Today's Charlotte Observer ran an Associated Press piece, from Jefferson, Mo., about fake pot and how authorities are in a tizzy trying to figure out how to regulate it. In Missouri, they're talking seven year prison sentences (same as for marijuana possession) for stuff that's little more than a mishmash of dried herbs and flowers doused with a THC-mimicking chemical — thus the word "fake," as in not real marijuana.

What's next? Are cops going to start busting kids chowing down on candy cigarettes and guzzling root beer?

Regulation by jail term isn't the way to go. Wouldn't it be more prudent to first determine who's smoking this stuff (let me help: stupid kids) and put the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in charge of deciding if regulation is even warranted?

Sending dumb asses who like to smoke expensive non-drug herbs to jail for seven years seems a little harsh, don't ya think? (Note: Seven years in Missouri; one year plus a $2,500 fine in Kansas — the other state looking to regulate fake pot.)

According to a column by David Webber in today's Missourian on a completely different topic, "The cost per inmate is now $16,456 per year or about $45.00 per day."

Really, Missouri? You want your tax payers to pay over $115,000 — not counting the cost of apprehending these "criminals" and ignoring court costs — to house an idiot who's not actually doing anything wrong. Really? Your state must be super wealthy. No homeless folks? No education needs? Low taxes? Tell me, you really can't think of any other way to spend all of that money? Really?

Let's face it: The only legislation we need to be working on where marijuana is concerned is legalization. Please: Tax it. Go ahead. The government will get their cut and the smokers can get stoned without worry. It's a win-win.

From the AP article:

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said K2 isn't much discussed within marijuana culture. "If government is genuinely concerned about controlling cannabis-related products, there is really only one thing that seems to have an effect: a tax stamp," he said.

Way back in 2000, Cannabis Culture Marijuana Magazine did a taste — and trip — test with their staff. They determined the fake pot being peddled back then was made up of cheap herbs relabeled with made-up names. "We discovered that both companies rely upon deceit and ignorance to sell their products," Dana Larsen, the article's author wrote.

She concluded:

... these companies almost certainly sell the majority of their wares to people too young to get real pot and too ignorant to know the difference.

If a youngster is going to smoke, isn't it better that they use real pot, known to be safe and non-toxic, rather than a blend of mislabelled herbs with unknown properties and effects?

Read the entire article here.

Sun Coast Organics, which sells "marijuana smoking alternatives," describes them like this:

The only thing marijuana alternatives have in common with marijuana is they are smoked.

Here's how the Garden Cure forum weighs in:

Are they worth buying?

Obviously the answer to this is No if you are planning on getting high from them like you would normal Marijuana. If you just want something to smoke, then you might consider buying them, but you wont get any intoxicating effects. Although you may suffer a throbbing headache along with a case of Buyers remorse.

Why do people mistake them for actual Marijuana?

When you look at a typical example picture of one of these alternatives that might be found in magazines like High Times, the pictures may look impressive, but if you read a little deeper into the sites, you will notice that it doesn't say anything about actually getting you high at all. They say things like: "Looks, smells and tastes just like the real thing!" but very rarely mentions anything about getting high.

We know what that's like, right Charlotte? I'm sure I don't need to remind you that it floods nearly every time it storms.

Nationwide, stormwater is a leading source of water pollution. About 13 percent of U.S. rivers, 18 percent of  lakes and 32 percent of estuaries are classified as impaired by stormwater, which means they are rendered unsafe for swimming or fishing. It also contributes to the degradation of many more waterways.

“You have marine impacts, ecosystem impacts, and public health impacts,” said David Beckman, co-director of the National Resource Defense Council’s national water program. “It’s really a multiplicity of problems. Pollutants in urban settings are many and of a wide variety, and all of them - if you don’t treat and successfully reduce the pollution - are getting into the receiving water, be it a river or lake or the ocean.”

In a natural system, rainwater doesn’t travel very far. It soaks into the soil and is taken up by plants. The quick infiltration prevents the water from transporting contaminants and keeps waterways from eroding.

But the concrete and asphalt of the urban jungle is anything but natural. Instead of soaking into the ground, rain runs across impervious surfaces, picking up contaminants along the way. By the time it reaches a stream or lake, the runoff can be full of metals, oil, grease, bacteria and other contaminants.

Stormwater also picks up speed. When it hits a stream it scours sediment, dislodges benthic invertebrates and erodes banks, effectively demolishing the natural habitat.

“When you put an impervious surface down it becomes a really good delivery system.” said Roger Bannerman, an environmental specialist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “We see that in the bottom sediments, we see it in the water quality itself, we see it in the kinds of chemicals we find in the fish.”

Read the rest of this Environmental Health News article, by Sarah Coefield, here.

In related news, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is accepting public comments on this issue until Feb. 26. I have confirmed anyone can comment, not just government officials or developers. So, speak up. Let the E.P.A. know how Charlotte's urban flooding affects your life.

All you have to do is e-mail your comments to OW–Docket@epa.gov. Be sure to put “Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0817? in the subject line.

From last month in east Charlotte:

The county wants your feedback on a privacy issue. Officials want to know if you think it's a good idea — or not — to be able to locate property records on the county's Web site by doing a name-only search.

For example: Say you're bored at work one day and you're wondering how much your co-worker really paid for their house on the lake. Today, you can go to the county's "Real Estate Lookup" site and find that information by searching your co-worker's name.

But what if someone is looking for your home address? Let's pretend they're an angry ex-lover or a distant relative you wish would fall off the edge of the planet. What if you were a public official? Should you be more worried about someone finding your address than, say, the victim of a crime?

Here's the deal, though: The proposal the county's considering doesn't mean your name, or anyone's name, will be erased from the record books. If someone were to take your name to the Register of Deeds, they could still look up your property information even if the county decides to remove the name-search function from their site (which, by the way, officials say is an effort to protect "police, prosecutors and judges").

You know what I think? This rule will set a piss-poor precedent for the government, allowing them to hide information when it's most convenient for them -- not for us. But, that's just my opinion. Do you want to weigh in? Click here to take the seven-question "Name Search Suppression Survey."

The survey, by the way, isn't very easy to find on the county's site. Nor is there an explanation about why the county is seeking feedback, and there is definitely no mention that those in charge are more worried about public servants than regular folks. Hey, but let's raise our glass to the big "T" word (transparency) just for funsies, shall we?

Mecklenburg County's online property records are a hit with residents trying to track bad landlords, delinquent taxpayers or home values.

But the county is considering stripping the site of one of its most easy-to-use features: searching by name.

Law enforcement officials worry that criminals seeking revenge could find police, prosecutors and judges.

Officials have cited no examples of that happening but worry enough to have written a letter of concern, signed by nearly a dozen local law enforcement officials, including police Chief Rodney Monroe and District Attorney Peter Gilchrist.

Now the county is asking the public through an online survey whether they support removing the "name search" function from Property Ownership and Land Records Information System site, better known as POLARIS.

The proposal means users would have to know either the street address or parcel ID for a property. That would allow them to find other information about the property, including the owner's name.

Residents would still be able to take someone's name to the county's Register of Deeds or Tax Assessor offices and look up properties. But the ease of going online prompted law enforcement officials in August to ask the county to change its system.

Parry Aftab, executive director of online safety and education group WiredSafety, said governments should do what they can to help keep people safe ...

Aftab said she thinks the county's idea is a good first step. "I think it shows a sensitivity of people within government recognizing how much personal information about their residence can be provided online and how much they facilitate how much of that information is online."

But Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota media eithics and law professor who studies digitized government information, said governments shouldn't limit access to public records on the chance it could be used for ill intent. Instead, she said governments should punish the illegal behavior.

Read the rest of this Charlotte Observer article, by April Bethea, here.

"We will put government data online in universally accessible formats," President Obama, while on the campaign trail.