letters to the editor
Submit a Letter
sports & rec.
spring break deals
Work @ The Auburn Plainsman
« wm97 wrote on Wednesday, Jan 22 at 11:35 PM »
The question of what to do about drugs is not a new one. Over the last 100 years there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. You can find the full text of all of them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, or when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good, no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself. If you are new to the collection, start with Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm That is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written. If you only read one book on the subject, make it that one. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major reports. In 1973, President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse completed the largest study of the drug laws ever done. At the end of their study, they said the real drug problem was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of our public officials who keep spouting off with solutions but have never read the most basic research on the subject. In a perfect illustration of their point, Nixon refused to read his own commission's report. The full text can be found at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm
« wm97 wrote on Wednesday, Jan 22 at 11:34 PM »
Marijuana was outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy. The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" nonsense. Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn't going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave. The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours. Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years. If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: "What is this stuff?" It is quite apparent that Congress didn't even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening. See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm for an entertaining short history of the marijuana laws. See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm for the complete transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
« BHirsh wrote on Saturday, Jan 18 at 03:18 PM »
Why does this "news" report exist? It is a non-story, designed to raise controversy where there is none anymore. The question has been settled. In the locked cars, yes. In the common areas and buildings, no. This has been clear from the beginning, except in articles like this that pose as "clarification" of facts you have deliberately obfuscated. Feh.
« jwa4279 wrote on Saturday, Jan 18 at 04:12 AM »
It's an embarrassment to Auburn University that a spelling error on the word "counselors" appears in the Plainsman. USE SPELL CHECK if nothing else. How did this get by the editor??
« Chad_Jacobs wrote on Wednesday, Jan 15 at 04:41 PM »
It's amazing how clueless the "journalists" at the Plainsman are. Sure, publishers are creating the bundles with digital content, but they aren't forcing the teachers and/or their respective departments to use those textbooks. If professors simply decided to use textbooks that are readily available as good old fashion hard copy books, students and bookstores alike would save and make a lot more money. But seriously though, why u so mad bro?
« thomaslatham wrote on Tuesday, Dec 24 at 03:47 AM »
I still feel awful about this
« kdb4au wrote on Sunday, Dec 15 at 10:52 PM »
luvcats13: Your screen name is talking about your love of cats… nice. Btw… you are quite critical of the Plainsman's journalistic skills. Have you done any research on the Plainsman? If so you'll find out that the Plainsman has won the 2nd most Pacemakers awards (practically the national championship for collegiate papers) in the nation. Check facts, crazy cat lady.
« wrreaglegirl wrote on Sunday, Dec 15 at 10:15 PM »
Stay out of our newspaper. Nobody in Auburn cares what you think. You're trolling. Just like all red team fans you can't stand for anything good to happen on the Plains. You don't pull for Auburn ever, I don't care what you say. Nor do we pull for you...ever. You just worry about your team and leave the Auburn Tigers to us. You are trespassing here. So bugger off!! WAR EAGLE! P.S. stop invoking bear....he's dead, and he's certainly no diety that deserves to be invoked. he was only a bully and a drunk.
« ucicare wrote on Tuesday, Dec 10 at 10:45 PM »
The apology was just as weak as the article. An apology laden with excuses is no apology. Try this sample apology - Dear Faithful readers of THE PLAINSMAN: In the Thursday, Dec. 5, issue of The Plainsman, the editorial board published an editorial titled “Bammers are in a class of their own.” It was not our intention to insult the entire Alabama fanbase, although it is glaringly obvious that we did exactly that. We also succeeded in embarrassing our University, and reducing any semblance of journalistic respect we may have earned to a smoldering ruin. Our editorial was meant as a satirical piece that addressed the extremist fans we referred to as “Bammers.” We sincerely apologize that as Journalism Majors at Auburn University we should have been aware that satire does not belong in the editorial section of a newspaper. We further apologize to our parents for wasting their tuition check on beer and video games. Lastly, we apologize without excuse, period. We further vow to review our understanding of the phrase "commitment to journalistic standards of integrity", and will use the phrase appropriately in complete coherent sentence as evidence of our commitment to grow up.
« 2Wheeler wrote on Sunday, Dec 08 at 08:40 AM »
Congrats to the Auburn Tigers football team on winning the SEC Championship, now onward to Pasadena and keep the crystal in Alabama. RTR.
next 1000 results
Software Copyright © 2014
. Content Copyright © 2014 The Auburn Plainsman. Business listing data provided in part by Localeze.
This software is in a public beta.
The Auburn Plainsman - A SPIRIT THAT IS NOT AFRAID is in Auburn, AL