Just Say Now

Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake.com and the national organization Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) have launched a new project called Just Say Now, focused on supporting marijuana law reform around the country, particularly in California where voters will be voting on making it the first state to allow legal sales for non-medical use.

The effort includes an impressive Advisory Board, including former Reagan Administration attorney Bruce Fein, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper, former Baltimore anti-narcotics officer Neill Franklin, and University of Vermont College of Medicine professor Dr. Joe McSherry. The organization is quickly becoming a presence within the national media, something that previous campaigns of this nature have never had the connections or resources to accomplish.

I’m often challenged in the comment threads of my posts about why I put so much emphasis on this issue. People often dismiss it as a fringe cause that doesn’t matter. And even worse, they assume that my advocacy for the issue is rooted merely in a desire to buy pot. The latter accusation is the most ridiculous and insulting considering that not only have I had no desire to buy pot since I became a father last year, but even if I did, the current prohibition doesn’t prevent me from buying it. It only forces me to buy it from a person who’s willing to break the law to do so. And there’s no shortage of those people here – or in any other American city. People in this country who want to buy pot can already buy pot.

The reason that former government attorneys and police chiefs are going on TV right now in an effort to end marijuana prohibition is because the issue has become important, even if many of us don’t recognize its importance.

Friday night, I was watching the NBC Nightly News and they reported on the violence in Mexico, where drug cartels are now using car bombs as a way to protect their profits. But in that entire report, it was never explained to the viewer why there’s so much violence. The connection between the billions of dollars in marijuana profits and the cartel’s military and operational superiority was never made. There was no mention of Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s call to have a debate about drug legalization. The most dire impact of our marijuana laws – the deaths of tens of thousands of people south of the border – is effectively hidden from the average viewer by the inability of our traditional news outlets to provide context for the stories they report on.

America’s brief experiment with alcohol prohibition came to a crashing halt after only a decade. By the end of the 1920s, with organized crime making astronomical profits and wielding enormous power over major cities, few would have argued that the issue of alcohol prohibition had no impact. But with marijuana prohibition, much of the impact has been outside of the U.S., making it easier to pretend that the dynamics aren’t the same and the impact isn’t as severe.

The violence and chaos in Mexico alone is a sufficient reason to regard marijuana prohibition as an important issue that needs to be discussed and dealt with, but that’s only part of the overall impact that this insane policy has had. The economic impact is also wide-ranging and difficult to quantify. The enforcement of marijuana laws runs into the billions of dollars per year – and does absolutely nothing to impact the willingness or the ability of Americans to buy marijuana.

And beyond the massive cost of enforcement, arrests, and incarceration for marijuana offenses, the effect on the economy of having a legal and regulated market for the drug – similar to alcohol, would be substantial. Not only could you tax it, but taking the control of the industry away from the cartels and handing it over to organizations who can compete and win in a well-regulated environment is a tremendous way to create new jobs all over the country. Think about alcohol, and the amount of people that are employed, from truck drivers to bartenders to brewery workers. Granted, more people use alcohol than marijuana, but it’s still a drug enjoyed by over 20 million Americans.

The reality is that no one knows the exact amount that marijuana prohibition costs us. Beyond the obvious things that I’ve already mentioned, it’s difficult to measure how much it affects us when police officers across the country bust into homes with guns blazing in the name of stopping the “evil weed”. It’s difficult to measure the impact it has when thousands upon thousands of promising young college students are arrested and forced to carry a criminal record that makes it impossible for them to get further along in their studies – or to step into certain jobs. It’s difficult to measure how much safer we’d all be if police officers dedicated to marijuana law enforcement were focused on far more threatening things like identity theft or child pornography. It’s difficult to measure the damage being done to the environment by having marijuana supplies grown clandestinely in national forests. And it’s difficult to measure how much the prohibition-fueled crisis in Mexico impacts the willingness of those living there to buck our immigration laws and cross the border seeking out work.

One of the most ingrained myths of our nearly 75 year war on marijuana (it was made illegal at the federal level in 1937) is that keeping it illegal for adults is the most effective way to keep it away from children. Anyone arguing in favor of removing the criminal penalties for marijuana will inevitably be accused to putting our young people at risk. And for years, that emotional argument often trumped any attempt at reason. Having been a child in the “Just Say No” era, however, it’s hard to put into words how incredibly flawed that belief is. Not only did marijuana prohibition make it easier for young people to get their hands on marijuana, but the overwrought hysteria over the dangers of marijuana actually reduced the credibility of those warning us about far more dangerous drugs.

Today, I find myself with a child of my own, and with as strong a desire as any parent to keep my child from being exposed to potentially addictive substances (whether its alcohol or pot) before he’s old enough to understand the responsibility of being an adult. But unlike my parents’ generation, I have no illusions about what’s the most effective method for doing so. The “Just Say No” era believed that government-mandated abstinence by adults was the most effective way. Instead, that merely handed over the distribution to people who had minimal interest in the welfare of young people. It had the opposite of its intended effect, moving sales of marijuana away from a regulated environment where a young person could be prevented from buying it to locations where they couldn’t – and where young people themselves often became part of the distribution chain. If there’s one purely selfish reason I have for my advocacy on this issue, it’s precisely that. I don’t want the schoolyard to still be the local drug store when my son goes to school.

Finally, we often toss around the words “freedom” and “liberty” as we discuss politics and demand things be done accordingly. People clearly have their own notions of what those two words mean, but I find it very difficult to define them in any way that doesn’t boil down to a belief that government should not exist to protect us – as adults – from our own moral choices. Marijuana prohibition has long been premised on the idea that it’s necessary for our own well-being, the well-being of our children, and the well-being of our nation as a whole, to do exactly that. And after all of these years, it should be painfully obvious that this premise is tragically flawed. No one’s well-being is served by this policy. It has left in its wake an enormous path of misery, failure, and destruction, and the only sane response at this point is to speak up and demand that it ends.

Just Say Now.

UPDATE: Philip Smith writes about the monumental waste of resources that has become a yearly ritual in California.

Comments

  1. 1

    Zotz sez: Puddybud is just another word for arschloch spews:

    This is a hell of a post, Lee. You’re speaking my mind, especially the why it’s important part.

    Just Say Now: A couple hundred k$ and some better coordination up front and it coulda been us.

  2. 2

    Deathfrogg spews:

    Until you take the profit motive out of incarceration and enforcement, there will never be an and to prohibition. The largest lobbyists for continuing prohibition of marijuana are the private prison industry, the synthetic fiber industry the liquor and spirits industry and the pulp/paper industry. They continue to sponsor hugely expensive propaganda campaigns in the public schools and the corporate media to continue and even increase existing penalties for even simple possession. Prohibition is hugely profitable for these companies.

    While everyone in theory is subject to the same penalties under the law, blacks and hispanics continue to be subjected to the vast majority of criminal prosecutions and incarcerative sentences for possession of even minor amounts. This is not accidental. Prosecuting attorneys, police officers and their public displays are played out for their theater value more than anything else. It gives the blue-haired old John Bircher types the incentives to continue to vote for the most vehemently anti-drug candidates. It is easily exploited for its propaganda value in political campaigns and the public displays that go along with them.

    They can call themselves “heroes” while making sure that entire generations of young people are forever prohibited from participating in government and other public services, as well as prevented from entering universities, the military and higher level private sector jobs based on their convictions alone.

    Blacks and Hispanics are convicted of drug-related felonies at a rate of almost 7 times that of white folks, even though the actual usage rates are similiar across the entire spectrum of race and ancestral heritages. Enforcement efforts against drugs are more specifically directed against minorities and poor folks, while leaving the white majority and upper middle classes alone.

    And if you’re super rich, you can do anything you want to, as long as it stays out of the tabloids, and even then, the chances are almost nil you will receive a felony level conviction.

    Free country, my ass.

  3. 3

    CC "Bud" Baxter spews:

    You didn’t even mention the very real medical benefits of this naturally growing plant. Pain relief. Sleeping aid. Anti depressant. It helps with many different medical conditions, all without hangovers or physical addiction.

    The main legal drugs — alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs — have all contributed to deaths of many people in my life. People dying prematurely from cannabis, not a one. On top of everything else, it is basically non-toxic, especially if do other than smoking it.

  4. 5

    Bluecollar Libertarian spews:

    re #2 Deathfrogg I happen to be very much for full legalization but I have to ask one question. You write; “The largest lobbyists for continuing prohibition of marijuana are the private prison industry, the synthetic fiber industry the liquor and spirits industry and the pulp/paper industry.” Do you have any records to support this statement? I know that in some case law enforcement and the prison guards lobbies have actively worked to support prohibition but what about these groups you mention ?
    Thank you,
    Bc L

  5. 6

    proud leftist spews:

    Lee,
    I’m totally with you, even though I haven’t taken a drag since–about 1989. I tried and tried to give it a chance. I didn’t much like the stuff, but I believe it’s harmless. It causes far less harm than alcohol. I’m pretty sure of that. MJ most certainly should not be illegal.

  6. 7

    worf spews:

    I read somewhere that welfare reform was WAY more popular than legalization on some government survey. Where was that…

  7. 8

    Mark1 spews:

    @3 Bud farts:
    ‘You didn’t even mention the very real medical benefits of this naturally growing plant.’

    Cocaine comes from a natural plant also; do you want to legalize that as well? Give it to your kids? See people using it in public? You have a headache? Snort a line?

    Give me a fucking break asshole.

  8. 9

    Bluecollar Libertarian spews:

    re # 8 it used to be legal. One of the scare tactics behind cocaine was that white women would be graving sex with black men. I can probably get the quotes from the testimony before Congress which is behind me on the bookshelf.

    The derivatives of the plant are in a lot of medical products. Just check out those labels.

  9. 10

    cracked spews:

    I was a little ambivalent about legalization before I had a kid. After my son being in middle school where marijuana was readily available and now high school, I now know that whether a kid starts smoking dope or not has little to do with whether it is illegal or not. My son has stayed away from it for his own reasons and with some of our influence, but he is friends with kids who smoke and knows many many more others who do.

    I would love to get the criminal illegal drug business out of our schools and make the underage smokers have to work a little to get their supply.

  10. 11

    SJ spews:

    @8 Mark1 Coke CAN Kill

    Actually in moderate doses cocaine is not very different from a lot of drigs that ARE legal .. eg coffee.

    The real concern with cocai9ne is that it can easily be abused and can kill, That is not true for MJ.

    In a rational scale of safety MJ would look a lot like chocolate (actually chocolate has shared properties with MJ).

    Actually, if I had my druthers, rather than MJ ( a likely carcinogen), we would legalize its active ingredients and make them available in safe forms.

  11. 12

    SJ spews:

    @7 Worf van Klingon

    Take a look at the current poll. Number one now, using Lee (and their) goofy way of county votes is one form of welfare reform .. not providing state services to illegals.

    Irrational? Yes .. fanatics get that way.

  12. 13

    Steve spews:

    “Actually, if I had my druthers, rather than MJ ( a likely carcinogen), we would legalize its active ingredients and make them available in safe forms.”

    “The real concern with cocai9ne is that it can easily be abused and can kill, That is not true for MJ.”

    It occurs to me that what we really need is someone to pick and choose what freedoms to dole out and take away from us. Speaking of which, do you have a similar druther about active ingrediants and safe forms that would make a bottle of 12 year-old scotch illegal?

  13. 14

    wisepunk spews:

    Cocaine comes from a natural plant also; do you want to legalize that as well?

    Therefore all wheat should be illegal, since it is possible that ergot mold is growing on it. Your minimal knowledge of natural plants makes your opinion moot. Cocaine is a chemical compound that is derived from a plant, and has a completely different effect on the human body than MJ. Kind of like how MJ is different than alcohol. But you just keep your head in the sand and those waving those broad brushstrokes.

  14. 15

    SJ spews:

    @13 Steve

    Yeh … neither scotch or MJ is itself a drug!

    FWIW, alcohal, the “drug” in scotch, IS illegal in its pure form and there are strict regulations about sale of it more enriched forms. Moreover, some closely related “drugs” .. alcohols with carbon strings other than two (“C2″), are very poisonous. Still, a number of folks die each year alcohal poisoning.

    The cannabinoids in MJ are certainly less dangerous than alcohal BTW .. chocolate laso has cannabinoids. I suspect if we were to increase the cannabinoid content of “chocolate” (actually this is now legal in all states except Kansas), you and I could make a LOT money!

    My own guess is that the real public health worry with MJ is NOT cannabinoids, but carcinogenic hydrocarbons. BTW .. same is true for cigarettes. Nicotine is not a very toxic material. The real rish is in the carcinogens.

    I have always wondered why SMOKING MJ .. as opposed to eating it or drinking it .. was so popular? … My guess is that the answer is that humans like to breast feed and never quite grow out of it.

  15. 16

    SJ spews:

    #14 … wisepunk

    Good points.

    There are other differences. Alcohal is metabolized, it does not work through a receptor.

    Receptors are proteins that evolve to recognize hormones we make ourselves or chemicals that are normally found in the environment.

    Cocaine and THC both work by co-opting, binding to receptors that evolved to bind highly regulated natural hormones.

  16. 17

    Steve is sad spews:

    “I suspect if we were to increase the cannabinoid content of “chocolate””

    Hmm, another reason to give chocolates to my dear friend, Ms. Wingnut.

  17. 18

    rhp6033 spews:

    Actually, I may have to re-think my position regarding the legalization of pot.

    This article says that ultra-conservative/libertarian Rand Paul (Republican candidate for Senate in West Virginia) was a pot smoker while at Baylor University, where he participated in kidnapping a girl who was a fellow swimmer on the swim team there and tried to force her to smoke pot and worship a stream he called the “Agua Buddah”. This wasn’t during the “hippie era”, it was during the Reagan administration.

    If pot smoking turns you into Rand Paul, then clearly it’s a very, very dangerous drug.

    On the bright side, this reports of his antics may have lost him the Evangelical vote in West Virginia.

  18. 20

    Zotz sez: Puddybud is just another word for arschloch spews:

    @18: I think you mean the talibangelical vote in Kentucky.

  19. 21

    spews:

    @15
    I have always wondered why SMOKING MJ .. as opposed to eating it or drinking it .. was so popular? … My guess is that the answer is that humans like to breast feed and never quite grow out of it.

    Two reasons. One, it acts quicker. And two, it requires less of it to achieve the same high.

  20. 22

    rhp6033 spews:

    Zotz @ 19: Thanks, I forgot to add the link, and the edit function isn’t exactly working well these days.

  21. 23

    spews:

    @18
    If pot smoking turns you into Rand Paul, then clearly it’s a very, very dangerous drug.

    No, being the son of Ron Paul turns you into Rand Paul… :)

  22. 24

    Zotz sez: Puddybud is just another word for arschloch spews:

    @22: Roger that:

    the edit function isn’t exactly working well these days.

    I’ve had a few owwies myself lately. Evidently it can’t be fixed remotely or Goldy is just having too much fun to attend to it.

  23. 25

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    be prepared for a huge increase in DWH(driving while high) auto crashes and deaths if weed goes legal..

    Wonder if the pot-heads will feel like they have blood on their hands?

  24. 26

    Steve is sad spews:

    Apparently we could decrease auto accidents, Max, if we were to also prohibit the sale of alcohol.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/1060947

    But I think we should just legalize pot and tax the hell out of it, but not enough to inspire black marketing.

  25. 27

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @26

    Yes Steve, we could prohibit some auto accidents if alcohol were prohibited – but we all know that isnt going to happen.

    So the answer is to make the problem even worse?

    just saying….

    Steve, you know as well as I do, that there is pretty much mandatory testing for construction personnel on job sites – and weed is one of those things that is tested. So what happens if a guy is suspected of being high on the jobsite if weed becomes legal? You cant test for it, since a positive test for weed cant distinguish between pot in the system that is 2 hours old or 2 weeks old.

    Personally, I dont care – I just think people better be prepared for the negative aspects of making it legal….but as we know already, the pot heads like Lee dont care about the ramifications.

    and one more thing Steve, I was looking at a set of structural drawings today, with a stamp that said “for approval only, not for erection”…seems like a sign most married guys need hanging from their johnson…LOL

    I guess us Mechanical guys arent used to seeing that stamp…struck me as kinda comical.

  26. 28

    rhp6033 spews:

    Somehow I doubt that someone who avoids smoking pot because it is illegal would suddenly be motivated to break the law by driving while high once pot is legal.

    In other words, those who would drive while high under legalization are already driving while high while it is illegal.

  27. 29

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @28

    got any data to back that assertion up?

    if pot goes legal, usage will go up..it only makes sense that usage while driving would also go up.

  28. 30

    spews:

    @29
    if pot goes legal, usage will go up..it only makes sense that usage while driving would also go up.

    Usage will go up among folks who were restrained by the law in the first place – meaning that they’re exactly the kind of people who wouldn’t be inclined to break the law by driving under its influence.

    I’ve offered this to others and I’ll offer to you. I will bet you any amount of money that following the legalization of marijuana that there’s no significant change in motor vehicle deaths. We can quantify that however you want, but my money is on the table. How confident are you about your belief?

  29. 31

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @30

    I am pretty confident you would lose that bet.

    See Lee, what you are not factoring in is the long term. You are only thinking about the 5 days post legalization…try thinking 5 years down the line – and then tell me with a straight face that toking and driving will not be a problem. You know damn well it will be, just like drinking and driving are.

    but hey, you guys dont care, as long as you can get high legally, right.

  30. 32

    spews:

    @31
    I am pretty confident you would lose that bet.

    Then bet me! My email is linked from my name at the very top of this post. Send me an email and name an amount.

    See Lee, what you are not factoring in is the long term. You are only thinking about the 5 days post legalization…try thinking 5 years down the line – and then tell me with a straight face that toking and driving will not be a problem. You know damn well it will be, just like drinking and driving are.

    We can set up the bet to have checks at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. Large numbers of people already smoke pot and operate motor vehicles. I don’t endorse that behavior, but it’s the reality. And there’s been no study to show that it’s anywhere near as dangerous as driving drunk.

    If you think you’re right, throw your money down on the table and bet me.

  31. 33

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    so what your saying is that a drug that alters your perception of reality, has no effect on your ability to operate a motor vehicle???

    are you serious? or just high?

    and I never said it was as dangerous as driving drunk – but does that matter?

    and please, spare me the “lets bet” garbage. Like that is going to prove anything.

    just admit that there will be some unintended negative consequences to legalizing weed. If you cant do that, then you are either being intellectually dishonest, or you are so fucked up on drugs that you cant think straight.

    Like I said before, I dont give a rats ass because I dont smoke pot and have no desire to. But to play it off like there will be no negatives to making pot legal is just plain stupid, and childish.

  32. 34

    Zotz sez: Puddybud is just another word for arschloch spews:

    and please, spare me the “lets bet” garbage. Like that is going to prove anything.

    It just proved your a whiny assed coward — a fucking pissant, tiny dick coward!

    [bwak, bwak, bwak, buwak!]

  33. 35

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @34

    I didnt have any complaints from your old lady..or was she your daughter? hell, I forget.

  34. 36

    Steve is sad spews:

    ““for approval only, not for erection”…”

    I have a few weasel notes myself. It behooves us to cover our ass sometimes. I wonder about that particular one whether or not it has to do with all the detailed shop drawings the steel fabrication guys are required to submit. Those guys do a lot of detailing, though I pay little attention to it.

    Speaking of structural and shit happening, with the news about Husky stadium and Wright-Runstad, I was recalling the stadium’s north stand collapse back in the 80’s. Now that’s had to have been an “oh shit” moment.

    “You cant test for it, since a positive test for weed cant distinguish between pot in the system that is 2 hours old or 2 weeks old.”

    I don’t know too much about drug testing or the lasting effects of a MJ high. With some work I would think there should be no physical or mental impairment allowed of any kind on the job. So perhaps it’s just as well to keep testing that way for now, at least for select occupations. As freaking dangerous as construction sites can be, I’d say most those trades fall into that category. Landscape crews? heh-

  35. 37

    spews:

    @33
    so what your saying is that a drug that alters your perception of reality, has no effect on your ability to operate a motor vehicle???

    No, I’ve never said that. What I said was that legalizing the drug would not make any difference in how many fatal accidents occur with motor vehicles.

    I’m confident enough in that belief not only to bet you over it, but to let you name the amount of the bet. If you think you’re not talking out of your ass, then bet me.

    just admit that there will be some unintended negative consequences to legalizing weed. If you cant do that, then you are either being intellectually dishonest, or you are so fucked up on drugs that you cant think straight.

    Marijuana has been sold legally in Holland for over 30 years. What were the unintended negative consequences that occurred there (you may want to include statistics, so that you don’t make an even bigger ass of yourself here)?

  36. 38

    Steve spews:

    “I didnt have any complaints from your old lady..or was she your daughter? hell, I forget.”

    Huh? You talking ’bout Puddy’s mama? Oh, my bad. Anyways, I was gonna mention that the line was too long last night and that you must have gotten there early. Again, my bad. Please continue.

  37. 39

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @36

    yes your right, it was a set of shop drawings. Still, I thought the comment was rather funny. We do the same thing on our shop drawings, but not in such an eloquent way.

    Yep, I remember the Husky stadium collapse. Damn lucky nobody got killed on that one. You think some heads rolled? lol

  38. 40

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @37
    ok, the bet is one glass of the finest Hefewiessen that can be procured in the area.

    and I think your head is in the sand(or perhaps you refuse to admit for political reasons) that there will be some negative fallout to legalizing weed.

    by the same token, I will assume that since guns are legal, there is no negative ramifications from legal private gun ownership. Following your logic, there isnt.

  39. 41

    spews:

    @40
    ok, the bet is one glass of the finest Hefewiessen that can be procured in the area.

    That works for me.

    and I think your head is in the sand(or perhaps you refuse to admit for political reasons) that there will be some negative fallout to legalizing weed.

    Again, what has been the negative fallout in Holland?

    by the same token, I will assume that since guns are legal, there is no negative ramifications from legal private gun ownership. Following your logic, there isnt.

    You’re not following my logic very well. I’m not saying that there are no negative impacts from marijuana use. There most certainly are. What I’m saying is that there’s no negative impact from moving from a prohibited market to a legal one.

  40. 42

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @41

    I dont think you understand my analogy very well…but so be it.

    We shall see what happens……….

  41. 45

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    ““for approval only, not for erection”…”

    That’s nothing. My favorite is the submittal process where the contractor submits to the architect stuff for approval that has already been specified in the design, and it is returned stamped with the following language:

    “This review is for design intent only, and does not relieve the Contractor from compliance with the specifications”.

    Please do follow the bouncing ball…..

  42. 46

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    “by the same token, I will assume that since guns are legal, there is no negative ramifications from legal private gun ownership. Following your logic, there isnt.”

    Well, let’s put it to the test. Roll a big doobie. Waltz into a bank and wave in front of the teller and demand all the cash or you will light it up. Report back to us.

    But really. The logic is flawed. Getting high has few deleterious health or social effects. Since guns kill, it’s hard to make the same claim. So gun ownership enthusiasts use different rationales, and thus the logic is not “the same”.

  43. 48

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @46

    you completely fucked up the analogy…

    go back to smoking dope, or smoking pole, whatever it is you do.

  44. 49

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @45

    yes, I see that crap all the time…thats for when the designers or architects try in vain to leave themselves an out.

  45. 50

    Steve spews:

    @49 Geez, I hope it’s not in vain.

    “This review is intended to assist the contractor with his obligation to conform with the requirements of the contract documents. This review, including all comments and markings included herein, shall not be construed as relieving the contractor from compliance with the contract documents. The contractor remains responsible for installation means and methods, sequence of work, and coordination of the work with other trades.”

    I’m telling ya, don’t fuck with me!

    Actually, it’s all Proud Leftist’s fault. Attorneys make us do this shit.

  46. 51

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @50: Love the boilerplate. Then there is the inevitable response to an RFI: “You should have asked that question prior to the bid.”

  47. 52

    The Riddle of Steelq spews:

    Steve and PTBAA…

    this is so far the best answer to an RFI:

    “What does the contractor suggest?”

    gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

    – another of Max’s aliases….

  48. 53

    Steve spews:

    @52 An architect at NBBJ once modified a contractor’s RFI form for a California hospital project I worked on to include this check mark item for the A/E response,

    “Read the fucking plans”

    On our side of the fence we all thought that was pretty damned funny.

  49. 54

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @53: Funny.

    Of course the Contractor can ask no questions and build exactly what is drawn/specified. This is inevitably followed by the question: “Why didn’t you ask a question?”

    The answer to that one is obvious.