Sunday, December 14, 2008

I wuz robbed! My opponent should never have come up with Qxe7+ unless he was on steroids or pot or something Via RoguePundit comes this news Grandmaster Vassily Ivanchuk refused to submit a urine sample for a drug test at the Chess Olympiad in Dresden and is now considered guilty of doping. The world of chess is outraged that he could face a two-year ban. Good for Vassily for refusing to submit to such an outrageous requirement. I've always felt that the World Chess Federation is a useless bunch of twits for instituting a drug testing regime in the first place. Theirs was a pathetic attempt to suck up to the IOC in the stupid desire to make chess an olympic "sport." Drug testing is a stupid idea to begin with. But to take it to the level of testing chess players and competitive frisbee tossers or to attempt to deny a medal to a snowboarder for testing positive for marijuana -- these are examples of rank stupidity that exceed credulity. We've got to reverse this moronic idea that the content of our urine is anybody else's business (except our own doctor, at our own choice). 4:21:01 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Californians fail to respond to an active coup d'etat attempt Alex at Drug Law Blog highlights an ongoing problem in California: the active subversion of law and the will of the people by state law enforcement. We've often wondered and complained about law enforcement in California cooperating with federal authorities in their busts of medical marijuana operations. After all, the courts have said that, while the supremacy clause makes state law subservient to federal law when in conflict, it is not the state's job to enforce federal law. And the courts have shown that federal law does not prevent the states from implementing and enforcing a medical marijuana program. When law enforcement in California takes their oath of office, they pledge to uphold the Constitution of the State of California. Violation of that oath is reason for terminating their jobs. Period. So how do you explain this letter from 2006, in which the California Police Chiefs Association actively entreat the DEA to assist them in arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana participants? What the California Police Chiefs Association is requesting is that DEA become more actively involved in working with local law enforcemcnt to close these distribution centers, seize their profits and all marijuana which might be located and to take thcse cases into the federal judicial system. We understand this is an issue of priorities with DEA, but it is the feeling of the California PoIice Chiefs Association, and our members, that a concentrated effort sustained over a period of time would send a strong message to local and county government that "medical marijuana" is not allowed and that those who profit from the sales and distribution of marijuana under the guise of "medicine" will face the consequences. Why does the California Police Chiefs Association continue to exist? Why hasn't there been an investigation to determine what members were involved in this active attempt to overthrow the lawful government of California, and then to terminate and prosecute those responsible? I never realized that Californians were doormats. 3:07:48 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []