Or could it be that the state doesn't really give a curse about
our hurting ourselves

Oh, I don't know. What about all the seat belt laws and helmet laws? I think
legislators just like to legislate. It doesn't have to make sense.

(paghat) writes in article dated Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:23:54 -0800:
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Do you have a citation for this? It sounds like an urban legend to me.

Sorry Vox I don't have a citation. Maybe it is an urban legend. I vaguely
remember reading in the papers that his very first test came back positive
and he re-took it. I'm pretty sure I heard the poppy seed account here on
Usenet.

I don't know about GW, but when I was in the Army, I was specifically
warned against eating food poppy seeds because it gave a positive
on the random drug tests.

See: http://www.snopes.com/toxins/poppy.htm


I'm not questioning the fact that it may distort a drug test. I just can't
believe that the Vice President of the US is made to pee into a cup for drug
testing.

I could imagine him agreeing to pee the cup in the spirit of "To prove
it's a good thing, even I will do it. Then every damnone of you will do it
or you'e fired, & any who don't pass the test will be shot dead in the
white house rose garden."

Exactly. That was in the 1980s when drug testing was new and controversial,
and conservative politicians were trying to prove that it didn't violate
anybody's civil liberties by doing it themselves. The VP was actually the
only person in the white house *not* in danger of being fired if he refused
Reagan's order.

What appears to be a fact found in Bush's very strange non-service service
record in the Texas Air National Guard was his suspension for refusal to

To be clear, the poppy seed anecdote is about W's father.

-- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Do you have a citation for this? It sounds like an urban legend to
me.


I don't know about GW, but when I was in the Army, I was specifically
warned against eating food poppy seeds because it gave a positive
on the random drug tests.

See: http://www.snopes.com/toxins/poppy.htm


I'm not questioning the fact that it may distort a drug test. I just
can't
believe that the Vice President of the US is made to pee into a cup for
drug
testing.

I could imagine him agreeing to pee the cup in the spirit of "To prove
it's a good thing, even I will do it. Then every damnone of you will do it
or you'e fired, & any who don't pass the test will be shot dead in the
white house rose garden."

What appears to be a fact found in Bush's very strange non-service service
record in the Texas Air National Guard was his suspension for refusal to
take a mandatory drug test -- this at a time when he was known to be a
raging alcoholic, which frequently goes hand in hand with other
recreational drug abuses, so it's easy to imagine why he'd prefer
suspension over getting tested. Suspending him was hardly punishment from
his point of view, since he almost never showed up for duty anyway.

See text of London Times artical "Bush Dodged Drug Test"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...00/6/17/220615

I suspect he could pass it now, not that I think his synpses are all
hooked up right from his past substance abuses. I mean, either he's lost a
few too many connecting threads in the old noodle, or he's just plane
evil.

-paghat the ratgirl

He's just plane evil.

While I appreciate that the reading and interpretation of laws can be
very difficult, and I don't have a lot of time to try to sort this all
out for Paghat, I felt that I should post a short message here stating
that there is no question that Papaver somniferum is *technically*
illegal in the U.S.

The Opium Poppy - Papaver somniferum (both terms are used in the list
of schedules) are Schedule II in the United States. Schedule II
substances are illegal to buy or possess without a valid prescription,
and are illegal to sell without a DEA license (eg. both opium and
cocaine are schedule II). There are also significant DEA controls on
how Schedule II materials are produced and stored.

But laws are only as strong as enforcement. In the U.S., the
ornamental cultivation of P. somniferum is just about never
prosecuted. Now we could argue about the definition of "illegal" if
you'd like. It's an interesting question. If a law is never
enforced, is it still a law? But that's just semantics.

A few more comments below...


(paghat) wrote in message

But in the Act itself, the
phrase "except the seeds" occurs only in a glossary of the meaning of
terms used in the 1996 Act (and in other drug-related Acts of congress),
stating only that when the term "opium poppy" is used, they mean all parts
of P. smoniferum "except the seeds." It is not a legal statement, it is a
term definition.

Legal statements are all about definitions of terms. How terms used
in the law are officially and legally defined...defines the law.


http://www.erowid.org/plants/poppy/poppy_law.shtml
Internet sellers of opium poppy seeds are very careful to add legal
disclaimers, since all parts of the plants - except the seeds - are listed
as a controlled substance.

Again, you get yourself in trouble relying on secondary sources. The five
words this page quotes from the 1996 Act ("opium poppies and opium straw")
is from Schedule II of the Controlled Substance Act, is from a list that
includes material that have merely a "potential for abuse." Schedule I
lists what is actually illegal, & does not include opium poppies.

This is a big misunderstanding of the Scheduling system. Each
Schedule has it's own restrictions and requirements associated with
it. Schedule I substances are unique in that they are unable to be
prescribed by a doctor. But it's still illegal to possess a Schedule
II substance without a prescription. The best illustration of this is
the fact that both Cocaine and Opium are Schedule II.

Your unfortunate "citation" here follows up their misreading of the Act
with an admission of confusion: "There is some confusion in the law,
however, because opium-producing poppies are widely grown around the US
and Canada and the opium poppy seeds are omnipresent in cooking, breads,
and deserts." There is in realitiy no confusion in the law, only in people
who misunderstand the law, & your citation's explanation for this
non-existant contradiction is that "the law is schizophrenic" -- which is
laughable, because the law is coherent even if too complicated for the
stoner who wrote this page to remember one paragraph to the next.

Heh. If you think that laws are coherent...you clearly haven't read
them very closely. It is *common* for laws to conflict and/or for
laws to be interpreted or enforced differently by different
jurisdictions or at different times.

In describing laws, it is important to cite the text of the law, the
various interpretations of the law, and the actual manner in which the
laws are enforced. This gives a more complete picture of the status
of any given law.


Yet the final assessment on the page you liked is this: "If poppies are
grown as sources for opiates, there is no question that it violates the
CSA." That at least is correct. They are not otherwise illegal.

The laws against them are not generally otherwise enforced. That does
not mean they are not illegal.


If you read the Controlled Substance Act, it makes no differentiation as to
the purpose for growing the plants - they are simply illegal to grow in
this country.

Yes it does differentiate.

Please cite the passage of the CSA where it differentiates between
different purposes for growing Papaver somniferum. If such a passage
exists, I'd very much like to read it.


The Controlled Substance Act is THE relevant resource. Here it is for
those who want to go right to the source skipping amateur garden
web-essays & stoner assertions or even my own understanding of the Act:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/csa.htm

Important to note that the controlled substance act is amended
regularly. New substances are added and wordings and definitions are
changed. Even the version you point out is not current. It is the
schedules (I-V) that define what is currently illegal.


Nowhere in Schedual I is the plant OR the seeds stated to be illegal.

Again, just to be clear...plants and chemicals which are in Schedule
II - V are also illegal to possess without a precription. Penalties
vary, depending on the schedule and the quantity possessed...but they
can still be very much illegal to possess.

You can visit the DEA's list of scheduled substances at:
http://www.dea.gov/pubs/scheduling.html

Search for "poppy" and you'll see the entry for "Opium Poppy - Papaver
somniferum".

And, while I'm mostly going to ignore the insulting comments about
those at Erowid.org being stoners and pro-drug...please understand
that we are serious about our work, dedicated to providing accurate
information, and are certainly not "stoners".

peace,
fire

In article ,
paghat wrote:

What appears to be a fact found in Bush's very strange non-service service
record in the Texas Air National Guard was his suspension for refusal to
take a mandatory drug test..


No, it "appears to be" bullshit propaganda by people who get their
jollies out of the politics of personal destruction.



See text of London Times artical "Bush Dodged Drug Test"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...00/6/17/220615



Quite the spin. There is no evidence whatsoever that he missed
the physical exam because of the drug test, or in fact that
he failed to take any required exam. Having been in the
Army for 8 years, having dodged a couple of such exams
myself and knowing a zillion other people who also did, I know
there are a number of reasons why people avoid these things.
*I* avoided the exam once or twice because I always had trouble
making my height/weight requirement, and managed to get assigned
elsewhere on a couple of time I needed another week or so to
drop those last couple of pounds. I know a number of pilots
who had temporary health issues (such as getting blood pressure
under control) that would have grounded them had they been examined
who avoided the exam until the issues were resolved.

And, of course, the accusation itself is false. Records that
have been released by the Administration include his medical
records, which include the drug tests.

Unlike Kerry, of course, who has refused to release his medical
records. But then, this kind of blatant attack based on innuendo
and lie is only appropriate when attacking Bush, no? It would be
*wrong* to infer anything from Kerry's reticence, right?

billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
paghat wrote:

What appears to be a fact found in Bush's very strange non-service
service
record in the Texas Air National Guard was his suspension for refusal to
take a mandatory drug test..


No, it "appears to be" bullshit propaganda by people who get their
jollies out of the politics of personal destruction.



Had it been anyone else, refusing to take a physical would have been an act
of self destruction. Now we are all paying the price for letting a spoiled
druggy turned born again fanatic lead into the darkness.

In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
paghat wrote:

What appears to be a fact found in Bush's very strange non-service
service
record in the Texas Air National Guard was his suspension for refusal to
take a mandatory drug test..


No, it "appears to be" bullshit propaganda by people who get their
jollies out of the politics of personal destruction.



Had it been anyone else, refusing to take a physical would have been an act
of self destruction. Now we are all paying the price for letting a spoiled
druggy turned born again fanatic lead into the darkness.

Yep. He has admitted that even his father's advice is not wanted -- the
only other president to wage a war in that region isn't expert enough for
the little Shrub -- & the reason is because he claims he has the advice of
his "Higher Father" & does not need to listen to ANYone else. This shows
him to be a complete lunatic who thinks he's Jesus talking back to that
mere mortal Joseph. If God doesn't speak to him, he ain't listening to no
one else!

"Who cares what YOU think."
-Shrubby, 4 July 2001

"They misunderestimated me."
-George Dumbya, 6 november 2000

Here's a lovely page of Shrub facts:
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."
-Queen George II, 30 january 2000

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

(Bill Oliver) wrote in
:

In article ,
paghat wrote:

What appears to be a fact found in Bush's very strange non-service
service record in the Texas Air National Guard was his suspension for
refusal to take a mandatory drug test..

No, it "appears to be" bullshit propaganda by people who get their
jollies out of the politics of personal destruction.

Ha that's a good one. Kenneth Starr has faded from memory, so the
"politics of personal destruction" is now taboo.

See text of London Times artical "Bush Dodged Drug Test"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...00/6/17/220615

Quite the spin. There is no evidence whatsoever that he missed
the physical exam because of the drug test, or in fact that
he failed to take any required exam. Having been in the

There IS evidence that he skipped the drug test BECAUSE of the exam.
Unfortunately, it's buried with a bunch of WMDs in the Iraqi desert.

But as far as failing to take ANY required exam, what part of "suspended
from flying for failing to take a required flight physical" or "As he was
not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight exam" is
unclear? If he knew he wasn't going to be flying, why would he care if
he failed the physical or not? If all he was doing in the Alabama Air
National Guard was yutzing around reading manuals, you'd think he'd find
the time to show up for a physical so that the government would know if
he were ready in the unlikely event that he'd be called upon to serve.
Why didn't he fulfill his duty, take the required physical and be done
with it? Not a very good soldier, huh? Makes for an even better
Commander-in-Chief. Supposedly he managed to show up for the dentist at
least, which is good when your only duties are smiling for photo-ops
which are strangely missing.

As you are clearly looking for some "spin" to discredit, here is the TRUE
interpretation of the facts:
Instead fulfilling his commitments to protect the nation, Bush choose to
skip his physical because he knew full well the only thing he'd ever be
guarding was a box of paper clips. As a bonus, he would not have worry
about having his coke habit exposed by the new drug tests that his
buddies slyly warned him about.

Army for 8 years, having dodged a couple of such exams
myself and knowing a zillion other people who also did, I know
there are a number of reasons why people avoid these things.
*I* avoided the exam once or twice because I always had trouble
making my height/weight requirement, and managed to get assigned
elsewhere on a couple of time I needed another week or so to
drop those last couple of pounds. I know a number of pilots
who had temporary health issues (such as getting blood pressure
under control) that would have grounded them had they been examined
who avoided the exam until the issues were resolved.

It's so good to know that military is operating such a tight ship.
Luckily, you guys are not actually in the business of defending anything
(except for war industry profit margins), in spite of the good intentions
of honest soldiers, otherwise we might be worried. Nevertheless, it
shouldn't be a problem. I know some airline pilots who skip their
mandatory vision tests, and ship captains who skip their sobriety tests
until they can clear things up. The important thing is to have a clean
record, (especially in case daddy is in position to buy a presidency for
you some day).

And, of course, the accusation itself is false. Records that
have been released by the Administration include his medical

Yeah, selected records from a selected time frame, not to be removed from
a specific room in a specific building.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...texas.records/

records, which include the drug tests.

Obviously not the ones he skipped or shredded.

Unlike Kerry, of course, who has refused to release his medical
records. But then, this kind of blatant attack based on innuendo
and lie is only appropriate when attacking Bush, no? It would be
*wrong* to infer anything from Kerry's reticence, right?

And what exactly would releasing Kerry's personal medical files prove?
Does his family have a history of drug abuse, too?

But anyway:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...s/2004/04/21/k
erry_to_release_records?pg=2

Enjoy looking for jollies.

In article , Ann
wrote:

"Pam - gardengal" expounded:

If you read the Controlled Substance Act, it makes no differentiation as to
the purpose for growing the plants - they are simply illegal to grow in this
country. Obviously, DEA and other law enforcement agencies have other fish
to fry rather than SWAT-teaming down on the hobby gardener and as I clearly
stated previously, someone somewhere is growing them commercially for seed
production, if for nothing else. Nonetheless, growing the plant is illegal.
Unless you care to reinterpret the law.

Yes, they are illegal to grow around here, a few years back there was
quite a story in the local paper about the police raiding peoples'
gardens (one woman over in Scituate was actually arrested, at 86 years
old, and I have her plants growing in my yard). I think it was an
overzealous sherriff or something who decided to come down hard on all
us opium-growing gardeners ;-. Didn't get anywhere, the courts threw
out the cases, and they've left us alone since then. But rest
assured, it is illegal to grow opium poppies, they posted the
applicable laws and I have the clippings around here, somewhere.

Please find the clipping quick! And where exactly is "around here"? If you
live on Malta, yep, they're illegal even as garden ornmentals!

US FEDERAL law makes it legal to rip up gardens in this manner on the
mere suspicion of illegal intent, but without proof of illegal intent,
there are no actual cases that can ever come to court; & local police
wasting enforcement time & money harrassing people for legal plants would
probably cause a few heads to roll, & it wouldn't be any gardener's head.

What you describe is perfectly plausible by the existing federal law.
Over-enthusiastic law enforcement is backed up by a law that permits such
enthusiasiam on the basis of suspicions alone, & suspicion is a hard thing
to quantify since it's in the mind of the enforcer. But no actual cases
can result for the courtroom in the absence of misuse, for no law is
broken. If it were just generally illegal to grow them, rest assured, it
wouldn've gotten somewhere.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
paghat wrote:

What appears to be a fact found in Bush's very strange non-service
service
record in the Texas Air National Guard was his suspension for refusal
to
take a mandatory drug test..


No, it "appears to be" bullshit propaganda by people who get their
jollies out of the politics of personal destruction.



Had it been anyone else, refusing to take a physical would have been an
act
of self destruction. Now we are all paying the price for letting a
spoiled
druggy turned born again fanatic lead into the darkness.

Yep. He has admitted that even his father's advice is not wanted -- the
only other president to wage a war in that region isn't expert enough for
the little Shrub -- & the reason is because he claims he has the advice of
his "Higher Father" & does not need to listen to ANYone else. This shows
him to be a complete lunatic who thinks he's Jesus talking back to that
mere mortal Joseph. If God doesn't speak to him, he ain't listening to no
one else!

I find it disturbing that George Bush's god and Dick Cheney are virtually
indistinguishable.