department in
>> writing
>> within 30 days of a change of address or name. The notification shall
>> contain the old and new residence address or name and the pilot
>> registration number. [Formerly 493.040; 1991 c.186 §1]
>>
>> 837.025 Requirements for pilot registration; fees; certificates.
>> (1) Possession of the appropriate effective federal certificate,
>> permit, rating or license relating to competency of the pilot and
>> payment of a fee of $8 for initial registration and $16 for each
>> renewal of registration shall be the requisite for registration of
>> the pilot under ORS 837.020. A filing of a written statement
>> containing the information reasonably required by the Oregon
>> Department of Aviation is sufficient to effect a registration. No
>> originals or copies of federal certificates, permits, ratings or
>> licenses shall be required of the applicant. Duplicate certificates
>> of pilot registration may be obtained upon proof of loss or
>> destruction of the original by application therefor to the department
>> and the payment of $5 for each additional certificate.
>>
>> (2) The department may issue certificates of registration and
>> may
>> prescribe requirements for possession and exhibition of such
>> certificates.
>>
>> (3) Information submitted in any application for registration is
>> a
>> public record and is open to public inspection during normal office
>> hours. [Formerly 493.050; 1991 c.206 §1; 1997 c.585 §3]"
>>
>> http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
>> http://www.oregon.gov/Aviation/registration.shtml
>
>

Neil Gould wrote:
> As I read it, if you are flying to Washington from California, and make a
> fuel stop in Oregon, you then have to register within the 60 day period.
> However, it seems to me that enforcement would be practically impossible
> in such a case. It would be interesting to see if this rule could really
> hold up in court should they try to enforce it.



Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at blowing them
off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What are they going to do? Send
federal marshals?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

> I don't see it as terribly unfair to charge $8 per year, even from
> transient pilots, to fund rescue services in case of a mishap.

No, and it's not terribly unfair for cities, towns and other
municipalities to do the same for aircraft flying over them. Gated
communities that decide to have a registration program are also being
fair to pilots, after all, what's another eight dollars a year and some
paperwork? And the fines if you fail to comply?

I predict the law won't stand. Federal law trumps it, and has in the past.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at blowing them
> off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What are they going to do? Send
> federal marshals?

Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and do
much worse, before it's overturned.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Well I have landed in Oregon many times, I never knew anything about this. I
can tell you this I bought a lot of gas and they got the taxes from that. I
am going to call it even.
"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...Washington has a similar rule.
>> It is parallel to the rule about registering automobiles after 60
>> days.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see any terminology that excludes transient or
> itinerant pilots. I see nothing anywhere in the statute that qualifies
> the sentence "Nonresidents operating within this state, other than in a
> commercial operation, shall register with the department within 60 days
> of the date of arrival within the state," to yield the meaning you claim
> it has.
>
> The legislative intent may have been one thing, but the wording in the
> law seems to say another.
>
> By the way, if you have a link or reference to the Washington law that
> would help me understand whether the text of Oregon statute is "unique."
>
>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me like Oregon requires
>>> any general aviation pilot who flies into or through Oregon must then
>>> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days.
>>> Unless they have some other meaning for "operating"? Likewise, in all
>>> the material I've ever read on acquiring a pilot certificate, this is
>>> the first time I've read that there are additional state
>>> requirements! How many states have laws like this? Here's the text of
>>> the law and links to the entire context for anyone who can help me
>>> understand what this really means:
>>>
>>> "837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of
>>> public safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or
>>> receiving aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this
>>> state shall register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60
>>> days of issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate,
>>> permit, rating or license relating to competency as a pilot except
>>> that student pilots shall register prior to their first solo flight.
>>> A nonresident pilot of a scheduled or nonscheduled airline,
>>> certificated by the appropriate federal agency, is not required to
>>> register under the provisions of this section unless the nonresident
>>> pilot engages in the piloting of aircraft other than such
>>> certificated operation. Nonresidents operating within this state,
>>> other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the
>>> department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state.
>>> Pilots operating commercially shall register prior to any commercial
>>> operation.
>>>
>>> (2) Every registered pilot shall renew the first registration on
>>> the anniversary of the pilot's birthdate. After the first renewal,
>>> each pilot shall renew registration on the anniversary of the pilot's
>>> birthdate in the first year of each two-year period thereafter in
>>> which the pilot is active as a pilot.
>>>
>>> (3) Every registered pilot shall notify the department in
>>> writing
>>> within 30 days of a change of address or name. The notification shall
>>> contain the old and new residence address or name and the pilot
>>> registration number. [Formerly 493.040; 1991 c.186 §1]
>>>
>>> 837.025 Requirements for pilot registration; fees; certificates.
>>> (1) Possession of the appropriate effective federal certificate,
>>> permit, rating or license relating to competency of the pilot and
>>> payment of a fee of $8 for initial registration and $16 for each
>>> renewal of registration shall be the requisite for registration of
>>> the pilot under ORS 837.020. A filing of a written statement
>>> containing the information reasonably required by the Oregon
>>> Department of Aviation is sufficient to effect a registration. No
>>> originals or copies of federal certificates, permits, ratings or
>>> licenses shall be required of the applicant. Duplicate certificates
>>> of pilot registration may be obtained upon proof of loss or
>>> destruction of the original by application therefor to the department
>>> and the payment of $5 for each additional certificate.
>>>
>>> (2) The department may issue certificates of registration and
>>> may
>>> prescribe requirements for possession and exhibition of such
>>> certificates.
>>>
>>> (3) Information submitted in any application for registration is
>>> a
>>> public record and is open to public inspection during normal office
>>> hours. [Formerly 493.050; 1991 c.206 §1; 1997 c.585 §3]"
>>>
>>> http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
>>> http://www.oregon.gov/Aviation/registration.shtml
>>
>>
>

On Jun 10, 8:42 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at blowing them
> > off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What are they going to do? Send
> > federal marshals?
>
> Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
> National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and do
> much worse, before it's overturned.

Yea, at some point the scribe will bring a copy of the constitution to
Oregon and they'll read the interstate commerce clause.

-Robert

Jim Logajan wrote:

>
> "837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of public
> safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or receiving
> aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this state shall
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days of
> issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate, permit, rating
> or license relating to competency as a pilot except that student pilots
> shall register prior to their first solo flight. A nonresident pilot of a
> scheduled or nonscheduled airline, certificated by the appropriate
> federal agency, is not required to register under the provisions of this
> section unless the nonresident pilot engages in the piloting of aircraft
> other than such certificated operation. Nonresidents operating within
> this state, other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the
> department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state. Pilots
> operating commercially shall register prior to any commercial operation.
>


As a resident of Oregon for 37+ years I will chime in here. If a pilot
lives here and flys he/she must register and pay the 8$ a year. If you
live out of state and keep a plane here you must pay. If you live out of
state and get some instruction here (even a BFR) you gotta pay. If your
just passin thru, wave, and don't sweat it, no one is going to hunt you
down (unless you crash here). BTW the money gets used for S&R ONLY not
paychecks for the politicians.......

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:47:41 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote in >:

>This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...

Perhaps that's true, but the way I interpret it, that's not what the
law says:

Nonresidents operating within this state, other than in a
commercial operation, shall register with the department within 60
days of the date of arrival within the state. Pilots operating
commercially shall register prior to any commercial operation.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:01:29 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>
>And oh yeah, you have to inform them of every address change.

Not only that, the pilot's address is a matter of public record. It
was only a few years ago that we got the FAA to remove the addresses
of those airmen who requested it from public record.

>Imagine if all 50 states had this law and a pilot's flying happened
>to take her to all 50 states:

Aside from fifty letters of registration, she would have to pay
$400.00 annually.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:09:22 -0700, Rocky > wrote in
>:

>
>As a resident of Oregon for 37+ years I will chime in here. If a pilot
>lives here and flys he/she must register and pay the 8$ a year. If you
>live out of state and keep a plane here you must pay. If you live out of
>state and get some instruction here (even a BFR) you gotta pay. If your
>just passin thru, wave, and don't sweat it, no one is going to hunt you
>down (unless you crash here).

And you support such absurdity?

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:39:18 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:01:29 -0000, Jim Logajan >
>wrote in >:
>
>>
>>And oh yeah, you have to inform them of every address change.
>
>Not only that, the pilot's address is a matter of public record. It
>was only a few years ago that we got the FAA to remove the addresses
>of those airmen who requested it from public record.
>
>>Imagine if all 50 states had this law and a pilot's flying happened
>>to take her to all 50 states:
>
>Aside from fifty letters of registration, she would have to pay
>$400.00 annually.

in australia the proportion of pilots to the general public is 1:768
usa has 350,000,000 people.
say 455,700 pilots.

imagine the processing nightmare if 400,000 pilots registered all with
a dud cheque.
you couldnt assume that they were all dud so the processing would be
enormous :-)

beware of what you wish for in case you get it in spades paraphrases
an old chinese proverb that I'm partial to.

Stealth Pilot

Jose wrote:
>> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
>> blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What are
>> they going to do? Send federal marshals?
>
> Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
> National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and do
> much worse, before it's overturned.
>
> Jose

Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have any
interest at all.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...Washington has a similar
> rule. It is parallel to the rule about registering automobiles after
> 60 days.
> Bob Gardner

The way it is written it is parallel to a requirement to register your
automobile if you drive through the state.

On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Jose wrote:
> >> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
> >> blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What are
> >> they going to do? Send federal marshals?
>
> > Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
> > National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and do
> > much worse, before it's overturned.
>
> > Jose
>
> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have any
> interest at all.

If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it (she
didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find out
she'd go to jail.

-Robert

> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have any
> interest at all.

The marshals have an interest in Threats To National Security.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
>>>> blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What are
>>>> they going to do? Send federal marshals?
>>
>>> Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
>>> National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and do
>>> much worse, before it's overturned.
>>
>>> Jose
>>
>> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have
>> any interest at all.
>
> If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
> People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
> even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
> approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it (she
> didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find out
> she'd go to jail.
>
> -Robert

Not the same situation at all.

Jose wrote:
>> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have
>> any interest at all.
>
> The marshals have an interest in Threats To National Security.
>
> Jose

To some extent as to all federal law enforcement agencies. But, luckily,
this isn't a federal NS issue. It is one state ignoring the Constitution.

On Jun 11, 1:09 am, Rocky > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> As a resident of Oregon for 37+ years I will chime in here. If a pilot
> lives here and flys he/she must register and pay the 8$ a year. If you
> live out of state and keep a plane here you must pay. If you live out of
> state and get some instruction here (even a BFR) you gotta pay. If your
> just passin thru, wave, and don't sweat it, no one is going to hunt you
> down (unless you crash here). BTW the money gets used for S&R ONLY not
> paychecks for the politicians.......

You are deluding yourself if you think they can even collect $8 for
less than $10.

Austin

On Jun 10, 7:16 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> This falls right on top of the new Tax mandate from the lovely State of
> Maine.
> Aircraft flying through or stopping at any airport in Maine will be a sent a
> Tax Bill for 5% of their value (sales tax?).
> The Tax department has been charged with correlating Flight Plans with
> aircraft N-numbers and sending the owner a bill.
> The state is trying to collect taxes from Maine Residents who
> register/store/base their aircraft in another state to avoid being taxed.
>
> I do hope they are doing the same to all those RVs and Campers who visit
> Maine every summer.
> Should drive the tourist level down and keep the limited highways clear for
> residents.

The solution to the Maine problem appears to be to fly VFR only
through there. They are using IFR flight plans to find you.

"Rocky" > wrote in message
om...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>>
>> "837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of public
>> safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or receiving
>> aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this state shall
>> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days of
>> issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate, permit, rating
>> or license relating to competency as a pilot except that student pilots
>> shall register prior to their first solo flight. A nonresident pilot of a
>> scheduled or nonscheduled airline, certificated by the appropriate
>> federal agency, is not required to register under the provisions of this
>> section unless the nonresident pilot engages in the piloting of aircraft
>> other than such certificated operation. Nonresidents operating within
>> this state, other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the
>> department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state. Pilots
>> operating commercially shall register prior to any commercial operation.
>>
>
>
> As a resident of Oregon for 37+ years I will chime in here. If a pilot
> lives here and flys he/she must register and pay the 8$ a year. If you
> live out of state and keep a plane here you must pay. If you live out of
> state and get some instruction here (even a BFR) you gotta pay. If your
> just passin thru, wave, and don't sweat it, no one is going to hunt you
> down (unless you crash here). BTW the money gets used for S&R ONLY not
> paychecks for the politicians.......

I've got to agree with Rocky. Nobody is going to chase you down. With that
said, the wording is absurd/illegal. I can see registration for a commercial
pilot operating here, but transients? No way.

I've been a CFI in Oregon for 30+ years and am well aware of Oregon
Airmen Registration, but have never heard of this wording. I once registered
after a couple year layoff, and offered to pay the back fees. A very nice
lady called my office, and said that she had never had anyone offer to pay
back fees before, and they didn't know how to handle it. I told her to
donate it to the SAR fund, which by the way, is where every dime of this
money goes.

Thanks Jim for bringing this to my attention. We have a VERY vocal EAA
here in Oregon, and we could probably follow this up a bit. This should be
changed before some eager bureaucrat gets the idiotic notion he can collect
from everybody that flies past. A law that is written this way, and then not
enforced, opens the opportunity for selective enforcement, which is very
bad.

Al G

> To some extent as to all federal law enforcement agencies. But, luckily,
> this isn't a federal NS issue. It is one state ignoring the Constitution.

Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:41:35 -0000, xyzzy > wrote
in om>:

>
>The solution to the Maine problem appears to be to fly VFR only
>through there. They are using IFR flight plans to find you.

The solution to these unconstitutional "laws" is to actively oppose
them, and get them overturned.

On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Jose wrote:
> >>>> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
> >>>> blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What are
> >>>> they going to do? Send federal marshals?
>
> >>> Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
> >>> National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and do
> >>> much worse, before it's overturned.
>
> >>> Jose
>
> >> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have
> >> any interest at all.
>
> > If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
> > People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
> > even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
> > approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it (she
> > didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find out
> > she'd go to jail.
>
> > -Robert
>
> Not the same situation at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry, I've spent so many years taking law classes I assume everyone
has the same level of knowledge of the law. The constitution say that
anytime a law is in "federal space" federal rules trump the state. So
in both cases, states have created laws which actually inhabit space
already allocated by the federal gov't, and therefore not legal. The
federal space in this case is the interstate commerce clause. In the
medial pot case its federal DEA administrative law, but the legally
important thing is that they are both federal.

-Robert

Larry Dighera writes:

> The solution to these unconstitutional "laws" is to actively oppose
> them, and get them overturned.

Agreed, but unfortunately justice costs money in the U.S. (and just about
everywhere else), so if you are not rich, how do you actively oppose
unconstitutional laws and win?

Jose writes:

> The marshals have an interest in Threats To National Security.

A failure to register under an unconstitutional State law is not a threat to
national security, although it is certainly a threat to civil liberties and
constitutional rights.

Jose writes:

> Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
> National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.

Which law mandates this? Is it anything like lettres de cachet?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...Washington has a similar
>> rule. It is parallel to the rule about registering automobiles after
>> 60 days.
>> Bob Gardner
>
> The way it is written it is parallel to a requirement to register your
> automobile if you drive through the state.

I've been driving from Northern California
(where I live) to Washington (where my family
is) for the last 35 years. Back when I drove
a diesel Rabbit, I was tweeked that the state
charged something like $.20/gal. "trucker's
tax" on diesel that neither WA or CA charged.

Now another thing. I guess we really don't
have to worry unless the Oregon Air National
Guard issues intercept procedures for collection
of the fee.

Jose wrote:
>> To some extent as to all federal law enforcement agencies. But,
>> luckily, this isn't a federal NS issue. It is one state ignoring the
>> Constitution.
>
> Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
> National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.
>
> Jose

Fine, please show one example where the marshalls have tried to enforce this
or some other silly state law.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Jose wrote:
>>>>>> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
>>>>>> blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What
>>>>>> are they going to do? Send federal marshals?
>>
>>>>> Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
>>>>> National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and
>>>>> do much worse, before it's overturned.
>>
>>>>> Jose
>>
>>>> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have
>>>> any interest at all.
>>
>>> If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
>>> People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
>>> even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
>>> approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it
>>> (she didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find
>>> out she'd go to jail.
>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> Not the same situation at all.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sorry, I've spent so many years taking law classes I assume everyone
> has the same level of knowledge of the law. The constitution say that
> anytime a law is in "federal space" federal rules trump the state. So
> in both cases, states have created laws which actually inhabit space
> already allocated by the federal gov't, and therefore not legal. The
> federal space in this case is the interstate commerce clause. In the
> medial pot case its federal DEA administrative law, but the legally
> important thing is that they are both federal.
>
> -Robert

You are still comparing apples and oranges. If you medical pot rule were
reversed and it was legal on a federal level and not on a state level it
would be the same.

On Jun 11, 11:23 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> >>> On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> >>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> >>>> Jose wrote:
> >>>>>> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
> >>>>>> blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What
> >>>>>> are they going to do? Send federal marshals?
>
> >>>>> Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
> >>>>> National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals, and
> >>>>> do much worse, before it's overturned.
>
> >>>>> Jose
>
> >>>> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would have
> >>>> any interest at all.
>
> >>> If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
> >>> People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
> >>> even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
> >>> approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it
> >>> (she didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find
> >>> out she'd go to jail.
>
> >>> -Robert
>
> >> Not the same situation at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sorry, I've spent so many years taking law classes I assume everyone
> > has the same level of knowledge of the law. The constitution say that
> > anytime a law is in "federal space" federal rules trump the state. So
> > in both cases, states have created laws which actually inhabit space
> > already allocated by the federal gov't, and therefore not legal. The
> > federal space in this case is the interstate commerce clause. In the
> > medial pot case its federal DEA administrative law, but the legally
> > important thing is that they are both federal.
>
> > -Robert
>
> You are still comparing apples and oranges. If you medical pot rule were
> reversed and it was legal on a federal level and not on a state level it
> would be the same.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Again, I'm coming at this from a legal point of view (looking at legal
arguments). The issue is not which is legal and which is not, the
issue you would argue in court is whether federal law has carved out
the space. Whether the feds say its legal or not is irrelevant to the
courts, if the feds have that space, the state law is null and void.
Its just a bit of an oddity of how the law is exercised.

-Robert

I never did this, I don't know anyone who has.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jose writes:
>
>
>>The marshals have an interest in Threats To National Security.
>
>
> A failure to register under an unconstitutional State law is not a threat to
> national security, although it is certainly a threat to civil liberties and
> constitutional rights.

How would you know, Frenchie?

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>
>>The solution to these unconstitutional "laws" is to actively oppose
>>them, and get them overturned.
>
>
> Agreed, but unfortunately justice costs money in the U.S. (and just about
> everywhere else), so if you are not rich, how do you actively oppose
> unconstitutional laws and win?

Ahem.

France.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jose writes:
>
>
>>Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
>>National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.
>
>
> Which law mandates this? Is it anything like lettres de cachet?

No, that's French.

"Al G" > wrote:
> I've been a CFI in Oregon for 30+ years and am well aware of Oregon
> Airmen Registration, but have never heard of this wording. I once
> registered after a couple year layoff, and offered to pay the back
> fees. A very nice lady called my office, and said that she had never
> had anyone offer to pay back fees before, and they didn't know how to
> handle it. I told her to donate it to the SAR fund, which by the way,
> is where every dime of this money goes.

It probably only yields ~$96,000/year. Subtract off processing and there is
not likely to be a lot left. I can't see any fiscal advantage to
enforcement since the fund would probably go into the red paying all the
paperwork overhead and legal fees if even a small fraction of pilots put up
a defense against paying.

(I can't find the number of pilots who have residence in Oregon, but a
crude approximation is to divide the total U.S. pilot population of ~
600,000 by 50 and multiply by $8/year to get the above figure.)

> Thanks Jim for bringing this to my attention. We have a VERY vocal EAA
> here in Oregon, and we could probably follow this up a bit. This
> should be changed before some eager bureaucrat gets the idiotic notion
> he can collect from everybody that flies past. A law that is written
> this way, and then not enforced, opens the opportunity for selective
> enforcement, which is very bad.

Perhaps it might be worth while to check to see if the clause that makes
the pilot information publicly available violates any Oregon privacy laws
the state government has to abide by.

I appreciate the local EAA but I have to admit that so far I'm only a
member of the national EAA. I keep meaning to join the local chapter (EAA
31) but it seems redundant at the moment since I haven't got a pilot
certificate yet!

In article >, "Al G" > wrote:

> lady called my office, and said that she had never had anyone offer to pay
> back fees before, and they didn't know how to handle it. I told her to
> donate it to the SAR fund, which by the way, is where every dime of this
> money goes.

I have a hard time believing that every dime of the money actually
goes to the SAR fund and will continue to go there. Someone will
eventually claim that the fund needs to pay for the infrastructure
of bill collecting, etc etc

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jose writes:
>
>> The marshals have an interest in Threats To National Security.
>
> A failure to register under an unconstitutional State law is not a
> threat to national security, although it is certainly a threat to
> civil liberties and constitutional rights.
>


Wonder how you know that...

Actualy, I don't wonder.


Bertie

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "837.020 Registration of pilots; renewal. (1) In the interest of public
> safety and the safety of those people traveling by air or receiving
> aviation instruction, every pilot operating within this state shall
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days of
> issuance of any appropriate effective federal certificate, permit, rating
> or license relating to


Yeah, they've been trying to get me to do that since 1990. Every three
years or so I get a post card. I think they look for you
based on medical certificates.

-c
Oregon

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
>
> If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in California.
> People go to jail for this in California because its a federal law
> even though the state as a registration system for users who have Dr
> approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even suggested she try it (she
> didn't). Its legal according to the state but if the feds find out
> she'd go to jail.

Ironically, they'd have to pick up her medical expenses.

-c

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
>> National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.
>>

> Fine, please show one example where the marshalls have tried to enforce
> this or some other silly state law.

That's the real deal right there. Who's been busted for it?

Similarly wrt to pot, the police will raid a place but as long as there's a
permit, they leave it alone. The rule is something like seven plants, but
they measure a plant by the stalk. So growers will bundle however many
plants they can into one "stalk", put it all in one giant bucket, and it's
legal. A cop told me they've found situations with seven planter pots
filling the entire room of a house, with maybe a dozen stalks per flowerpot,
and they don't even push the issue.

If other crimes are involved, however, it becomes an entirely different
matter. Then they lump all that together and hit you for everything they
can. So the moral is, if you pass through Oregon in an airplane, don't
commit a crime.

-c

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> How do you know where to look
> to find out which entity wants to put their hands in your pocket each time
> you land at an airport in their jurisdiction?

Kinda reminds me of the Part 121 additions (scenic flights, etc)

I'm not afraid that I'll get caught doing something wrong, I'm afraid I'll
do something without knowing it's wrong and get cited on some convoluted
bureaucratic technicality.


-c

"Rocky" > wrote in message
om...

> As a resident of Oregon for 37+ years I will chime in here. If a pilot
> lives here and flys he/she must register and pay the 8$ a year.

*cough*

What? What happens if you don't?


-c
Oregon

>>As a resident of Oregon for 37+ years I will chime in here. If a pilot
>>lives here and flys he/she must register and pay the 8$ a year.
>
>
> *cough*
>
> What? What happens if you don't?
>
>
> -c
> Oregon
>
>
>
Dunno, I stopped flying in '86 and have not paid since. Got a few post
cards asking for the payment but I replied that I don't fly
anymore.....Case closed. I would think if you refused to pay the fees
and sometime later crashed and used the S&R services the state provides,
You would probably see a fairly LARGE bill in the mail to cover the
expenses. After that I would asume real and personal property liens etc.....
I have never heard of the state going to those measures yet. Look at
it this way, its only $8 a year for ACTIVE pilots.

> The constitution say that anytime a law is
> in "federal space" federal rules trump the state.

Well, yes, but if it were that simple, lawyers would be happy to upgrade
to burger flipping. The existance of a federal law does not preclude
state laws, so long as the state laws do not contradict the federal law.
If the law is vague enough (and I bet most are), then the question of
whether a law contradicts is a knotty one, which makes lawyers rich and
peasants into prisoners.

Maybe the Marijuana law is clear enough, but not all are. And should
the federal law change, the state law that =was= on the books, and =was=
trumped, no longer is. Or is it?

Hmmm.. better pull out my wallet again! :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Fine, please show one example where the marshalls have tried to enforce this
> or some other silly state law.

I don't have an example of that handy. Maybe it never happened. Want
to be the test case?

I will say that I was held (briefly) at gunpoint by more than ten guards
at the Smithsonian while trying to seek shelter from a rainstorm because
I did not want them to put my camera and film through the X-ray machine
and could not wait the storm out on the line to enter the museum (I was
on the way to a different one). I was ultimately tossed out into the storm.

I was also detained by machine gun toting agents at La Guardia because I
didn't want my film to go through the X-ray machines. I was told there
was a "secret law" that said that I had to have my film X-rayed. (there
is no such law). As it happens, I had my AIM and cell phone handy and
called the TSA via Flight Service. I was released after my film and
camera were x-rayed, despite the fact that the TSA said that I did not
have to have my film X-rayed.

Ok, this isn't a silly =state= law. But it is a =silly= law, and it
isn't even a law.

Don't even get me started about the library laws.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Erik writes:

> France.

U.S. law doesn't apply in France, and France has no jurisdiction over the U.S.

Erik writes:

> No, that's French.

Look up "enemy combatant" in the U.S.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:23 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 11, 6:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Jose wrote:
>>>>>>>> Since I live on the East coast, I think I'd feel fairly safe at
>>>>>>>> blowing them off, even if I ever did fly in their state. What
>>>>>>>> are they going to do? Send federal marshals?
>>
>>>>>>> Well, if you blow them off, you can be identified as a Threat To
>>>>>>> National Security. So, yes, they could send in the marshals,
>>>>>>> and do much worse, before it's overturned.
>>
>>>>>>> Jose
>>
>>>>>> Well since this is a state law I doubt federal marshals would
>>>>>> have any interest at all.
>>
>>>>> If that were true medical pot smoking would be legal in
>>>>> California. People go to jail for this in California because its
>>>>> a federal law even though the state as a registration system for
>>>>> users who have Dr approval. When my mom was dieing the Dr even
>>>>> suggested she try it (she didn't). Its legal according to the
>>>>> state but if the feds find out she'd go to jail.
>>
>>>>> -Robert
>>
>>>> Not the same situation at all.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Sorry, I've spent so many years taking law classes I assume everyone
>>> has the same level of knowledge of the law. The constitution say
>>> that anytime a law is in "federal space" federal rules trump the
>>> state. So in both cases, states have created laws which actually
>>> inhabit space already allocated by the federal gov't, and therefore
>>> not legal. The federal space in this case is the interstate
>>> commerce clause. In the medial pot case its federal DEA
>>> administrative law, but the legally important thing is that they
>>> are both federal.
>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> You are still comparing apples and oranges. If you medical pot rule
>> were reversed and it was legal on a federal level and not on a state
>> level it would be the same.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Again, I'm coming at this from a legal point of view (looking at legal
> arguments). The issue is not which is legal and which is not, the
> issue you would argue in court is whether federal law has carved out
> the space. Whether the feds say its legal or not is irrelevant to the
> courts, if the feds have that space, the state law is null and void.
> Its just a bit of an oddity of how the law is exercised.
>
> -Robert

Now I understand the problem. You don't seem to understand what I was saying
to Jose. My point was that the US Marshals could care less about enforcing a
state law. How you got to your point is beyond me.

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Yes, but if an official in that state calls something a Threat To
>>> National Security, then that Threat has to be taken Seriously.
>>>
>
>> Fine, please show one example where the marshalls have tried to
>> enforce this or some other silly state law.
>
> That's the real deal right there. Who's been busted for it?
>
> Similarly wrt to pot, the police will raid a place but as long as
> there's a permit, they leave it alone. The rule is something like
> seven plants, but they measure a plant by the stalk. So growers will
> bundle however many plants they can into one "stalk", put it all in
> one giant bucket, and it's legal. A cop told me they've found
> situations with seven planter pots filling the entire room of a
> house, with maybe a dozen stalks per flowerpot, and they don't even
> push the issue.
> If other crimes are involved, however, it becomes an entirely
> different matter. Then they lump all that together and hit you for
> everything they can. So the moral is, if you pass through Oregon in
> an airplane, don't commit a crime.
>
> -c

The difference is that the Supreme Court has ruled on Medical pot in
California

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be
blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused
by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the
backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader
social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic
'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas
dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral
arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow
the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully
presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because
it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use
of "patient pot."

The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of
marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government
argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited
patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the
drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the
use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested
was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis
in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was
non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of
"economic enterprise."

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that
homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden
patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it
imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was
neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996,
"cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to
patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical
marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical
activity."

The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of
whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use
by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar
law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.

California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval
to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs."

Users include television host Montel Williams, who uses it to ease pain from
multiple sclerosis.

Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs
deemed by the government to be narcotics.

"It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs
legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation.

In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal
government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the
work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December
2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to
combating illegal drug possession."

Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, "Since September 11, 2001,
Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of
medical cannabis." In that state, the issue has become a hot political issue
this election year.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> France.
>
> U.S. law doesn't apply in France, and France has no jurisdiction over
> the U.S.
>

Quick call Fox news!

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> No, that's French.
>
> Look up "enemy combatant" in the U.S.
>

Look up fjukkktard in France.

Bertie

> WASHINGTON (CNN) --
> [...] The government argues its overall anti-drug
> campaign would be undermined by even limited
> patient exceptions.

If it's that easy to undermine, then it's a Wrong-headed Policy.

> ...lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that
> homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden
> patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed...

I have never heard anything so asinine (and I have heard plenty of
asinine things). Everything I do affects "overall production" of
something that is shipped interstate.

> "The trafficking of drugs finances the
> work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December
> 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to
> combating illegal drug possession."

The criminialization of drugs makes the traffic of drugs able to support
terrorists. So Bush is creating the problem, not solving it.

But you all know that.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> WASHINGTON (CNN) --
>> [...] The government argues its overall anti-drug
>> campaign would be undermined by even limited
>> patient exceptions.
>
> If it's that easy to undermine, then it's a Wrong-headed Policy.
>
>> ...lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme
>> Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce,
>> because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of
>> the weed...
>
> I have never heard anything so asinine (and I have heard plenty of
> asinine things). Everything I do affects "overall production" of
> something that is shipped interstate.
>
>> "The trafficking of drugs finances the
>> work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in
>> December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices,
>> "is central to combating illegal drug possession."
>
> The criminialization of drugs makes the traffic of drugs able to
> support terrorists. So Bush is creating the problem, not solving it.
>
> But you all know that.
>
> Jose

So Bush is the guy that criminalized drugs? Wow, I could have sworn they
were against the law before GW became President.

But I do agree with you on one point. The "war on drugs" has been handled
wrong from the get-go. If you want to curb the use of something you don't go
after the supply side of the equation (all that does is increase the price)
you go after the demand side.

So, if we as a society really want to get rid of drugs we need to pass laws
that hurt the users not the dealers.

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...

> The criminialization of drugs makes the traffic of drugs able to support
> terrorists. So Bush is creating the problem, not solving it.

I agree with the first part, but Bush didn't start the War on Some Drugs.



-c

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> So, if we as a society really want to get rid of drugs we need to pass
> laws that hurt the users not the dealers.

With the exception of amphetamines and alcohol, generally the laws hurt the
users moreso than the drugs themselves.


-c

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:52:12 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>
>The criminialization of drugs makes the traffic of drugs able to support
>terrorists. So Bush is creating the problem, not solving it.


It took a Constitutional amendment to enact the Volstead Act
(prohibition of alcohol), and the result was rampant drinking, the
rise to power of the mob(s), and the largest crime spree our nation
has ever experienced.

Subsequent attempts to outlaw intoxicating drugs were enacted as taxes
without the necessity of a Constitutional amendment.

During the rather corrupt Nixon administration, the practice of drug
scheduling was imposed also without the "inconvenience" of a
Constitutional amendment, and subsequently he launched the War On
Drugs. This has had a an affect similar to the Volstead Act; it
has failed to curb illicit drug use; it has enabled a lucrative black
market for illicit drug peddlers, funded terrorists, and today over
half of our prison inmates are in jail for the victimless crime of
possession.

While I sympathize with the underlying premise of attempting to reduce
asocial behavior by reducing the loss of inhibition caused by the
influence of intoxicating substances, it's clear that punitive laws
only serve to exacerbate the problem.

When will the religious right learn that they can't successfully
legislate morality?

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So, if we as a society really want to get rid of drugs we need to
>> pass laws that hurt the users not the dealers.
>
> With the exception of amphetamines and alcohol, generally the laws
> hurt the users moreso than the drugs themselves.
>
>
> -c

If that is you feeling then you are lucky. We live in a representative
republic. If enough people agree with you the law will get changed. But
since the laws are now that illegal drugs are illegal that tells me that the
population wants them that way. I happen to agree with the majority on this
one because I see every day that pot and crack have a very negative effect
in the work place.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:01:58 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>The "war on drugs" has been handled wrong from the get-go.

That depends on the intended purpose of the WOD. If you want to
reduce recreational drug use among the populous, its obvious that
hasn't worked.

If, on the other hand, the intent of the WOD is to inflate the price
of drugs, provide the mob and the CIA with a lucrative black market,
grow the government's police force, and funnel millions of dollars
into law enforcement, it's working pretty good.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contra%27s_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US
CIA and Contra's cocaine trafficking in the US

On March 16, 1986, the San Francisco Examiner published a report
on the "1983 seizure of 430 pounds of cocaine from a Colombian
freighter" in San Francisco which indicated that a "cocaine ring
in the San Francisco Bay area helped finance Nicaragua's Contra
rebels." Carlos Cabezas, convicted of conspiracy to traffic
cocaine, said that the profits from his crimes "belonged to ...
the Contra revolution." He told the Examiner, "I just wanted to
get the Communists out of my country." Julio Zavala, also
convicted on trafficking charges, said "that he supplied $500,000
to two Costa Rican-based Contra groups and that the majority of it
came from cocaine trafficking in the San Francisco Bay area, Miami
and New Orleans."[4]

FBI probe
In April 1986, Associated Press reported on an FBI probe into
contra cocaine trafficking. According to the report, "Twelve
American, Nicaraguan and Cuban-American rebel backers interviewed
by The Associated Press said they had been questioned over the
past several months [about contra cocaine trafficking] by the FBI.
The interviews, some covering several days, were conducted in
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Colorado and
California, the Contra backers said." Several of the backers told
AP of firsthand knowledge of cocaine trafficking.[6]

Reagan Administration admits Contra-cocaine connections On April
17, 1986, the Reagan Administration released a three page report
acknowledging that there were some Contra-cocaine connections in
1984 and 1985, arguing that these connections occurred at a time
when the rebels were "particularly hard pressed for financial
support" because U.S. aid had been cut off. The report admitted
that "We have evidence of a limited number of incidents in which
known drug traffickers have tried to establish connections with
Nicaraguan resistance groups." The report tried to downplay the
drug activity, claiming that it took place "without the
authorization of resistance leaders."[7]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#Drug_trafficking
Accusations have repeatedly been made that the CIA has been
involved in drug trafficking to fund illegal operations. For
example, In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of exposés
for the San Jose Mercury News, entitled "Dark Alliance", in which
he alleged the use of CIA aircraft, which had ferried arms to the
Contras, to ship cocaine to the United States during the return
flights.

Webb also alleged that Central American narcotics traffickers
could import cocaine to U.S. cities in the 1980s without the
interference of normal law enforcement agencies. He claimed that
this led, in part, to the crack cocaine epidemic, especially in
poor neighborhoods of Los Angeles, and that the CIA intervened to
prevent the prosecution of drug dealers who were helping to fund
the Contras. Faced with Congressional and other media criticism
(especially the Los Angeles Times), the San Jose Mercury News
retracted Webb's conclusions and Webb was prevented from
conducting any more investigative reporting. Webb was transferred
to cover non-controversial suburban stories and gave up
journalism.

After the Gary Webb report in the Mercury News, the CIA Inspector
General Frederick Hitz was assigned to investigate these
allegations. In 1998 the new CIA director, George Tenet declared
that he was releasing the report.[61]

The report and Hitz's testimony showed that the "CIA did not
'expeditiously' cut off relations with alleged drug traffickers"
and "the CIA was aware of allegations that 'dozens of people and a
number of companies connected in some fashion to the contra
program' were involved in drug trafficking"[61][62]

Hitz also said that under an agreement in 1982 between Ronald
Reagan's Attorney General William French Smith and the CIA, agency
officers were not required to report allegations of drug
trafficking involving non-employees, which was defined as meaning
paid and non-paid "assets [meaning agents], pilots who ferried
supplies to the contras, as well as contra officials and
others.[62]

This agreement, which had not previously been revealed, came at a
time when there were allegations that the CIA was using drug
dealers in its controversial covert operation to bring down the
leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.[62] Only after
Congressional funds were restored in 1986 was the agreement
modified to require the CIA to stop paying agents whom it believed
were involved in the drug trade.[61]



http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/
In August of 1996, the San Jose Mercury News published a
three-part investigation by Gary Webb into the U.S. government's
links to the trade in crack cocaine in South Central Los Angeles.
Webb's investigation uncovered links between the Central
Intelligence Agency's covert war against Nicaragua and convicted
Los Angeles drug dealer "Freeway" Ricky Ross, whom the Los Angeles
Times in 1994 had dubbed the "one outlaw capitalist most
responsible for flooding Los Angeles' streets with mass-marketed
cocaine." (20 December 1994 p. A20)

The (admittedly sensationalized, but basically accurate) story
generated much controversy, and heated denials from the mainstream
media (in particular the local paper of record, whose editor
Shelby Coffey III couldn't bear the thought of someone else
beating his paper out on a major story in his own backyard). This
vehement denegation, however, is largely inconsistent with the
historical record (some of which has been, and continues to be,
reported in these same papers).

This web site is part of a long-standing research project of mine.
As a scholar working at the interstices of speech communication
and cultural studies, I have been investigating the public
discourse surrounding the "war on drugs" as an exercise in
disciplinary social control. This site is a database of
information, evidence, and other resources that have helped guide
me in this research project, and will hopefully help others
working along the same lines.

http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/crack.htm

> So Bush is the guy that criminalized drugs? Wow, I could have sworn they
> were against the law before GW became President.

You didn't know that? Gee...

Actually, what I meant (which should be self evident) is that the
policies of Bush's administration (continue to) create the problem they
purport to solve - that of drug money fueling terrorists. That
particular source of money would dry up in an instant if all illegal
drugs were made legal. (Not that I'm advising this as a solution, but
examining it rather than dismissing it as nut casing is certainly warranted)

Using National Security And The War On Terror as a reason to criminalize
medical marijuana is a product of the Bush administration.

> So, if we as a society really want to get rid of drugs we need to pass laws
> that hurt the users not the dealers.

Perhaps. But I question whether we, as a society, actually =do= want to
get rid of drugs, and whether we =ought= to want to.

And I'll point out that the politicians do =not= want to get rid of
drugs. That would get rid of the War On Drugs, which would diminsh
their power.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> When will the religious right learn that they can't successfully
> legislate morality?

.... and we get back to my original point that government by superstition
is a Bad Thing.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> We live in a representative
> republic. If enough people agree with you the law will get changed. But
> since the laws are now that illegal drugs are illegal that tells me that the
> population wants them that way.

That's overly simplistic. We want =other= people to be restricted,
while we =ourselves= are unrestrained. (Yes, that's overly simplistic
too, but illustrates the point). While we may live in a representative
republic, the distance between the voter and the lawmaker, on the
federal level, is vast.

> I happen to agree with the majority on this one because I see
> every day that pot and crack have a very negative effect
> in the work place.

You put pot and crack in the same sentence. What do you see in the
workplace that has a negative effect, that is the same with pot and
crack (but not with alcohol), that does not derive primarily from the
illegality of the substance in question, and that cannot be addressed
through the expedient of firing people who don't perform?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:50:21 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>I see every day that pot and crack have a very negative effect
>in the work place.

So you have first hand experience that supports the proposition that
the WOD is ineffective in preventing drug use.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:01:58 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> The "war on drugs" has been handled wrong from the get-go.
>
> That depends on the intended purpose of the WOD. If you want to
> reduce recreational drug use among the populous, its obvious that
> hasn't worked.
>
> If, on the other hand, the intent of the WOD is to inflate the price
> of drugs, provide the mob and the CIA with a lucrative black market,
> grow the government's police force, and funnel millions of dollars
> into law enforcement, it's working pretty good.
>
>
>

If on the other hand you don't believe every conspiracy theory that crops
up...

It amazes me to think that the same people who think the CIA can't do
anything right are so willing to believe that they are able to run
operations like the ones you posted and get away with it even when the
"information" about the operations is so easily available.

If you want to cut down on drug use all you have to do is put little Johnny
and Susie on work detail every weekend for a year the first time they get
caught with a joint. There will also be the added benefit that our parks and
streets will be clean.

> Known Al Qaeda operatives were buying millions of dollars worth of
> these diamonds because they are much easier to smuggle and exchange for
> goods anywhere in the world.

So? Diamonds are just a means of exchange - they do not create wealth
for the criminals. The illegality of drugs creates wealth for the
criminals by inflating the value of these drugs.

> Our biggest reason for failure in dealing
> with terrorists is our lack of imagination.

Non sequitor. The statement may be true, but I don't see how it relates.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> We live in a representative
>> republic. If enough people agree with you the law will get changed.
>> But since the laws are now that illegal drugs are illegal that tells
>> me that the population wants them that way.
>
> That's overly simplistic. We want =other= people to be restricted,
> while we =ourselves= are unrestrained. (Yes, that's overly simplistic
> too, but illustrates the point). While we may live in a
> representative republic, the distance between the voter and the
> lawmaker, on the federal level, is vast.
>
>> I happen to agree with the majority on this one because I see
>> every day that pot and crack have a very negative effect
>> in the work place.
>
> You put pot and crack in the same sentence. What do you see in the
> workplace that has a negative effect, that is the same with pot and
> crack (but not with alcohol), that does not derive primarily from the
> illegality of the substance in question, and that cannot be addressed
> through the expedient of firing people who don't perform?
>
> Jose

I mention those two because that is what I see on drug screens the most
often.

Absenteeism, tardiness, poor work performance. And those are the ones that
don't get someone hurt.

Sure firing them is an answer then you have to replace them and train the
new employee which costs the employer.

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Known Al Qaeda operatives were buying millions of dollars worth of
>> these diamonds because they are much easier to smuggle and exchange
>> for goods anywhere in the world.
>
> So? Diamonds are just a means of exchange - they do not create wealth
> for the criminals. The illegality of drugs creates wealth for the
> criminals by inflating the value of these drugs.
>
Why do you think that diamonds don't create wealth for the criminals? Just
the opposite is true, Jose. These diamonds were purchased for peanuts from
folks who essentially stole them, and were then smuggled to countries
where they could get market value for them. That's a much larger margin
than one could get for the equivalent volume of any drug and there is a
much lower likelihood that one will get caught.

>> Our biggest reason for failure in dealing
>> with terrorists is our lack of imagination.
>
> Non sequitor. The statement may be true, but I don't see how it
> relates.
>
You provided an excellent example of "how it relates" in your inabililty
to see how diamond smuggling can be lucrative.

Neil

Recently, Jose > posted:
>>
>> "The trafficking of drugs finances the
>> work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in
>> December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices,
>> "is central to combating illegal drug possession."
>
> The criminialization of drugs makes the traffic of drugs able to
> support terrorists. So Bush is creating the problem, not solving it.
>
> But you all know that.
>
I watched a show about "Blood Diamonds" on the History Channel the other
day. Known Al Qaeda operatives were buying millions of dollars worth of
these diamonds because they are much easier to smuggle and exchange for
goods anywhere in the world. Our biggest reason for failure in dealing
with terrorists is our lack of imagination.

Neil

> I mention those two because that is what I see on drug screens the most
> often.

Alcohol doesn't show up on drug screens, does it?

> Absenteeism, tardiness, poor work performance. And those are the ones that
> don't get someone hurt.

Do the drugs =cause= tardiness (for exmaple), or is it the employee who
decides he doesn't care enough to come on time? Do you not see the same
effect with alcohol? And ultimately, the problem is absenteeism,
tardiness, poor work performance. It is not drug use. Absenteeism,
tardiness, poor work performance can (and often does) occur without
drugs. Those kind of people should not be working for you no matter
what other vice they have.

> Sure firing them is an answer then you have to replace them and train the
> new employee which costs the employer.

Yes, and this will encourage the employer to pick better candiates to
begin with. But it is not my argument that firing them is the answer,
but rather, firing them for =poor performance= rather than because they
engage in an activity you consider a vice.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Why do you think that diamonds don't create wealth for the criminals? Just
> the opposite is true, Jose. These diamonds were purchased for peanuts from
> folks who essentially stole them, and were then smuggled to countries
> where they could get market value for them.

Ok, good point, but it is the theft that created the wealth. Now that I
think of it, you make another good point - the intrinsic value of
diamonds is due to their scarcity. Diamonds however are only scarce
because of the diamond cartel that owns the diamond mines. Were all the
diamonds in the storage bins available for purchase, the price would
plummet (and a lot of romantic folk would be upset, one way or another :)

In the case of diamonds, the owners are creating the shortage. In the
case of drugs, the lawmakers are.

> You provided an excellent example of "how it relates" in your inabililty
> to see how diamond smuggling can be lucrative.

I didn't fail to see how diamond smuggling can be lucrative. I failed
to see how it is an example of artificial and policital wealth creation.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> I mention those two because that is what I see on drug screens the
>> most often.
>
> Alcohol doesn't show up on drug screens, does it?
>
>> Absenteeism, tardiness, poor work performance. And those are the
>> ones that don't get someone hurt.
>
> Do the drugs =cause= tardiness (for exmaple), or is it the employee
> who decides he doesn't care enough to come on time? Do you not see
> the same effect with alcohol? And ultimately, the problem is
> absenteeism, tardiness, poor work performance. It is not drug use.
> Absenteeism, tardiness, poor work performance can (and often does)
> occur without drugs. Those kind of people should not be working for
> you no matter what other vice they have.
>
>> Sure firing them is an answer then you have to replace them and
>> train the new employee which costs the employer.
>
> Yes, and this will encourage the employer to pick better candiates to
> begin with. But it is not my argument that firing them is the answer,
> but rather, firing them for =poor performance= rather than because
> they engage in an activity you consider a vice.
>
> Jose

I've seen many the good employee become utterly useless when they started
using drugs.

As for alcohol, a heavy user of either drugs or alcohol will be a problem.
The difference is a not so heavy user of drugs is also a problem.

As far as firing them for poor performance rather than because they engage
in an activity that is ILLEGAL, I've found that those that are willing to
break one law are more willing to break others.

> I've seen many the good employee become utterly
> useless when they started using drugs.

Cause and effect? Both effects of the same (other) cause? It makes a
difference. And when you say "drugs", are you lumping marijuana and
coke together? I think that's a mistake in data collection which could
lead to a very costly mistake in policy.

> As far as firing them for poor performance rather than because they engage
> in an activity that is ILLEGAL, I've found that those that are willing to
> break one law are more willing to break others.

Which tells me two things:

1: It is the illegality, not the pharmacology, that bothers you. That
can be changed with the stroke of a pen.

2: Speeders should be treated the same way.

You make a valid point, but there is a difference between something that
is illegal for no good reason, and one that is illegal for a very good
reason. Medical use of marijuana is illegal for no good reason, and to
break the law to supply it to my niece who is suffering from terminal
cancer does not mean that I am "more wiling to break other laws". Well,
maybe it does. Maybe it means I actually =have= a moral compass, rather
than relying on the GPS of law.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:33:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>
>I mention those two because that is what I see on drug screens the most
>often.

So you don't screen for alcohol?

It would seem to me that the drunks would be rampant with their drug
of choice available on every street coroner liquor store.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:33:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>> I mention those two because that is what I see on drug screens the
>> most often.
>
> So you don't screen for alcohol?
>
> It would seem to me that the drunks would be rampant with their drug
> of choice available on every street coroner liquor store.

As a matter of fact we do. We have yet to have a positive result on a
pre-hire, random or post accident screen. We have had one positive for
alcohol on a probable cause screen.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:29:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:33:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>
>>> I mention those two because that is what I see on drug screens the
>>> most often.
>>
>> So you don't screen for alcohol?
>>
>> It would seem to me that the drunks would be rampant with their drug
>> of choice available on every street coroner liquor store.
>
>As a matter of fact we do. We have yet to have a positive result on a
>pre-hire, random or post accident screen. We have had one positive for
>alcohol on a probable cause screen.
>

So it would seem that legalizing alcohol didn't cause rampant alcohol
use. Interesting.

It sure put the bootleggers out of business, and you've got to agree,
that the tax revenue it generates can't be a bad thing.

Incidentally, what is a 'probable cause screen'?

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Why do you think that diamonds don't create wealth for the
>> criminals? Just the opposite is true, Jose. These diamonds were
>> purchased for peanuts from folks who essentially stole them, and
>> were then smuggled to countries where they could get market value
>> for them.
>
> Ok, good point, but it is the theft that created the wealth.
>
Not entirely; the theft simply increased the profit margin. ;-) It is also
the opportunity created by access to "investment capital", the ability to
move products of value across borders undetected, and the connections to
unload those products at a profit on the back end.

>> You provided an excellent example of "how it relates" in your
>> inabililty to see how diamond smuggling can be lucrative.
>
> I didn't fail to see how diamond smuggling can be lucrative. I failed
> to see how it is an example of artificial and policital wealth
> creation.
>
None the less, "it relates" (to the issue of criminal activity in support
of terrorists). According to the History Channel program, DeBeers went to
great lengths to quash information about the connection between the blood
diamonds and Al Qaeda just to keep that notion OUT of our imaginations for
some of the reasons you mentioned.

Neil

> It is also
> the opportunity created by access to "investment capital", the ability to
> move products of value across borders undetected, and the connections to
> unload those products at a profit on the back end.

But these are all things that are properties of a legitimate commercial
world too. It can be argued that commerce generates wealth, and it's
true. However, it does nothing special for criminals that it doesn't
also do for law abiding people.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> With the exception of amphetamines and alcohol, generally the laws hurt
>> the users moreso than the drugs themselves.

> If that is you feeling then you are lucky. We live in a representative
> republic. If enough people agree with you the law will get changed. But
> since the laws are now that illegal drugs are illegal that tells me that
> the population wants them that way.

It used to be illegal for black people to read--or to teach them to
read--because the voting population wanted it that way. How does it work
that what the population wants is related to whether the laws hurt people
more than the activity itself?

>I happen to agree with the majority on this one because I see every day
>that pot and crack have a very negative effect in the work place.

Don't see much crack anymore (more crystal meth) but I'm curious about what
you do that you see every day where pot has a negative effect. Near as I
can tell, the only thing it effects is somebody's employability.

When I worked at Hewlett Packard I heard it said that if they randomly
****-tested the employees they'd have to fire a lot of their best people.

-c

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...

you see in the
> workplace that has a negative effect, that is the same with pot and crack
> (but not with alcohol), that does not derive primarily from the illegality
> of the substance in question, and that cannot be addressed through the
> expedient of firing people who don't perform?


I raised a fuss one time when our company started screening employees and
invoked a zero-tolerance policy. The reason I got all trouble up is that I
pointed out that on any given Friday afternoon, the sysadmin group went to
TGI Fridays after work and the manager bought pitchers of beer before
everybody drove home.

How was it, then, that some NOC tech with an excellent reputation, but who
smoked pot at a party somewhere on a Saturday night was less employable than
the people--including lower, upper and middle management--drinking alcohol
and then driving home.

(I can't/won't defend meth or cocaine users because I've seen the cumulative
effects and how it destroys people. But I know pot smokers who make six
digits or more a year as computer programmers, and they're doing great.)

-c

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Incidentally, what is a 'probable cause screen'?


Exactly what it sounds like. The employer/supervisor thinks they are drunk,
high or stoned. In this case there was the strong smell of what was believed
to be bourbon on his breath after lunch and he was slurring his speech.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> As far as firing them for poor performance rather than because they engage
> in an activity that is ILLEGAL, I've found that those that are willing to
> break one law are more willing to break others.

Ever gotten a traffic ticket?

In Oregon, possession and use of small amounts of marijuana often times
won't even get you arrested.

-c

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> So it would seem that legalizing alcohol didn't cause rampant alcohol
> use. Interesting.
>
> It sure put the bootleggers out of business, and you've got to agree,
> that the tax revenue it generates can't be a bad thing.
>

I forgot to respond to the first part of you reply so here.

But it didn't cause a drop in it either.

As I've said, abuse of anything is a negative. In my 45 years I've seen that
the negatives of moderate use of drugs is worse than the light to moderate
use of alcohol.

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> It is also
>> the opportunity created by access to "investment capital", the
>> ability to move products of value across borders undetected, and the
>> connections to unload those products at a profit on the back end.
>
> But these are all things that are properties of a legitimate
> commercial world too. It can be argued that commerce generates
> wealth, and it's true. However, it does nothing special for
> criminals that it doesn't also do for law abiding people.
>
No argument about that. In fact, that is part of the point I was making
w/r/t our supposed concerns about terrorists.

Neil

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> With the exception of amphetamines and alcohol, generally the laws
>>> hurt the users moreso than the drugs themselves.
>
>> If that is you feeling then you are lucky. We live in a
>> representative republic. If enough people agree with you the law
>> will get changed. But since the laws are now that illegal drugs are
>> illegal that tells me that the population wants them that way.
>
> It used to be illegal for black people to read--or to teach them to
> read--because the voting population wanted it that way. How does it
> work that what the population wants is related to whether the laws
> hurt people more than the activity itself?
>

You can use the old slavery used to be illegal and it used to be illegal to
teach blacks to read argument for anything. Lots of things used to be legal
and illegal times change.

I understand that there are those that think marijuana should be legalized
for medical use. To be honest I really don't disagree. But if it is going to
be used as a prescription drug then it needs to go through all the FDA
procedures that any other prescription drug goes through.

>> I happen to agree with the majority on this one because I see every
>> day that pot and crack have a very negative effect in the work place.
>
> Don't see much crack anymore (more crystal meth) but I'm curious
> about what you do that you see every day where pot has a negative
> effect. Near as I can tell, the only thing it effects is somebody's
> employability.

I run both a Temporary service and a company that does HR and payroll
outsourcing for small business. The vast majority of the employees we manage
are blue collar. We handle both the drug-free programs and workers comp for
our clients. I see the drug screen results for a pretty good size sample of
people. I know that the prescreen positives for illegal drugs is about 10%.
I also know that the positive post accident screen rate for the same
population is pretty close to 30% of which about 2/3s is marijuana only with
the most of the rest being either crack, meth or a mixture of them all.

One interesting data point on the mixtures. Most employees on there exit
interviews will admit they did pot but are truly surprised that there was
some meth mixed in there.


Yes I see a lot of crystal meth positives as well but I still see lots of
cocaine and it is from people who aren't going to be buying the snorting
kind.



> When I worked at Hewlett Packard I heard it said that if they randomly
> ****-tested the employees they'd have to fire a lot of their best
> people.
> -c

"Gig 601XL Builder> wrote

> As I've said, abuse of anything is a negative. In my 45 years I've seen
> that the negatives of moderate use of drugs is worse than the light to
> moderate use of alcohol.

I wonder if you aren't forgetting that this "home medical pot use" is quite
different than the average person using it (or abusing it) on a recreational
basis.

I don't think most would argue the problems of drugs in the workplace, or
the negative effect on the person.

On the whole, these are people that are dying, or suffering in such
magnitude, that life is nearly unbearable. Most are not holding a job, but
only trying to hold onto life. They should not be put into a place where
their actions can harm others, like driving, or making decisions that would
or could put another at risk.

A person that has tried all other conventional means to cope, may be in a
situation, that without any other way to ease their personal suffering, may
be likely to consider suicide.

Would you think that it is a reasonable thing, to not allow the only thing
that has been found to make life bearable?

I have my doubts. I may be in that place, one day. In all likelihood, I
_will_ be in that place. I think it is only a matter of how far off in the
future.

Would I be willing to consider a now illegal drug, to ease my suffering, and
increase my quality of life? You bet. Unless you have lived with a
constant, inescapable pain, 24/7, you may find that concept hard to imagine.
Perhaps it is impossible to imagine, unless you have lived with
dehabilitating pain.

Let me put it another way. I missed going to Oshkosh last year, because of
the level of my pain. I can not bear the travel of going that distance, and
even if I could, I could not endure being on my feet long enough to enjoy
myself. This year, it is looking like the same thing is taking place. The
thought of not going is painful, but I am left with no choice. I have
looked forward to it for two years, but it is being taken from me again.
Will I ever be able to attend? I don't know. Not knowing is terrible.
Will I ever have anything close to a normal life again? I don't know.
Nobody has been able to offer me anything; even hope.

What would I give, or sacrifice to be able to go? I don't know. I don't
see any options. If one were offered to me, I would jump at it, probably
even if it was not legal.

Same goes with pot for pain, for some people. I'm not there yet. I do
understand their plight, though.

If there are people trying to get away with medicinal pot for ...whatever...
that have not exhausted all other legal options, then that is what needs to
be addressed; not eliminating a possible worthwhile treatment for some.

Opiates are used for legitimate medical reasons. So are products from the
coca plant. They are also abused by some. Keep them in their correct,
controlled place. I don't see the difference in this case, either. None.
--
Jim in NC

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> It took a Constitutional amendment to enact the Volstead Act
> (prohibition of alcohol), and the result was rampant drinking,

rampant drinking was caused by the Volstead Act?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> When will the religious right learn that they can't successfully
> legislate morality?

about the same time liberals figure out that you can't legislate
intelligence or common sense

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> As far as firing them for poor performance rather than because they
>> engage in an activity that is ILLEGAL, I've found that those that
>> are willing to break one law are more willing to break others.
>
> Ever gotten a traffic ticket?
>
> In Oregon, possession and use of small amounts of marijuana often
> times won't even get you arrested.
>
> -c


And that's why the war on drugs is failing.

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder> wrote
>
>> As I've said, abuse of anything is a negative. In my 45 years I've
>> seen that the negatives of moderate use of drugs is worse than the
>> light to moderate use of alcohol.
>
> I wonder if you aren't forgetting that this "home medical pot use" is
> quite different than the average person using it (or abusing it) on a
> recreational basis.
>
> I don't think most would argue the problems of drugs in the
> workplace, or the negative effect on the person.
>
> On the whole, these are people that are dying, or suffering in such
> magnitude, that life is nearly unbearable. Most are not holding a
> job, but only trying to hold onto life. They should not be put into
> a place where their actions can harm others, like driving, or making
> decisions that would or could put another at risk.
>
> A person that has tried all other conventional means to cope, may be
> in a situation, that without any other way to ease their personal
> suffering, may be likely to consider suicide.
>
> Would you think that it is a reasonable thing, to not allow the only
> thing that has been found to make life bearable?
>
> I have my doubts. I may be in that place, one day. In all
> likelihood, I _will_ be in that place. I think it is only a matter
> of how far off in the future.
>
> Would I be willing to consider a now illegal drug, to ease my
> suffering, and increase my quality of life? You bet. Unless you
> have lived with a constant, inescapable pain, 24/7, you may find that
> concept hard to imagine. Perhaps it is impossible to imagine, unless
> you have lived with dehabilitating pain.
>
> Let me put it another way. I missed going to Oshkosh last year,
> because of the level of my pain. I can not bear the travel of going
> that distance, and even if I could, I could not endure being on my
> feet long enough to enjoy myself. This year, it is looking like the
> same thing is taking place. The thought of not going is painful, but
> I am left with no choice. I have looked forward to it for two years,
> but it is being taken from me again. Will I ever be able to attend? I
> don't know. Not knowing is terrible. Will I ever have anything
> close to a normal life again? I don't know. Nobody has been able to
> offer me anything; even hope.
> What would I give, or sacrifice to be able to go? I don't know. I
> don't see any options. If one were offered to me, I would jump at
> it, probably even if it was not legal.
>
> Same goes with pot for pain, for some people. I'm not there yet. I
> do understand their plight, though.
>
> If there are people trying to get away with medicinal pot for
> ...whatever... that have not exhausted all other legal options, then
> that is what needs to be addressed; not eliminating a possible
> worthwhile treatment for some.
> Opiates are used for legitimate medical reasons. So are products
> from the coca plant. They are also abused by some. Keep them in
> their correct, controlled place. I don't see the difference in this
> case, either. None.


I'm not a advocate for or against the medical use of marijuana. I will say I
have been I great pain and used only legal drugs, properly prescribed to
deal with it. Both my father and my mother died from cancer and they only
used legal drugs, properly prescribed. But if a drug is going to be
prescribed it needs to go through all the FDA testing and needs to come from
a legitimate source. As I mentioned in another post there is a bunch of pot
on the market that isn't all pot.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote

> But if a drug is going to be prescribed it needs to go through all the FDA
> testing and needs to come from a legitimate source. As I mentioned in
> another post there is a bunch of pot on the market that isn't all pot.

Even more of a reason that this recent court ruling striking down home grown
use (or what I understand it to be saying) makes no sense.

Home grown, by the user, makes the user's supply safe from tampering with
the addition of other drugs.

What would testing by the FDA do to make it more safe? It is a weed, that
can be developed to grow with more of the chemical present, depending on the
climate, and type of growing practice. If the chemical content is higher,
you use less of it, and conversely so, if it is less strong.

I am not a pothead, or anything of the kind. I do feel for the people with
a valid need that have had a valuable tool taken from their "medicine
cabinet," though.

'Nuff said, by me. I have a feeling that most with a desperate need will go
on, business as usual. Sadly, some will have to deal with the legal system,
and some will go to jail, at a time in their life when that is the last
thing they should have to deal with.
--
Jim in NC

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:50:15 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> So it would seem that legalizing alcohol didn't cause rampant alcohol
>> use. Interesting.
>>
>> It sure put the bootleggers out of business, and you've got to agree,
>> that the tax revenue it generates can't be a bad thing.
>>
>
>I forgot to respond to the first part of you reply so here.
>
>But it didn't cause a drop in it either.
>

Exactly. Regardless of the law folks will do what they want to do
with regard to control of their state of mind. It's a constant that
needs to be accepted, and those who are unable to refrain from harming
themselves should receive rehabilitative therapy. That could be paid
through the tax.

>As I've said, abuse of anything is a negative.

It's difficult to argue with that statement.

>In my 45 years I've seen that the negatives of moderate use of drugs
>is worse than the light to moderate use of alcohol.

I'll have to take your word for it; I have no first hand experience
with drunks nor substance abusers.

But the point is, that people will continue to seek their intoxicant
of choice, or not, regardless of attempts to impose controls on them.
Once that fact is realized, it becomes clear that creating a black
market only serves to fuel criminality and violence. Regulation
eliminates the black market, and hence the criminal element, so folks
keep doin' what they do, and the bad guys source of power drys up.

Do you see it differently?

> As I've said, abuse of anything is a negative. In my 45 years I've seen that
> the negatives of moderate use of drugs is worse than the light to moderate
> use of alcohol.

You have your thumb on the scale here. What about comparing light use
of drugs to moderate use of alcohol? I have a thumb too.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> No argument about that. In fact, that is part of the point I was making
> w/r/t our supposed concerns about terrorists.

Then I don't know what your point is.

If it is that restricting freedoms does not stop terrorism, and that our
government is acting very bull headed and not thinking anything through,
then I wholeheartedly agree.

We need to know the enemy before you can defeat it, and we don't seem to
care to know the enemy, just to point a finger and say "axis of evil".
Terrorism is like a person being infected with a bacteria or virus. Our
reaction to it is like pointing a gun at the parts that hurt, and
pulling the trigger.

The real problem is that nobody is honest, neither with themselves or
with others, about what they consider the problem to actually be.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> I know that the prescreen positives for illegal drugs is about 10%.
> I also know that the positive post accident screen rate for the same
> population is pretty close to 30% of which about 2/3s is marijuana only with
> the most of the rest being either crack, meth or a mixture of them all.

Don't confuse correlation with causation. The data you present is
suggestive of correlation, but it takes causation to justify a law.

> One interesting data point on the mixtures. Most employees on there exit
> interviews will admit they did pot but are truly surprised that there was
> some meth mixed in there.

I wonder if the meth is in the marijuana. I wonder if it would be there
if the marijuana were legal and home grown.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>> In Oregon, possession and use of small amounts of marijuana often
>> times won't even get you arrested.
> And that's why the war on drugs is failing.

No. The war on drugs is failing because nobody can agree on what "the
drug problem" is. Therefore, the wrong "solutions" are put into place.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> But if a drug is going to be
> prescribed it needs to go through all the FDA testing and needs to come from
> a legitimate source.

A valid point, but also a bit of a red herring, like insisting that it
is a Good Thing that a two dollar microswitch should cost $700 because
it has the blessing of the FAA, and that the blessing of the FAA is a
Good Thing.

It'a a red herring because not all things that affect health are
prescribed. There are lots of substances, ranging from aspirin to
vitamins to ginko balboa to red wine, that do not require a prescription
but affect health and are taken for that purpose. So what is it that
makes (or should make) one substance require a prescription and another not?

I would say that if it is truly =dangerous=, or if its interactions are
so powerful and so subtle that it requires somebody with extensive
medical knowledge to figure out whether it is appropriate, then it
should require a prescription.

Marijuana, grown at home, used by dying patients in extreme pain or to
combat nausea, does not fall into that category.

> As I mentioned in another post there is a bunch of pot
> on the market that isn't all pot.

This is a function of the black market, which is created by the stroke
of a pen and can be deflated just as easily.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> The real problem is that nobody is honest, neither with themselves or
> with others, about what they consider the problem to actually be.

even you?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> No argument about that. In fact, that is part of the point I was
>> making w/r/t our supposed concerns about terrorists.
>
> Then I don't know what your point is.
>
> If it is that restricting freedoms does not stop terrorism, and that
> our government is acting very bull headed and not thinking anything
> through, then I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> We need to know the enemy before you can defeat it, and we don't seem
> to care to know the enemy, just to point a finger and say "axis of
> evil". Terrorism is like a person being infected with a bacteria or
> virus. Our reaction to it is like pointing a gun at the parts that
> hurt, and pulling the trigger.
>
> The real problem is that nobody is honest, neither with themselves or
> with others, about what they consider the problem to actually be.
>
For someone who doesn't know what my point was, you elaborated on it quite
nicely. ;-)

Neil

On 2007-06-12, gatt > wrote:
> (I can't/won't defend meth or cocaine users because I've seen the cumulative
> effects and how it destroys people. But I know pot smokers who make six
> digits or more a year as computer programmers, and they're doing great.)

Some of the most productive software developers I know grow their own
pot. I've never known any of them get violent or suffer long-term
effects of their pot use. The same can't be said of whiskey - I've lost
family members to that.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> The real problem is that nobody is honest, neither with themselves or
>> with others, about what they consider the problem to actually be.
>
> even you?
>


"Everybody Lies"

- Dr. Gregory House

>> The real problem is that nobody is honest, neither with themselves or
>> with others, about what they consider the problem to actually be.
>
>
> even you?

I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe me. :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose writes:

> No. The war on drugs is failing because nobody can agree on what "the
> drug problem" is. Therefore, the wrong "solutions" are put into place.

The war on drugs is failing because American culture condones and encourages
the use of drugs, despite the smoke and mirrors of legal prohibitions. It's
the same reason for which Prohibition failed.

You cannot compel people to stop doing something that they very much want to
do. You have to convince them not to want it. Smoking has greatly diminished
in the U.S. because it is no longer "cool" and socially acceptable or required
to smoke. Drug use remains because it is "cool" and acceptable and sometimes
required to use drugs. Ditto for alcohol.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> You cannot compel people to stop doing something that they very much want
> to
> do. You have to convince them not to want it.

So how do we convince you that you don't want to be an asshole anymore?

Mxsmanic wrote:
> You cannot compel people to stop doing something that they very much
> want to do.


Sure you can. It is only the laws of two countries that keep many of those
here from coming to Paris and beating the crap out of you.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jose writes:
>
>> No. The war on drugs is failing because nobody can agree on what
>> "the drug problem" is. Therefore, the wrong "solutions" are put into
>> place.
>
> The war on drugs is failing because American culture condones and
> encourages the use of drugs, despite the smoke and mirrors of legal
> prohibitions. It's the same reason for which Prohibition failed.
>
> You cannot compel people to stop doing something that they very much
> want to do. You have to convince them not to want it. Smoking has
> greatly diminished in the U.S. because it is no longer "cool" and
> socially acceptable or required to smoke. Drug use remains because it
> is "cool" and acceptable and sometimes required to use drugs. Ditto
> for alcohol.
>


Fjukktard


Bertie

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Sure you can. It is only the laws of two countries that keep many of those
> here from coming to Paris and beating the crap out of you.

The unintelligent are easily moved to violence by even the smallest of
frustrations.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sure you can. It is only the laws of two countries that keep many of
>> those here from coming to Paris and beating the crap out of you.
>
> The unintelligent are easily moved to violence by even the smallest of
> frustrations.
>

I'd never hurt you Anthony.

No point when you hurt yourself so much better than anyone else could.



Bertie

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sure you can. It is only the laws of two countries that keep many of
>> those
>> here from coming to Paris and beating the crap out of you.
>
> The unintelligent are easily moved to violence by even the smallest of
> frustrations.

But it takes a major dip**** like you to move an intelligent pilot to
violence.

El Maximo writes:

> But it takes a major dip**** like you to move an intelligent pilot to
> violence.

Intelligent people cannot be moved to violence by words alone.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> But it takes a major dip**** like you to move an intelligent pilot to
>> violence.
>
> Intelligent people cannot be moved to violence by words alone.

Simply because YOU (obviously not intelligent) can be moved to violence by
words alone does not make this statement true.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> But it takes a major dip**** like you to move an intelligent pilot to
>> violence.
>
> Intelligent people cannot be moved to violence by words alone.
>

true, probably takes someone like you to make them see the light,.


Bertie

El Maximo writes:

> Simply because YOU (obviously not intelligent) can be moved to violence by
> words alone does not make this statement true.

I am not violent.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Simply because YOU (obviously not intelligent) can be moved to violence
>> by
>> words alone does not make this statement true.
>
> I am not violent.

The sky is yellow.

On 2007-06-10 16:47:41 -0700, "Bob Gardner" > said:

> This is not aimed at itinerant pilots...Washington has a similar rule.
> It is parallel to the rule about registering automobiles after 60 days.
>
> Bob Gardner

Actually, Washington no longer has a similar rule. It was repealed by
Senate Bill 5414 which took effect in July 2005. It was replaced with a
1¢/gallon av-gas tax. The bill was supported by AOPA.

You are still required to register aircraft in the state of Washington.

I actually kind of liked the old system because WSDOT used to send out
cool stuff like local pilot guides and things like that. Now you never
hear from them.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-06-10 14:58:05 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

> Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me like Oregon requires any
> general aviation pilot who flies into or through Oregon must then
> register with the Oregon Department of Aviation within 60 days.

I think you are misreading it, too. Washington State used to have a
similar law, but replaced it with a more workable $.01/gallon av-gas
tax after AOPA lobbying.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Simply because YOU (obviously not intelligent) can be moved to
>> violence by words alone does not make this statement true.
>
> I am not violent.
>

Who cares? Think anyone would actualyl be afraid of you if you were, luser
boi?


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Who cares? Think anyone would actualyl be afraid of you if you were, luser
> boi?

I had not given it any thought. Why would I want to frighten anyone?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Who cares? Think anyone would actualyl be afraid of you if you were,
>> luser
>> boi?
>
> Why would I want to frighten anyone?

I dunno. Why do you like to **** people off?

El Maximo writes:

> I dunno. Why do you like to **** people off?

I don't.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Who cares? Think anyone would actualyl be afraid of you if you were,
>> luser boi?
>
> I had not given it any thought. Why would I want to frighten anyone?
>

Dunno, you're the one who keeps bringing up violence, bankruptcy boi.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> I dunno. Why do you like to **** people off?
>
> I don't.
>


I know,.

It's just that autistic thaaang you got going there Anthony..


Bertie

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> I understand that there are those that think marijuana should be legalized
> for medical use. To be honest I really don't disagree.

Marijuana is legal for medical use in Oregon. Except for the media attention
it gets, though, you'd not know it except maybe in your profession where
you're testing people for it.

> But if it is going to be used as a prescription drug then it needs to go
> through all the FDA procedures that any other prescription drug goes
> through.

I agree. It would be better all around. I don't understand how smoking
something can be construed as good for your health.

> One interesting data point on the mixtures. Most employees on there exit
> interviews will admit they did pot but are truly surprised that there was
> some meth mixed in there.

Fascinating. Are you suggesting that what the injested was spiked without
their knowledge? (Totally conceivable. That's the kind of stuff that should
be in the news.)

A colleague of mine is a former parole office, and now a college professor.
Pot smoker (now), but so is his father who is a prominent lawyer in another
state. I talked to him about this recently and he said to keep in mind that
what people see in the anti-drug professions: POs, cops, screeners, probably
guys like you, are the problem cases. It's easy to get the impression that
most users are stupid if most of the users you deal with are so stupid--or
addicted--that they actually fail drug screens when they know they might or
will be tested.

I have pot smokers in my family but to tell you the truth, the alcoholics
are the ones who caused the most damage to their families, their children,
etc. My pot-smoking relatives never crashed a car and injured somebody or
gotten 'faced and belted their kid in the front yard in the middle of the
afternoon like an alcoholic uncle I used to have.

This is probably not an appropriate forum for this discussion, but I can say
with a fair degree of certainty that I've been exposed to the modern drug
culture as much as anybody here. I'm a part-time musician and at the end of
the night, you never know what you're gonna find in a tip jar or just tossed
up on stage. I've seen the whole spectrum; daily users who have adult kids
who don't use, and burnouts who will probably earn close to minimum wage
until they die. Still, I'd rather play to a crowd of 700 mellow hippie
Eugene stoners than 20 alcoholic frat-boy hooligans any day because it's the
latter who are consistently the biggest pain in the ass.

Every once in awhile you can smell it wafting up above the cigarette haze,
but it's the cigarette haze that follows you home. (We scout out venues in
advance and if they don't have adequate ventilation, we simply won't play
there.) Playing a smoke-free venue is like being on oxygen by comparison,
so we seek out those places. I hate smoke, period.

-c

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...

> I wonder if the meth is in the marijuana. I wonder if it would be there
> if the marijuana were legal and home grown.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was being spiked to get people
addicted. Damned shame. It really ought to be legal, taxed and regulated
exactly as alcohol and tobacco are. That's not to say it's any more
appropriate in a cockpit or transporation environment than alcohol or many
other performance-altering drugs.

When I was a kid, there was a State Police officer in the Newport/Waldport
area that was selling it out of his home. When I was in college I dated a
girl briefly (red-haired model...damn!) who, it turned out, got it from her
aunt near Seattle. Her uncle was a police officer and he would store it in
a freezer. His wife would give it away to family members so that the cop
could never be accused of giving drugs to a minor. Needless to say, the
girl and I had quite a lot of ideological differences, but she ended up
graduating with honors--a hell of a lot better than I did clean and sober.

-c

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> In Oregon, possession and use of small amounts of marijuana often
>> times won't even get you arrested.
>>
> And that's why the war on drugs is failing.

A college kid told me one time that he doesn't worry about getting busted
smoking pot because as long as the police see the lighter -above- the pipe,
they leave you alone. It's when it's beneath the pipe (not sure if that
implies meth, heroin, crack or what) that they bust you.

-c

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...

> Marijuana, grown at home, used by dying patients in extreme pain or to
> combat nausea, does not fall into that category.

Aye. Especially when the alternatives they're passing out are oxycontin,
vicodin, etc.

We live in a world where you can't get over-the-counter asthma medicine
because one can be used (at a buck a pill) to make meth (you can get
ephedrine for pennies a pill over the internet) or environmental law. They
pulled Primatene inhalers from the shelves because it contains CFCs.
Ferfksake, the planet isn't going to die because of asthma medication, but
asthmatic kids with no health insurance just might. Meanwhile, on the next
aisle over, you can kill yourself with a jug of cheap Gallo wine.

There's just no sense to any of it.
-c

> Marijuana is legal for medical use in Oregon.

More correctly, wouldn't that be "Marijuana is not prohibited for
medical use by the state of Oregon."? Subtle but important difference.

> I don't understand how smoking
> something can be construed as good for your health.

I think that depends on what's being smoked, and what the alternative
is. One can just as easily (and with equal validity) say "I don't
understand how ingesting chemicals can be construed as good for your
health" or "I don't understand how flying around in a tin can can be
construed as good for your health".

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

AlphaPropellerhead writes:

> Still, I'd rather play to a crowd of 700 mellow hippie
> Eugene stoners than 20 alcoholic frat-boy hooligans any day because it's the
> latter who are consistently the biggest pain in the ass.

A completely drug-free existence can be more pleasant still.

All of these people discussing substance abuse as if it were the most natural
thing in the world; how many of them have a current medical, and wish to keep
it?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> A completely drug-free existence can be more pleasant still.

A complete troll-free existence can be more pleasant still.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> AlphaPropellerhead writes:
>
>> Still, I'd rather play to a crowd of 700 mellow hippie
>> Eugene stoners than 20 alcoholic frat-boy hooligans any day because it's
>> the
>> latter who are consistently the biggest pain in the ass.
>
> A completely drug-free existence can be more pleasant still.
>

Spoken by the poster child for a LIFE-free existance.

Maxwell writes:

> Spoken by the poster child for a LIFE-free existance.

No, I speak as someone who doesn't want to die in a vehicular accident.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> AlphaPropellerhead writes:
>
>> Still, I'd rather play to a crowd of 700 mellow hippie
>> Eugene stoners than 20 alcoholic frat-boy hooligans any day because
>> it's the latter who are consistently the biggest pain in the ass.
>
> A completely drug-free existence can be more pleasant still.
>
> All of these people discussing substance abuse as if it were the most
> natural thing in the world; how many of them have a current medical,
> and wish to keep it?


OOOW more k00kthrets!



Bertie
>

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Spoken by the poster child for a LIFE-free existance.
>
> No, I speak as someone who doesn't want to die in a vehicular accident.

Irrelivent to the point mentioned. You have no life.