drug_policy/wp.tokers.quiz.html

From our drug policy file archives. For educational purposes only, to inform the debate about drug policy. Some of the activities discussed here may be illegal, dangerous, stupid, or more than one of the above. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)

Lair of the infamous tms: Drug Policy, wp.tokers.quiz

Article 2925 of talk.politics.drugs: Xref: wam.umd.edu alt.drugs:17764 talk.politics.drugs:2925 Path: wam.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!purdue!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu! zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken! lll-crg.llnl.gov From: booloo@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs Subject: Pot Quiz for Justice Wannabes Message-ID: <103046@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Date: 30 Jul 91 16:24:11 GMT Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV Followup-To: alt.drugs Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lines: 74 One Toke Under the Line: Pot Quiz for Justice Wannabes by Richard Leiby, Washington Post Staff Writer So apparently it's okay to have smoked a little dope. Provided, of course, that you were still in college, *experimenting*, because it was the '60's then and people did nutty things. Like wearing sunglasses at night, which seemed cool at the time, but was stupid, really. That's how the White House officially distinguishes Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas from Douglas Ginsburg, whose nomination crashed and burned a few years back when it was disclosed that he had indulged in reefer into his thirties. We asked the White House yesterday to spell out any of the president's additional criteria pertaining to a marijuana-use statute of limitations in judicial appointments. A spokesman informed us that there were none. This made us suspect duplicity; we suspect the nominate/don't nominate formula falls into the same gray zone as highway speed limits: Posted at 55, but you're safe at 62, right? Surely other factors apply. Your *reason* for smoking. How *much* you smoked. How *long* you smoked. How *small* a roach you could hold. But the White House stonewalled. It falls to us, then, to figure out the formula to determine the Thomas Standard vs. the Ginsberg Standard. Clip and save, in case your name is ever put in nomination for an appointment to the US Supreme Court. Low score is best. If you ever smoked marijuana, start with 10 points. 1. How often did you use it? (a) Once, and only because of unbearable peer pressure, and you didn't actually inhale. (Subtract 3) (b) Once, and you didn't like it. (-2) (c) Once, and you liked it but threw up. (-1) (d) You own a nitrogen-cooled, nine-hose Turkish hookah. (Add 10) 2. Regarding the credibility of your denial, describe your current physical appearance: (a) Jut-jawed Senatorial. (-2) (b) Bespectacled, Tweedy Professorial. (-1) (c) Sonny Bono/Cher. (+2) (d) Deadhead/Dreadlocks. (+10) 3. Length of time since you last smoked: (a) More than 10 years ago. (-1) (b) Three to 10 years. (+5) (c) Three years or less. (+20) (d) Currently high. (+50) 4. Stated judicial philosophy on marijuana: (a) Unalterable opposition to legalization. (-1) (b) Life imprisonment for dealers. (-5) (c) Life imprisonment for manufacturers of "bongs." (-10) (d) "Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope." (+5) 5. Degree of temptation you were exposed to: (a) You were in Vietnam. (-10) (b) Your girlfriend/boyfriend had a waterbed and a black light. (-5) (c) You lived in a commune with Wavy Gravy. (+10) (d) You needed marijuana to help come down from acid. (+20) 6. Your degree of remorse: (a) The Thomas Concession: "I express regret." (-2) (b) The Ginsburg Principle: "It was a mistake." (-5) (c) The Barry Standard: "The bitch set me up." (+20) Scoring: 0 or less: Justice. 1 or more: No justice. --- Mark Boolootian booloo@lll-crg.llnl.gov +1 415-423-1948

To Drug Policy

Tom Swiss / tms@infamous.net

unreasonable.org

drug_policy/wp.tokers.quiz.html