straight control

[dreammagician]

Straight. What a place. Get sat on by five or six guys. Get told your a piece of shit, get sent to an intake room to get beat up and yelled at. Be deprived of food and sleep. Be forced to participate in rituals of singing stupid songs and doing hand movements to get called on. Sit your ass up straight. Get stood up for stupid shit and get yelled at by hundreds of peers spiting in your face. I'm really starting to like this place. Sounds like home. This is the real Mccoy boy. Nothing like southern hospitality. Nancy Reagan got her way, that bitch. And to think, this still goes on under different alias, unbeleivable. What about the belt loop deal. I could go on forever but I am starting to feel noxious.  Later on cats and let's get together to petition the government, too much money bribery in the Republican party for that though, bummer.

[ladyjerrico]

you said it dreammagician.
I was there too, not to stir up anymore anger than you already have, but which one were you in and what year?
you don't need to respond to that if you don't want to.. I respect everyone's privacy

[dreammagician]

I was incarcerated by straight in 1981 in St. Petersburg. I was there when the Atlanta program was let out also the Virginia program and Cinncinnatti program. I couldn't beleive when I heard there are now so many other programs like New Jersey, California and Texas. Dr. Newton and his tactics have to be stopped in the name of hamanity.

[ladyjerrico]

Amen dreammagician.
I know that those people now (Mel Sembler for example) is an ambassodor for the United States representing Italy (or is it the other way around?)
Anyway, it took me a few sites and some responses to find out that Mel Sembler was the founder of Straight Inc., he was also another ambassodor for another country, I think it was Australia or something like that.. he then went to be an ambassodor for Italy.
I know I don't have my facts that correct, but I know that people in power, if they lose, just regain more power somewhere in their life where nobody can touch them.. could be where all that Straight money went to, his ambassodor-ship.

[ClayL]

I just want to say that NO politician can afford to appear "soft on drugs." It would be career ending for them and we know how impertant that is to a politician.

CL

[Anonymous]

And why is that, that no politician can afford to be soft on drugs when so many US citizens at the very least smoke the illegal weed?  

I was going to say, is it because y'all are too high to vote,

But then I remember, in D.C. a few years back the voters voted in an initiative or whatever that would have made marijuana legal (I don't recall exactly what this was -- does anyone else?) but the vote was thrown out.  Just thrown out.  As though voting did not count at all.  As though this is a democracy until the citizens vote for something completely unacceptable to the aristocracy.

[ClayL]

No politician can afford to appear soft on drugs, even though most of them have experimented, is because of the demographics of the people who actually vote. Most of the voting public is older people mid 40's to the elderly. Most of these people are quite terrified of crack-heads and drug crazed bikers. These are also "those" people who need to be locked up because they are Soooooo weak they can't handle their booze or what ever. This is all DRUGS fault, DRUGS have "ruined" our country and so forth. Therefore, a politician who is soft on drugs is an un-American, terrorist supporting, pink-o commie bastard. I guess you get the point. Perhaps this doesn't apply to California as they seem to be a little different. This could be southern bias though.

Further, the District of Columbia is not a state and is goverened, ultimately, by Congress. Therefore DC falls under only federal law. Federal Law forbids the use of marijuna among numerous other chemicals with great entertainment value, or requires a perscription from a licensed physician. Firther, being governed by Congress, Congress is the only body that can make policy changes of that nature. Had DC been a state, the 9th (I think) ammendment would have given them a case against the Fed. Once again proving my initial point that NO politician can afford to appear "soft" on drugs.

Clay

PS Personally, I think all drugs should be legal and have the hell taxed out of them. The money from taxes being solely for the purpose of universal treatment on demand. No question, no "three strikes" nor any other of that nonsense. This is workable, the war on drugs is not.

[kaydeejaded]

[ This Message was edited by: kaydeejaded on 2004-03-03 08:33 ]

[ClayL]

kaydeejaded:



Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. To use drugs or not is a personal issue or problem, something the do-gooders and nannies will never understand. It is very difficult to watch someone destroy (or not) their lives while one can only watch. I believe this is a codependency issue and happens when one ties ones ego and well-being to another's actions. The really hellish thing about this is the wacco(s), translates untreated co-dependent(s), that started our lovely straight, inc. is now in a position to spread the gospel concerning treatment and the "war on drugs" in general.



It took a long time to realize there are people that can drink and smoke dope successfully and remain successful. After all, everyone of us here is a victim of the propaganda machine. After therapy after straight I went to college and while there I joined a fraternity. I watched my brothers swill a lot of booze and went to spring break with them once. There were also more than a few dope smokers in the chapter. EVERY one of them is now what I'd term a success, with good carrers, wives and so forth. I married a woman that drinks. I refer to her as my designated drinker. Honestly, I LIKE the effect alcohol has on her. Think about it, you'll know what I mean.



My point is, if these are gateway drugs and no intervention ever happened, then why have things worked out so well for these people? According to the propaganda that I got, they should ALL be dead or dying. I am certain becomming successful happens for the vast majority of people. I would think it abnormal to not experiment, and not wonder about the big deal of booze and dope.



Clay

[ This Message was edited by: ClayL on 2002-05-25 13:23 ]

[Antigen]

Here's what happened in DC. An activist group, probably MPP, got a MMJ init on the ballot. Exit polling indicated a 60%+ approval. But, in the days before the election, Rep. Bob Bar successfully pushed a budget amendment prohibiting the spending of federal money to soften drug laws. Therefore, those votes could not be counted till a year or so later when the provision expired. Now DC has another initiative in the works.



Here's some more info on that.

MAPINC news archive



Why are politicians afraid to appear 'soft on drug (users)? It has nothing do do with the sentiments of the voters. The voters overwhelmingly approve MMJ and industrial hemp inits whenever they make the ballot.

The politicians aren't scared of the voters. They don't give a SHIT about the voters. The politicians are afraid that Melvin Sembler will cast a dark look their way and, suddenly, all their campaign finance will evaporate like a mist in the night while Betty and Calvina go about digging up dirt on the guy to feed to their media toadies.



But that's changing. Look at Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico. Hell, Bob Wise, Governor of WV just signed into law a bill FROM THE LEGISLATURE in his state legalizing industrial hemp on the state level.



The war's almost over.







[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2002-05-25 15:04 ]

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the real story on DC.  I do not understand one thing, though: why would it be "spending federal money to soften drug laws" if this is in DC?  Oh, I guess if it is a federal district...  But can Bob Bar's amendment possibly be constitutional?  

Oh, and another thing, from Clay's post -- wasn't DC a district in it's own right, not exactly a state, but not under federal control until the feds took over at some point in the 90s?

That is very good news about WV legalizing industrial hemp.  For one thing it is absurdly ridiculous for anyone to be concerned about hemp agriculture since it is not smokable marijuana.  But more important, I can't wait to see WV find another industry to replace mining.  Current mining practices are absolutely devastating.  They are blowing the tops off their beautiful mountains.

[kaydeejaded]

I really think it is just ignorance when it comes to the hemp issue. They probably do think it is big bushy dank bud filled plants with a little hemp to use for rope. I wish!!!! Shit I am moving to a hemp farm tomorrow if that is the case. People are ignorant. I think that it used to be illegal to NOT grow hemp. Is that true or did I make it up? :grin:

[Anonymous]

Hemp Hemp Hooray!  :grin:

[Antigen]

On 2002-05-29 10:25:00, kaydeejaded wrote:
I really think it is just ignorance when it comes to the hemp issue. They probably do think it is big bushy dank bud filled plants with a little hemp to use for rope. I wish!!!! Shit I am moving to a hemp farm tomorrow if that is the case. People are ignorant. I think that it used to be illegal to NOT grow hemp. Is that true or did I make it up? :grin:

The argument is that, if farmers are allowed to grow waving fields of hemp, cops are too stupid to tell those (6' tall, stalky, dense plantings) plantings from the (2' - 4' high, bushy, couple of feet per plant) botanical varieties. Now, right away, botanica variety affecianados and experienced growers pointed out that it wouldn't matter anyway. Due to cross-pollination, by the end of the growing season the growers would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between their botanical crops and rope anyway. But, in the age of sound bytes, it hasn't phased them a bit. They're also ignoring the cops on the street, who more and more think it's plain stupid to go around chasing pot smokers when there are unsolved murders to work on and child molesters on the loose.

I do believe the war's almost over.

Re: the constitutionality of the Barr Amendment, I know it's not constitutional. And I know that's been argued on the floor of Congress, maybe in court. It has been overturned, but I'm not sure if it just died of old age (sunset provision) or if it was officially squashed by the judiciary. Details, details! Wouldn't matter to Barr anyway, he's still at it.

Re: the federal money, it was a federal election and it costs some (small) amount of money to count and then to certify any vote, never mind printing the ballots and qualifying inits and candidates to begin with. This was also, very obviously, a fallacious use of technical rules.

But we're beginning to see some responsible, even heroic support from the media. And I think that might be all the white hats in every government agency and branch--from the judiciary to the cop on the beat... eaven DEA and FBI--are waiting for. Lets do all we CAN to give them the support they need to purge the system of the wackos who still support this insane war.

[groovy1634]

im thinking theres always going to be a place like straight, but it will have many different names...i personally did not get physically hurt there (except a few flying plastic blue chairs), but i saw those who did, not to mention the mental torture i went through, when i walked, i still had about a year of therapy just to get over straight...makes no sense to me
lisa
dallas 91'