You know, I'm in favor of *one* strike--if the law turns out to be
unconstitutional, all those who voted for it are found guilty of
violation of their oaths of office, summarily convicted, and barred from
ever holding public office and voting (and g*ns). Hmm, maybe the first
offense just loses you the job. And overturns any votes you cast after
that.
Seems fair to me.
Ramez Naam wrote:
>
> 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 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:05 MDT