From: Ramez Naam (ramezn@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2000 - 23:55:35 MST
While I'm strongly opposed to this bill, I also find the likelihood of it
passing constitutional muster to be quite low.
Bills like this and the CDA make me yearn for a "three-strikes and you're
out" rule for legislators who sponsor or vote for patently unconstitutional
legislation.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [mailto:sentience@pobox.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 9:17 PM
> To: Extropians
> Subject: Outlawing drug speech - EEK!
>
>
> >From: "Drug Policy News Service" <dpf-mod@dpf.org>
> >To: <dpfnews@dpf.org>
> >Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 14:52:18 -0500
> >Subject: [dpfnews] ACTION ALERT-Meth Bill Outlaws Any Drug Speech
> >
> >**********************************************
> >ACTION ALERT -- Meth Bill Outlaws Any Drug Speech
> >**********************************************
> >
> >Action is urgently needed to block passage of S.486, the
> DEFEAT Meth Act.
> >In addition to containing hefty sentencing enhancements for illegal
> >production of both amphetamine and methamphetamine and significantly
> >increasing funding for law enforcement, the bills most
> threatening aspect
> >is its less publicized restrictions on drug related speech.
> >
> >The bill makes it illegal "to teach or demonstrate the
> manufacture of a
> >controlled substance, or to distribute by any means
> information pertaining
> >to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a
> controlled substance."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:34 MST