Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Drug War Refugees
Los Angeles Times ^ | February 2, 2003 | Eric Bailey

Posted on 02/03/2003 11:16:00 AM PST by MrLeRoy

[…] Now a new breed of American refugee has arrived, seeking asylum from a different kind of war--the fight over medical marijuana. […] The effort languished until 1988, when the chief administrative judge at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration made a startling ruling: Marijuana had a place in medicine. Judge Francis L. Young declared it unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the federal government to stand between "sufferers and the benefits of this substance."

DEA officials quickly rejected Young's ruling, and the courts backed them. […]

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cannabis; drug; drugskill; marijuana; pot; wod; wodkills; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

1 posted on 02/03/2003 11:16:01 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
Wod_list ping
2 posted on 02/03/2003 11:16:18 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Judge Francis L. Young declared it unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the federal government to stand between "sufferers and the benefits of this substance."

Unfortunately that is exactly what they do - and they very good at it.

3 posted on 02/03/2003 11:36:48 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy; Dane; Kevin Curry; Roscoe

Another related issue is the growth of voting propositions to tag marijuana as a medicine. Interestingly for the Centers for Disease Control, these ballot initiatives are springing up around liberal arts colleges. How it is that there are apparent cancer clusters near American college campuses? Should the Feds get involved in a "Clean Your Cancerous Bong Water" educational campaign?

4 posted on 02/03/2003 11:42:47 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping
5 posted on 02/03/2003 11:57:49 AM PST by jmc813 (Do tigers sleep in lily patches? Do rhinos run from thunder?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Lurkers?
6 posted on 02/03/2003 12:10:56 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Should the Feds get involved in a "Clean Your Cancerous Bong Water" educational campaign?

So long as it the the duty of the Federal Government to nanny every single person from cradle to grave, threats to individual liberties notwithstanding, I suppose they should.

7 posted on 02/03/2003 12:13:28 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Tag?
How blind to our own absurdity are we when we in the twenty first century that we must vote on the medicinal properties of a healing herb thoroughly documented throughout the ages.

How sad that an individual is imprisoned for possession of a flower from the garden of God because it may alter the thoughts in that individual in a manner deemed inappropriate by corporate pawns seeking to maintain the efficiency of their chattel.

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson, 1774.
8 posted on 02/03/2003 12:21:12 PM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
How blind to our own absurdity are we when we in the twenty first century that we must vote on the medicinal properties of a healing herb thoroughly documented throughout the ages.

How sad that an individual is imprisoned for possession of a flower from the garden of God because it may alter the thoughts in that individual in a manner deemed inappropriate by corporate pawns seeking to maintain the efficiency of their chattel.

Expect nothing less than lies, name calling, misdirections, strawman arguments, etc. etc. from the usual suspects: the FR Woddie peanut gallery brigade (CJ, Dane, KC, Roscoe, etc. etc.).

9 posted on 02/03/2003 12:35:12 PM PST by bassmaner (Let's take back the word "liberal" from the commies!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
The WODBOTS.
10 posted on 02/03/2003 12:47:31 PM PST by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
And the proven medicinal use for alcohol is what, exactly?

And for tobacco?

Considering that these both directly to far more deaths and illnesses than does marijuana, why do you protest against marijauna and not against tobacco and alcohol?

Why don't you strive to reinstate alcohol prohibition?

11 posted on 02/03/2003 12:56:05 PM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excessive legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Here's the conclusion of the article, nicely stated:

Each year in America, about 750,000 people are arrested for pot crimes. According to a 2001 federal study, marijuana is one of America's biggest cash crops, legal or illegal, fetching $10.6 billion annually on the black market. Richard Cowan, a marijuana activist who moved to Vancouver out of contempt for the U.S. drug war, says America needs to be reminded what this fight is all about.

"It isn't about being drug free," Cowan argues. "It's about being free."

Doesn't the US government have better things to do than harass peaceful people who use mj?

Walters and his ilk should save their angst for drugs that pose a greater (real) risk to public health. But it's not about public health is it? It's about power, control, and the political agendas of mindless government bureaucrats and politicians.

12 posted on 02/03/2003 1:18:02 PM PST by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian

Not where I live. No one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years. If your results are different then you have many options available to you: Change the law. Gripe about the law with a overly-dramatic flair. Move. Or stay.

13 posted on 02/03/2003 4:23:15 PM PST by Cultural Jihad (Ain't freedom grand! People have so many freewill choices they can make!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Not where I live. No one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years.
Where do you live? Your homepage doesn't state which State (US) or nation/country you're from. I'd like to look into your claim.
Without that key bit of information you can claim anything.
14 posted on 02/03/2003 4:27:48 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
California.
15 posted on 02/03/2003 4:38:17 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Not where I live. No one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years.

Prop 36 Reduces Felony Drug Possession Prison Admissions 30 Percent in 2001 while Drug Possession Arrests on Rise Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 1622 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
Arrest numbers for drug possession offenses in California are an essential element of this discussion. With the introduction of SACPA, law enforcement officials and others expressed concern that drug possession arrests as a whole would decrease. Lacking the means to put drug offenders behind bars, it was thought that police would either not respond to issues of drug misuse, or else tack on frivolous charges in order to keep individuals detained.
The most recent data from the CDC reports that this has not been the case. As seen in Figure 2, while felony drug possession admissions to California state prisons have experienced a significant decrease, total arrests for drug possession in the state continued to increase from 124,211 to 125,066 in the year 2001. Charges for violent and property crimes have increased in 2001, but not outside the trends of increased incarceration for these offenses across the state in general.

Where do you get your information from? This is information from the last two years!

16 posted on 02/03/2003 8:53:01 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
CALIFORNIA REMAINS ABOVE NATIONAL AVERAGE IN DRUG OFFENDER IMPRISONMENT, NEW STUDY SHOWS. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
San Francisco, CA: An update to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice study entitled Drug Use and Justice 2002: An Examination of California Drug Policy Enforcement reveals that California continues to lead the nation in drug offender imprisonment. The study also reveals that California counties that most vigorously pursued harsh enforcement strategies did not experience greater declines in drug use or crime.
http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/cadrug2002.pdf to "Drug Use and Justice 2002: An Examination of California Drug Policy Enforcement"
However, in the 1990s, nearly all drug arrest increases were for low level possession offenses. By 2001, half of all drug arrests were for low-level misdemeanors.
Care to modify your statment in light of these new facts?
17 posted on 02/03/2003 9:01:15 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
An interesting side not...
The recent, large increases in imprisonment for drug offenses show no discernable impact on crime rates. Rather, the pattern is a random one, with most high-incarceration counties showing no reduction in violent or property crime categories relative to low-incarceration counties.
18 posted on 02/03/2003 9:09:49 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Surprising, another gateway drug thread.
I would have thought that pro-illegal-drug threads would be rare on a conservative forum. I know they are on all the liberal sites like DU though. How is this one here?

Next thing you know some anarchist will show up to defend illegal drug use in the name of the Constitution or some such insanity.
This is just so surprising. I know these people in favor of this can't be those wacky Libertarians again can they. The one-note party of drugs. Must be the French...
19 posted on 02/03/2003 9:12:25 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Another interesting tidbit...
As in other areas of crime control, during the past 20 years California implemented an unprecedented social experiment in its attempt to suppress illicit drug use. By emphasizing law enforcement strategies based on deterrence and incapacitation theories, the state's drug-offender prison population rose from 1,778 in 1980 to 45,328 in 2000 before declining to 43,998 in 2001, after Proposition 36 took effect. However, these policies were not adopted uniformly across the state, as shown by distinct county-by-county variations.

You really need to research this stuff before you make such wild claims...

20 posted on 02/03/2003 9:14:31 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
I would have thought that pro-illegal-drug threads would be rare on a conservative forum.

Not to mention the posts ridiculing and advocating the arrest of law enforcement officers for doing their job. The pro dopers get mean when their orthodoxy is challenged in any way.

21 posted on 02/03/2003 9:15:46 PM PST by Law Abiding American People
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy; Cultural Jihad
Surprising, another gateway drug thread.
Surprise, another "show that the WODdie is wrong on his facts" thread.
CJ said..."Not where I live. No one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years."
He further stated that he lives in California.
The last few replies (16/17/20) have shown that his information was and is incorrect.
Got anything to say about that? Should he at least get his facts straight?
22 posted on 02/03/2003 9:19:26 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Law Abiding American People
The pro dopers get mean when their orthodoxy is challenged in any way.
I don't know about "pro dopers", but I get mean after months of listening to falsities and insinuations and start throwing facts up that so easily refutes mistruths.
Is that a good reason to "get mean"?
23 posted on 02/03/2003 9:23:32 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
A big bag o' Doritos is your friend.
24 posted on 02/03/2003 9:25:18 PM PST by Law Abiding American People
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Law Abiding American People
A big bag o' Doritos is your friend.
So in other words...You don't even have enough of an intellect to rationally debate the subject with me so you resort to pettiness.
Works for me, newbie.
25 posted on 02/03/2003 9:26:48 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
All I know is, the law is on my side.

Don't want to be a "refugee" from the law? Then, don't use illegal drugs.

26 posted on 02/03/2003 9:28:40 PM PST by Law Abiding American People
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Law Abiding American People
All I know is, the law is on my side.
Well, you've just proven that you really don't know too much, newbie.
27 posted on 02/03/2003 9:36:09 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Law Abiding American People
Educate thyself oh, ignorant one.
If that is what you support, then you're not saying much for yourself.
The hearings on the national marijuana prohibition lasted one hour, on each of two mornings and since the hearings were so brief I can tell you almost exactly what was said to support the national marijuana prohibition.
Snip...Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim.
Two hours, one minute and thirty-two seconds, about the same amount of time, accumatively, to debunk a whole bunch of stuff presented as fact!
28 posted on 02/03/2003 9:44:41 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
So, the law is NOT on my side? Is that what you're saying? Well, go ahead and walk into any police station in the country and fire up a doob. Go ahead, but let me know just before you do it, cause I want to watch.
29 posted on 02/03/2003 9:47:15 PM PST by Law Abiding American People
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Law Abiding American People
So, the law is NOT on my side? Is that what you're saying?
Can you understand the words coming out of my fingers?
If that is what you support, then you're not saying much for yourself.
Do I need to enunciate?
The law isn't on any "side"...
30 posted on 02/03/2003 9:52:18 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Law Abiding American People
Go ahead, but let me know just before you do it, cause I want to watch.
Voyeur! (a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous)
31 posted on 02/03/2003 9:53:57 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Well, not meaning to intrude on your latest nit-picking fight with someone else here, but since this was a thread about so-called medical marijuana, when I stated no one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years, I was reefering to marijuana, dude.
32 posted on 02/03/2003 9:57:44 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Well, not meaning to intrude on your latest nit-picking fight with someone else here, but since this was a thread about so-called medical marijuana, when I stated no one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years, I was reefering to marijuana, dude.
Ah! Well then, let me refine my search parameters, since you've redefined them, and let's see what I come up with...
I'll be back. /Arnold Schwarzenegger impression
33 posted on 02/03/2003 10:08:22 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I stated no one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years, I was reefering to marijuana, dude.

Odd...the CA AG office Bureau of Criminal Statistics lists 48,495 misdemeanor marijuana arrests in 2001 alone.

34 posted on 02/03/2003 10:12:22 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
More than 28.5 grams? No ID? Using in a car on a public road? I'm sure that among those arrested, there are zero adults who were just sitting in their homes with their lids.
35 posted on 02/03/2003 10:18:51 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Well, here ya go. That was just TOO easy!
pdf conversion (even got you a pdf converter...)
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/misc/cinc/4system.pdf
Crime in California
Prison Population 1999 Admissions December 31, 1999 to Prison
Average Percent Term
Offenses Inmates of Total Inmates (years)
Drug Offenses
Possession 19,753 12.3 7,335 2.3
Possession for Sale 12,974 8.1 4,915 3.6
Sale 6,850 4.3 1,708 4.8
Manufacturing 2,992 1.9 1,214 4.4
Other drug 948 0.6 225 3.7
Marijuana Possession 27 – 13 1.6
Marijuana Possession for Sale 936 0.6 548 2.1
Marijuana Sale 714 0. 4 295 3. 0
Other marijuana 134 0. 1 75 2. 9
Subtotals 45,328 28.3 16,328 (-)

Anything else?

36 posted on 02/03/2003 10:23:30 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
Was that from one of my links? Did I miss that?
37 posted on 02/03/2003 10:24:20 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Oops...Anything else, dude?
38 posted on 02/03/2003 10:31:13 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
2003-30=1973...
Savings in California Marijuana Law Enforcement Costs Attributable to the Moscone Act of 1976: A Summary

TABLE I
CALIFORNIA MARIJUANA ARRESTS 1972-1986*

Year Felony Misdemeanor Total
1972 73,061 3,500 76,561
1973 88,110 3,500 91,610
1974 99,597 3,500 103,097
1975 85,757 3,500 89,257
Average
1974-75
92,677 3,500 96,177
1976 19,284 34,110 53,394
1977 17,262 34,110 51,371
1978 17,397 35,424 52,821
1979 19,263 32,796 52,059
1980 20,509 38,270 58,779
1981 20,771 43,791 64,562
1982 20,737 42,904 63,641
1983 19,920 43,803 63,723
1984 21,350 42,219 63,569
1985 24,182 43,181 67,363
Average
1976-85
20,068 39,133 59,201
1986 19,938 30,105 50,043
*Data provided by Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Special Services, California Department of Justice. Misdemeanor marijuana arrest figures were not recorded by the Bureau between 1972 through 1977, and am estimated based an the averages of the three preceding years and the two following years. al. 1987).

39 posted on 02/03/2003 10:37:56 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Anything else, dude?
Care to retract your statement now or will you move the goalposts yet again?
40 posted on 02/03/2003 10:39:38 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Thanks for the stats. You backed up my claim about there being no arrests for simple possession or use. It's the rare exception which proves the general rule. It takes a Herculean task to get arrested for something like weed here in California. Hence the 27 actors who somehow managed to get arrested for possession should be looked at by Hollywood talent scouts. Now, the other stats are interesting: Sale and possession for sale (both felonies) accounted for only 1,600 arrests in a whole year, and this "other marijuana" category with 134 arrests could be smuggling, or unauthorized use of weed killers. At any rate, these numbers probably reflect the top 1 percent most irresponsible and wacked out, which we constantly hear is a very rare occurance.
41 posted on 02/03/2003 10:42:56 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/ca/casanjose.pdf
During 1999 in Santa Clara County, there were 2,480 arrest for marijuana and 3,610 arrests for other drugs.
Misdemeanor Arrests, Santa Clara County, 1999
Manslaughter-Vehicular 7 Assault and Battery 4,165
Petty Theft 4,395 Other Theft 221
Marijuana 2,480 Other Drugs 3,610
Drunk 7,693 Liquor Laws 1,006
Driving Under the Influence 7,380 TOTAL 48,958

Snip...During 1999 in Santa Clara County, there were 901 juvenile arrests for marijuana.
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests, Santa Clara County, 1999
Assault and Battery 1,416 Petty Theft 1,818
Other Theft 17 Marijuana 901
Other Drugs 72 Drunk 337
Liquor Laws 417 Driving Under the Influence 68

Now, it doesn't say "possession", so you've got an out, though you may want to look up exactly what a misdemeanor arrest consists of.
42 posted on 02/03/2003 10:52:47 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Just go to norml.org to see what any particular state laws are. As it will say, for the past 30 years, any possession or use of 28.5 grams or less has been punishable by a $100 fine, as long as the miscreant has a valid ID.
43 posted on 02/03/2003 11:26:08 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
More than 28.5 grams?
Ah! I see! You've changed the goalposts yet again.
I thought as much. Why didn't you say that from the beginning?
It started out as...No one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years. (refuted)
Then it changed to...when I stated no one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years, I was reefering to marijuana, dude. (refuted, I thought)
And then you moved in for the kill...More than 28.5 grams? (what is there to refute)
So deceptive of you, but thanks for narrowing things down. Under the strict criteria that you've given, you're right.
11357-11362.9
11357 (b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100).
Even 23222 only provides for a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100) for anyone who possesses not more than one avoirdupois ounce of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis as defined by Section 11006.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

Isn't it great that Proposition 36 and Proposition 215 were passed changing all of those laws!
Proposition 36
The new law, wich took effect July 1, 2001, creates a category of non-violent drug offenses. Simply stated, these offenses involve the possession and use of controlled substances and marijuana. It includes sections 11377, 11379, 11550, 11357 and others of the California Health and Safety Code.
What was a misdemeanor offense before Proposition 36?
That seems a little harder to find and makes your question more interesting, but I'll keep looking.

44 posted on 02/03/2003 11:52:40 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
any possession or use of 28.5 grams or less has been punishable by a $100 fine, as long as the miscreant has a valid ID.

But what if he just happened to possess a kilo (for personal medical use, of course) while walking around the park at 1:00 AM without any ID? What about that, huh?

45 posted on 02/04/2003 12:12:24 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
BWAHAHAHAHA!
BILL TO RECLASSIFY POT CRIME ADVANCES
The legislation, SB 791, would reclassify the lowest marijuana offense -- possessing an ounce or less -- from a misdemeanor to an infraction, the same level as an average traffic violation. The bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 4-0 vote and is headed for the Senate floor.
Proponents said the change more appropriately aligns the offense and its penalty. Since the Moscone Act decriminalized small-time drug offenses in 1975, those caught with an ounce or less of pot have been subject to a $100 fine and no jail time.

Oh yeah, you guys in California have been fighting such an intense WOsD since 1975! And here I thought all this time that Ohio was lax...
You're still fighting "the good fight" though, aren't you.
Votest on Marijuana and Drug Reform Issues
Marijuana Decriminalization: SB 791 by Bruce McPherson (R- Santa Cruz) would have made possession of less than one ounce an infraction instead of a misdemeanor; defeated in Assembly due to withholding of support by Democratic leadership, reluctant to support a Republican-sponsored bill.
Those Ca. Republicans rock! Why aren't you supporting them? Those waskaly Democwats.

Moscone Act in 1975. Not quite 30 years, but I'll give it to you.
If nothing else, thanks for teaching me something.

46 posted on 02/04/2003 12:19:05 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe; Cultural Jihad
But what if he just happened to possess a kilo (for personal medical use, of course) while walking around the park at 1:00 AM without any ID? What about that, huh?
Yeah, what about that, huh?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You're too funny Roscoe! No low in looking for the ridiculous?
Did you read those links from the other thread Roscoe?
47 posted on 02/04/2003 12:24:12 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
looking for the ridiculous?

Thanks to you, I never have to look far.

48 posted on 02/04/2003 12:32:34 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Thanks to you, I never have to look far.
Let me move the mirror a little bit for you there...
49 posted on 02/04/2003 12:43:27 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The whole thing Roscoe...No low in looking for the ridiculous?
Shame on you.
50 posted on 02/04/2003 12:44:54 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson