Jails and Prisons are needed.
wood dawg
there has been rules for pepole to go by,
and as long as we know it there are those
who choose to be on the other side of peace and order, and for that
reason prisons will always be needed.
I feel that for he most part pepole are
lawful, but you have some very evil pepole out there who commit crimes
such as rape, robbery, and tae advantage of children sexually and by
doing that forfiet
their right to walk among us, so they must
be weeded out.
dealing with crime and how to slow it down depends on who you talk
to, China at times will execute thousands of criminals
in a few short days with a bullet to the head and crime falls fast, but
the US just
wants to lock them up and take care of a person who may kill, rape and
murder.
" no matter how good one may be, every
dog has his day."
Capt. Duncel (ret.)
wood dawg wrote:
> For as long as anyone can remember
> there has been rules for pepole to go by,
> and as long as we know it there are those
> who choose to be on the other side of peace and order, and for that
> reason prisons will always be needed.
> I feel that for he most part pepole are
> lawful, but you have some very evil pepole out there who commit crimes
> such as rape, robbery, and tae advantage of children sexually and by
> doing that forfiet
> their right to walk among us, so they must
> be weeded out.
> dealing with crime and how to slow it down depends on who you talk
> to, China at times will execute thousands of criminals
> in a few short days with a bullet to the head and crime falls fast, but
> the US just
Crime in America is as profitable as drugs. The law is getting fat off of
all the criminals going in and out of prison.
$30.000 to $50.000 a year to house one prisoner. Even the construction
companies are getting rich building prisons. It's amazing how much support
it takes to care for inmates.
Capt. Duncel (ret.)
Live long and prosper
Det...@webtv.net
Good post and I agree. I get tired of hearing and seeing thugs
charged, convicted, and then released after serving three months of a
mandatory seven year sentence. This country is on its knees because of
the bleeding heart liberals who think that these no counts will change.
What a wacky philosophy.
FY
Michael Zarlenga
The United States locks up a larger %age of its people than ANY OTHER
industrialized nation in the world, even more than Russia, Cuba and
China.
One thing we don't need more of are prisons.
One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Sergeant Rock
More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
Sgt. Rock
Det...@webtv.net
You apparrently had a toke or two while writing your response.
FY
Bill Fason
> More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
People who mind their own business should not be harrassed by men with
badges.
Incarceratign people who simply do drugs - and nothign else - is like
jailing peaceful drinkers of wine in order to "send a message" to all
the drunk drivers.
So long as someone does not violate the rights of others, then their
rights should not be violated.
All victimless, consensual "crimes" should be decriminalised.
CinePhile
>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:06:40 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>Zarlenga) wrote:
>>One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
>>smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
>>we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
>>murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
>>average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
>
Fewer, actually.
Prohibition ring a bell? Al Capone? Speak-Easys?
Rev. Scatological Warfare
Rock) wrote:
>More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
>
>Sgt. Rock
Well, Sgt., just because someone smokes weed doesn't make them a "drug
crazed idiot." I happen to smoke weed, have for over ten years, and am
currently making $55k/yr. I'm happily married, and have a second child
on the way.
And I'm not in the minority of weed smokers here. Wanting the
governemnt to legalize vicitimless crimes such as this is a boon for a
free society, not a bane.
-------------------
Rev. Scat Warfare
"Subduction leads to orogeny!"
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8842/index.htm
Michael Zarlenga
: >One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
: >smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
: >we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
: >murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
: >average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
: More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
You need to build less obvious strawmen, Sgt.
Being drug crazed and lose(sic) in society would still be a crime.
Being stoned and in your own home would not.
DNarsh
MAX
Babies need to be taught to walk and talk
If you want them to hate, you'll have to teach them that also
Standing straight amoung cripples does not make one strong. Sainthood does not
come off the sins of sinners. http://www.narsh.com
WINGS OF AN ANGEL
m124
intended to be a punishment, in of itself. Jail or prison was to hold
suspects until their trials were over. Then they would receive
punishment, whether it was hanging or flogging.
It is perhaps an idea's time to resurface. If a perp kills a family
breadwinner, he should be made to labor to maintain that family, for the
rest of his life?
If a perp steals, he should be made to restore seven times the value he
stole.
Along with these logical sentences, would go stringent supervision and
perhaps for good measure public flogging.
This may be too simplistic but could be refined.
I also beleive, thiscould empty a few prisons and releive some of our
tax burden.
M.Simon
return 7X what they stole ? I like that!
Simon
====================================================
kathleen
> I'm happily married, and have a second child
> on the way.
Some pretty scary info around about marijuana and
a certain form of childhood leukemia, among other
things. Nobody disputes that alcohol and tobacco
are bad for the developing fetus, and nobody
disputes that low birth weight and fetal alcohol
syndrome do not ALWAYS occur with such exposure.
Maybe you ought to light up your next joint away
from your pregnant wife.
kathleen
-----------------------------
http://www.oncolink.upenn.edu/cancernet/95/nov/711300.html#4
http://infoventures.com/cancer/canlit/eti1195b.html
(same study as above)
http://babyparenting.miningco.com/library/blmarij5.htm
(includes same study as above, and additional
info)
http://health.hss.state.ak.us/htmlstuf/alcohol/fas/mentoo.htm
(re the effect of men's drug/alcohol/tobacco
ingestion on the health of babies).
http://fox.nstn.ca/~eoscapel/cfdp/lancet2.htm
The pertinent section from the very long page is:
"There is suggestive evidence that infants exposed
in utero to cannabis have behavioural and
developmental effects during the first few months
after birth.26 Between the ages of 4 and 9 years,
children who were exposed in utero have shown
deficits in sustained attention, memory, and
higher cognitive functioning.29 The clinical
significance of these effects remains unclear
since they are small
compared with the effects of maternal tobacco
use.29
"Three studies have shown an increased risk of
non-lymphoblastic leukaemia,30
rhabdomyosarcoma,31 and astrocytoma32 in children
whose mothers reported using cannabis
during their pregnancies. None of these was a
planned study of the association; cannabis use was
one of many potential confounders included in
statistical analyses of the relation between the
exposure of interest and childhood cancer. Their
replication is a priority."
Sergeant Rock
wrote:
>Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:06:40 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>>Zarlenga) wrote:
>>>One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
>>>smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
>>>we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
>>>murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
>>>average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
>>
>>More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
>
>Fewer, actually.
>
>Prohibition ring a bell? Al Capone? Speak-Easys?
>
Legalize the crap & less people will be on it? Brilliant deduction.
Not in my state thank you.
Sgt. Rock
Sergeant Rock
rev...@iwillneverbuyfromaspammer.airmail.net (Rev. Scatological
Warfare) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:28:58 GMT, Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com (Sergeant
>Rock) wrote:
>
>
>>More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
>>
>>Sgt. Rock
>
>Well, Sgt., just because someone smokes weed doesn't make them a "drug
>crazed idiot." I happen to smoke weed, have for over ten years, and am
>currently making $55k/yr. I'm happily married, and have a second child
>on the way.
>
>And I'm not in the minority of weed smokers here. Wanting the
>governemnt to legalize vicitimless crimes such as this is a boon for a
>free society, not a bane.
>
>-------------------
>Rev. Scat Warfare
>"Subduction leads to orogeny!"
>www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8842/index.htm
I don't smoke dope & I make a hell of a lot more than you. I'm proud
I'm not a stoner.
Sgt. Rock
Sergeant Rock
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Sergeant Rock (Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com) wrote:
>: >One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
>: >smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
>: >we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
>: >murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
>: >average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
>
>: More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
>
>You need to build less obvious strawmen, Sgt.
>
>Being drug crazed and lose(sic) in society would still be a crime.
>
>Being stoned and in your own home would not.
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not
to take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will
among other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
family & friends you don't!!
Sgt. Rock
Michael Zarlenga
: Legalize the crap & less people will be on it? Brilliant deduction.
: Not in my state thank you.
Actually, the voters in your state have already spoken and they
chose legalization.
Michael Zarlenga
: I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not
: to take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will
: among other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
: highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
The above is known as an appeal to "common sense." It's the same
fallacious "common sense" reasoning that brought us the flat Earth,
the Earth in the center of the universe, and "heavier than air flight
is not possible."
Robert Sumner
BF> > More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does anyone know where this propagandistic and all-too-familiar image
originates from historically?
Also, are there any books on the subject of the history of drug
propaganda written from pro-drug perspective?
--
Kyfho
"Libertarians are the only people in the world who support individual
freedom!"
email Kyfho: <ky...@ou.edu>
Anti-Spam Technology Engaged!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog 1.5c, the best newsreader on any platform!
( try the demo at http://www.frii.com/~srk/ShadowWorks/ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explorer
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:39:26 GMT, gre...@hotmail.com (CinePhile)
> wrote:
>
> >Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
> >>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:06:40 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> >>Zarlenga) wrote:
> >>>One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
> >>>smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
> >>>we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
> >>>murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
> >>>average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
> >>
> >>More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
> >
> >Fewer, actually.
> >
> >Prohibition ring a bell? Al Capone? Speak-Easys?
> >
> Legalize the crap & less people will be on it? Brilliant deduction.
> Not in my state thank you.
Wow. You own a state now. Kewl.
>
>
> Sgt. Rock
do...@stone-soup.com
Rock) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:39:26 GMT, gre...@hotmail.com (CinePhile)
>wrote:
>
>>Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>>>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:06:40 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>>>Zarlenga) wrote:
>>>>One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
>>>>smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
>>>>we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
>>>>murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
>>>>average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
>>>
>>>More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
>>
>>Fewer, actually.
>>
>>Prohibition ring a bell? Al Capone? Speak-Easys?
>>
>Legalize the crap & less people will be on it? Brilliant deduction.
>Not in my state thank you.
>
>Sgt. Rock
Looks like Sgt. Rock favors a lot of drug crazed idiots. History
proves that prohibition increases use and problems and he is for
prohibition so he is for drugs and violence.
Dean, Greg
:I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not
:to take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will
:among other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
:highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
:
:Sgt. Rock
I agree Rock. It isn't the alcohol or the drugs. It is that too
many Americans, mostly male, are assholes. I have seen
Germans really plowed and just as happy as can be. But
two beers and an American is ready to kill someone. Too
much anger in the soul.
Look, I don't like to use drugs as a crutch. Even in health care.
My mother has 50 years of nursing. Three of my five sisters
are nurses. I grew up with the stuff. And I know the limitations
of drugs. It is mostly a crutch. The body heals itself. All medicine
can do, at this point, is remove what is causing the problem.
Thus I will use antibiotics for a sinus infection, for example.
But I rarely use pain killers like aspirin For one thing I dislike the
feeling of loss of control. I can work thru pain.
I guess that is my big bitch with drug abusers (including alcohol)
is that I see them as weak, as using a crutch, as having little
discipline.
Dean, Greg
:intended to be a punishment, in of itself. Jail or prison was to hold
:suspects until their trials were over. Then they would receive
:punishment, whether it was hanging or flogging.
:
:It is perhaps an idea's time to resurface. If a perp kills a family
:breadwinner, he should be made to labor to maintain that family, for the
:rest of his life?
:
:If a perp steals, he should be made to restore seven times the value he
:stole.
:
:Along with these logical sentences, would go stringent supervision and
:perhaps for good measure public flogging.
:
:This may be too simplistic but could be refined.
:
:I also beleive, thiscould empty a few prisons and releive some of our
:tax burden.
What you have described is the law of Moses. No prisons. Just fines,
execution and slavery for those not able to pay the fines.
Thank the Quakers for our prison system. They invented the penitentiary.
There concept was to force prisoners into solitary confinement with only
a bible and work. The bulk of the prisoners went mad. But we have came
full circle with the Super Max prisons!
Dean, Greg
:there has been rules for pepole to go by,
:and as long as we know it there are those
:who choose to be on the other side of peace
:and order, and for that reason prisons will
:always be needed.
:
: I feel that for he most part pepole are
:lawful, but you have some very evil pepole out
:there who commit crimes such as rape, robbery,
:and tae advantage of children sexually and by
:doing that forfiet their right to walk among us,
:so they must be weeded out.
: Dealing with crime and how to slow it down depends on who you talk
:to, China at times will execute thousands of criminals
:in a few short days with a bullet to the head and crime falls fast, but
:kill, rape and murder.
:
It is time to rethink and restructure our criminal code
across the US. With break down of the American
family and the American church, government can't
keep order. Thus we have rush to make laws harder
and to push laws to a higher level (making felons out of
misdemeanors, federalizing local crimes for example).
First, we need to allow our misdemeanor sentences to
work. A year isn't enough with most violators. We need
to be able to go up to five years. But this means that the
courts have to use at home arrest, community correction
(public service) and therapy as part of the sentence. And
for most crimes like drug and alcohol abuse it takes time
to reform the individual.
Felons should start at a minimum of five years. Judges
should be able to keep a felon in prison for life if he does
not reform. This is what happens in military prisons. You
can go in for a six month sentence and spend 30 years if
your attitude isn't right.
If convicted of a felony, you should lose at least your rights
to vote and own weapons. Once your attitude shows your
willingness to work within society then you are released.
It would be highly supervised parole. Ten felons per supervisor.
They would be found work and would pay a portion of their
wages to cover expenses (Georgia has this program). They
would have counseling to help in adjustment. They would be
under house arrest. They would do community service.
When they show proper adjustment, then they would be given
more freedom. After time (like ten years) without problems
then they could petition the governor for a "bill of redemption"
that would remove their felon conviction. But then they would
have to go thru the same naturalization process that registered
aliens go thru to be restored their full citizenship.
That might help until our society decides to grow up.
Bill Fason
Hash: SHA1
Robert Sumner wrote:
>
> "BF" == "Bill Fason" writes:
>
> BF> > More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
I most certainly did *not* write that. I was quoting a drug warrior.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBNqs+zYxKaD6eFVrpEQKuZACgwXKth1rcfq3C1pHHyrH2rLyvu8kAoMbt
Mjq+aTfTr+A4RLrGp7fRoKe5
=Sh5j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rütabega®
> Not in my state thank you.
>
> Sgt. Rock
It's your deduction that is mistaken, that's EXACTLY what happened in the
Netherlands after they legalized pot and other drugs. . .LESS % of people
smoke marijuana in the Netherlands where it is legal than in the U.S. where it
is illegal. Crime also went way down after legalization.
--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-Albert Einstein
Rütabega®
Sergeant Rock wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:47:50 GMT,
> rev...@iwillneverbuyfromaspammer.airmail.net (Rev. Scatological
> Warfare) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:28:58 GMT, Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com (Sergeant
> >Rock) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
> >>
> >>Sgt. Rock
> >
> >Well, Sgt., just because someone smokes weed doesn't make them a "drug
> >crazed idiot." I happen to smoke weed, have for over ten years, and am
> >currently making $55k/yr. I'm happily married, and have a second child
> >on the way.
> >
> >And I'm not in the minority of weed smokers here. Wanting the
> >governemnt to legalize vicitimless crimes such as this is a boon for a
> >free society, not a bane.
> >
> >-------------------
> >Rev. Scat Warfare
> >"Subduction leads to orogeny!"
> >www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8842/index.htm
>
> I don't smoke dope & I make a hell of a lot more than you. I'm proud
> I'm not a stoner.
>
> Sgt. Rock
Well BULLY for you!!! Smoking weed is a personal choice, and should be
left up to the individual to choose, not an oppressive government. As far
as money goes, that is not the only way to gauge ones success. And the
word "stoner", so many people use that word in negative conotations as you
did....would everyone in the U.S. who drinks alcohol like to be called an
alcoholic?????
XEQTR1
Kyfho asks:
>"BF" == "Bill Fason" writes:
>
>BF> > More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Does anyone know where this propagandistic and all-too-familiar image
>originates from historically?
Around 1930, mostly from the Hearst paper chain.
Reefer Madness was also a major source.
>Also, are there any books on the subject of the history of drug
>propaganda written from pro-drug perspective?
>--
You might check out Jack Herer's "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."
Now in its tenth edition available from Queen of Clubs Publishing.
peace - just dave
http://users.aol.com/vlntryst/
anarchy without violence or covetous desire!
Rütabega®
Sergeant Rock wrote:
>
> I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not
> to take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will
> among other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
> highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
> family & friends you don't!!
>
> Sgt. Rock
I see now, your one of those people who doesn't mind giving up their personal
freedoms (a.k.a random and blanket drug tests, lockdown searches of schools,
random drug stops on the interstates) guarranteed by our constitution for a
"little" more safety. Next you'll want the government to wipe your ass for
you, they've already brainwashed you!
XEQTR1
Dean, Greg wrote:
I'm not sure Quakers originated prisons in the modern sense.
For an interesting history of prisons and punishment you might
read Foucault's "Dicipline and Punish, The Birth of the Prison."
IIRC, it was Jeremy Betham that first advocated what is
commonly referred to as the "panoptic prison."
Cliff Schaffer
>:
>
>Look, I don't like to use drugs as a crutch. Even in health care.
>My mother has 50 years of nursing. Three of my five sisters
>are nurses. I grew up with the stuff. And I know the limitations
>of drugs. It is mostly a crutch. The body heals itself. All medicine
>can do, at this point, is remove what is causing the problem.
>Thus I will use antibiotics for a sinus infection, for example.
>But I rarely use pain killers like aspirin For one thing I dislike the
>feeling of loss of control. I can work thru pain.
You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
post-surgical recovery time in half.
>
>I guess that is my big bitch with drug abusers (including alcohol)
>is that I see them as weak, as using a crutch, as having little
>discipline.
My biggest bitch with those who support prohibition is that they invariably
know nothing about the subject. Like you, for instance. I bet I could ask
you twenty basic questions and you couldn't answer even one. I will
further bet that you have never read any of the most basic research on the
subject.
You can start with http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of
Drugs and Drug Policy.
Sergeant Rock
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Sergeant Rock (Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com) wrote:
>: Legalize the crap & less people will be on it? Brilliant deduction.
>: Not in my state thank you.
>
>Actually, the voters in your state have already spoken and they
>chose legalization.
Medical marijunal under a doctors care is not he legalization of
heroin, coke ect.
Sergeant Rock
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Sergeant Rock (Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com) wrote:
>: I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not
>: to take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will
>: among other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
>: highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
>
>The above is known as an appeal to "common sense." It's the same
>fallacious "common sense" reasoning that brought us the flat Earth,
>the Earth in the center of the universe, and "heavier than air flight
>is not possible."
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
No rational reply. How typical.
Michael Zarlenga
: > I'm happily married, and have a second child
: > on the way.
: Some pretty scary info around about marijuana and
: a certain form of childhood leukemia, among other
: things. Nobody disputes that alcohol and tobacco
: are bad for the developing fetus, and nobody
: disputes that low birth weight and fetal alcohol
: syndrome do not ALWAYS occur with such exposure.
: http://www.oncolink.upenn.edu/cancernet/95/nov/711300.html#4
I suppose it WOULD be scary to sonmeone who doesn't understand
it. Maybe you'd better get someone who understands words like
"odd ratios" to read it for you.
The citation you provided says that a child who "has ever been
exposed to any chest X-ray" has an addiitonal risk MORE THAN FOUR
TIMES that of the child of a mther who "ever used marijuana."
By the way, I found it most interesting that only the marijuana
statistic in that report was written in a way to be clear ("40%
excess risk of AML") to the average reader unfamiliar with statis-
tics, odds ratios and confidence levels while, without exception,
every other risk factor was quantified in less clear statistical
terms.
How many people understand that an odds ratio of 2.86 means that
the risk is 186% greater? (Not Kathleen, obviously, or she would
have understood that the 40% increased risk is the LOWEST of any
of the factors examined).
Why are tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol not included and quantified
as to increased risk? Who funded the study? If we know that, per-
haps the deceptive choices of factors and phrases by the study's
authors will make sense.
Mark Anderson
> Sergeant Rock (Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com) wrote:
> : Legalize the crap & less people will be on it? Brilliant deduction.
> : Not in my state thank you.
>
> Actually, the voters in your state have already spoken and they
> chose legalization.
Actually, Crock and his ilk don't think they answer to the voters. They
are the law.
Cliff Schaffer
>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:48:22 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>Zarlenga) wrote:
>
>Medical marijunal under a doctors care is not he legalization of
>heroin, coke ect.
So tell me, Rock. What is the difference between heroin and medical
morphine?
Cliff Schaffer
>
>I don't smoke dope & I make a hell of a lot more than you. I'm proud
>I'm not a stoner.
>
And I know some stoners who make a hell of a lot more than you do, by
several orders of magnitude. I guess that makes them superior to you?
Dean, Greg
:>Medical marijunal under a doctors care is not he legalization of
:>heroin, coke ect.
:
:
:
:So tell me, Rock. What is the difference between heroin and medical
:morphine?
Medical morphine is under the supervision of a physician
while heroin is self medicicated. One is done as a health
care issue and the other is done for god knows what reasons.
Dean, Greg
:>
:>Look, I don't like to use drugs as a crutch. Even in health care.
:>My mother has 50 years of nursing. Three of my five sisters
:>are nurses. I grew up with the stuff. And I know the limitations
:>of drugs. It is mostly a crutch. The body heals itself. All medicine
:>can do, at this point, is remove what is causing the problem.
:>Thus I will use antibiotics for a sinus infection, for example.
:>But I rarely use pain killers like aspirin For one thing I dislike the
:>feeling of loss of control. I can work thru pain.
:
:You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
:post-surgical recovery time in half.
And it is not self medicated. It is under a doctors care and supervision.
:>
:>I guess that is my big bitch with drug abusers (including alcohol)
:>is that I see them as weak, as using a crutch, as having little
:>discipline.
:
:
:My biggest bitch with those who support prohibition is that they invariably
:know nothing about the subject. Like you, for instance. I bet I could ask
:you twenty basic questions and you couldn't answer even one. I will
:further bet that you have never read any of the most basic research on the
:subject.
:
I have. I am just a few minutes from Purdue's main campus.
And the Pharmacy school. The Ph.ds that I have spoken
with are not in favor of widening the number of recreational
drugs in the market place. Most would love to see more
restrictions on the ones we now have. The damage to the
human body from alcohol and tobacco already too much.
:You can start with http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of
:Drugs and Drug Policy.
:
There is no real justification for recreational drugs, alcohol and
tobacco included.
kathleen
> The citation you provided says that a child who "has ever been
> exposed to any chest X-ray" has an addiitonal risk MORE THAN FOUR
> TIMES that of the child of a mther who "ever used marijuana."
So what? Are you saying since something else is
more risky, it's okay to GET HIGH ON POT and risk
your unborn child? Only a stoner.......
BTW, numbers of well-respected medical authorities
have long advised the avoidance of unnecessary
x-rays.
> How many people understand that an odds ratio of 2.86 means that
> the risk is 186% greater? (Not Kathleen, obviously, or she would
> have understood that the 40% increased risk is the LOWEST of any
> of the factors examined).
Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a
right. Just because using another substance is
MORE risky doesn't make it right to risk your kid
by smoking pot.
And I understand odds quite well, thank you.
> Why are tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol not included and quantified
> as to increased risk? Who funded the study?
You'll open up a can of worms if you start talking
about who funded what, and who published what, and
I don't think you really want to do that.
If we know that, per-
> haps the deceptive choices of factors and phrases by the study's
> authors will make sense.
Ditto above.
kathleen
kathleen
> You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
> post-surgical recovery time in half.
Not in all cases. Sometimes "high doses of
morphine" can kill the patient. The decision on
what pain-killing method, which drug, and the
amount to use is one best left to medical
professionals, not narcotics enthusiasts.
kathleen
M.Simon
Painful and significant undermedication for pain in DEAland is well
known and documented.
Drs. are afraid of getting their license pulled by DEA agents.
Simon
====================================================
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:24:02 GMT, kathleen <kath...@netscape.net>
wrote:
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
Michael Zarlenga
: >: I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not
: >: to take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will
: >: among other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
: >: highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
: >The above is known as an appeal to "common sense." It's the same
: >fallacious "common sense" reasoning that brought us the flat Earth,
: >the Earth in the center of the universe, and "heavier than air flight
: >is not possible."
: No rational reply. How typical.
Your inability to comprehend that my respose was both rational
and critical is surprising.
Your "nation of zombies"-style reply is utter conjecture.
The best evidence we have for legalization and drug use (The
Netherlands -- where pot is legal and a smaller %age of the
people use it than here, where it's illegal) indicates that we
will not have more people under the influence of drugs in the
wake of legalization.
Sergeant Rock
<scha...@smartlink.net> wrote:
>Sergeant Rock wrote in message <36ab5ccf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:48:22 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>>Zarlenga) wrote:
>>
>>Medical marijunal under a doctors care is not he legalization of
>>heroin, coke ect.
>
>
>
>So tell me, Rock. What is the difference between heroin and medical
>morphine?
One is legal. One is not. One is for recreation. One is for medicine.
Scool is out for today.
Sgt. Rock
Sergeant Rock
wrote:
I am a voter too.
Sgt. Rock
pro...@my-dejanews.com
> zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> > Sergeant Rock (Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not to
> > > take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will among
> > > other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
> > > highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
> >
> > The above is known as an appeal to "common sense." It's the same
> > fallacious "common sense" reasoning that brought us the flat Earth, the
> > Earth in the center of the universe, and "heavier than air flight is not
> > possible."
>
> No rational reply. How typical.
No responce. How typical.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Michael Zarlenga
: :>Look, I don't like to use drugs as a crutch. Even in health care.
: :>My mother has 50 years of nursing. Three of my five sisters
: :>are nurses. I grew up with the stuff. And I know the limitations
: :>of drugs. It is mostly a crutch. The body heals itself. All medicine
: :>can do, at this point, is remove what is causing the problem.
: :>Thus I will use antibiotics for a sinus infection, for example.
: :>But I rarely use pain killers like aspirin For one thing I dislike the
: :>feeling of loss of control. I can work thru pain.
: :You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
: :post-surgical recovery time in half.
: And it is not self medicated. It is under a doctors care and supervision.
I have a relative in the middle of chemo and radiation treatments
for sinovial sarcoma (soft-tissue cancer).
He has more than a month's supply of transdermal morphine patches
at his home which HE self-administers as necessary. Hence, he IS
self-medicated and it is perfectly legal.
: I have. I am just a few minutes from Purdue's main campus.
: And the Pharmacy school. The Ph.ds that I have spoken
: with are not in favor of widening the number of recreational
: drugs in the market place. Most would love to see more
: restrictions on the ones we now have. The damage to the
: human body from alcohol and tobacco already too much.
No surprise there. If everyone who wanted X had to pay me (or
someone else in my profession) for a piece of paper allowing them
to purchase X, then I would also be in favor of extending that
comfy little racket.
Imagine if, everytime you wanted to buy gasoline, you had to pay
$20-$50 for a piece of paper issued by the local fire chief which
gave you permission to buy a months's supply of gasoline.
Do you think your local fire chiefs would fight to keep and even
extend that scam?
: There is no real justification for recreational drugs, alcohol and
: tobacco included.
In a free society, people do not need to justify these things.
sz...@my-dejanews.com
kathleen <kath...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Michael Zarlenga wrote: <snipped>
>
> > The citation you provided says that a child who "has ever been
> > exposed to any chest X-ray" has an addiitonal risk MORE THAN FOUR
> > TIMES that of the child of a mther who "ever used marijuana."
>
> So what? Are you saying since something else is
> more risky, it's okay to GET HIGH ON POT and risk
> your unborn child?
No logical leaps are required. It simply says that the much ballyhooed risks
that people say marijuana poses are simply not there.
> Only a stoner.......
From you, that's a compliment!
>
> BTW, numbers of well-respected medical authorities
> have long advised the avoidance of unnecessary
> x-rays.
True. But paying for extra x-rays out of your own pocket isn't illegal.
>
> > How many people understand that an odds ratio of 2.86 means that
> > the risk is 186% greater? (Not Kathleen, obviously, or she would
> > have understood that the 40% increased risk is the LOWEST of any
> > of the factors examined).
>
> Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a
> right. Just because using another substance is
> MORE risky doesn't make it right to risk your kid
> by smoking pot.
I think you just saw evidence that the risk is apparently statistically
insignificant. If your strongly-held belief system dictates that you MUST
believe the risk is there somewhere (because its illegal, it must be unsafe),
fine. Don't do it.
>
> And I understand odds quite well, thank you.
The average chest x-ray today exposes people to radiation that is orders of
magnitude less risky than they were when Roentgen first invented the cathode
ray tube. Todays x-rays deliver so little radiation that you could have
hundreds of x-rays over a years time, and never see cancer (source, personal
communication, a particular Stanford University Radiology Professor).
Therefore, to say that marijuana smoking is FOUR TIMES less dangerous to a
fetus than a single chest x-ray is a searing indictment of drug-war
propoganda, no matter how you look at it.
>
> > Why are tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol not included and quantified
> > as to increased risk? Who funded the study?
>
> You'll open up a can of worms if you start talking
> about who funded what, and who published what, and
> I don't think you really want to do that.
Who cares?
>
> If we know that, per-
> > haps the deceptive choices of factors and phrases by the study's
> > authors will make sense.
>
> Ditto above.
Ditto above your ditto.
>
> kathleen
pro...@my-dejanews.com
> Michael Zarlenga wrote: <snipped>
> >
> > The citation you provided says that a child who "has ever been exposed to
> > any chest X-ray" has an addiitonal risk MORE THAN FOUR TIMES that of the
> > child of a mther who "ever used marijuana."
>
> So what? Are you saying since something else is more risky, it's okay to GET
So what? Are you saying reguardless if marijuana is the safest therapeutic
substance known to man, it's still okay to persecute, imprison, or even murder
those who use it? Only a prohibitionist............
> > How many people understand that an odds ratio of 2.86 means that the risk
> > is 186% greater? (Not Kathleen, obviously, or she would have understood
> > that the 40% increased risk is the LOWEST of any of the factors examined).
>
> Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a right. Just because using
> another substance is MORE risky doesn't make it right to risk your kid
> by smoking pot.
Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a right. Just because using
a substance is LESS risky doesn't make it right to totally destroy the life of
the prospective mother and the subsequent child.
Bill Fason
> And the Pharmacy school. The Ph.ds that I have spoken
> with are not in favor of widening the number of recreational
> drugs in the market place.
Dr. Alan Robinson, Professor of Pharmacology in Houston, is a leading
advocate of drug decriminalisation.
And the truth is cocaine, opiates and pot already *are* in the
marketplace, the black market. Therein lies the source of the problem
for nonusers.
> Most would love to see more
> restrictions on the ones we now have.
They want to make choices for others, and enforce those choices at
gunpoint.
> The damage to the
> human body from alcohol and tobacco already too much.
You think we should extend prohibition to include alcohol and tobacco?
How about bacon cheeseburgers and fetuccine Alfredo as well? Thos are
bad for the human body as well.
> There is no real justification for recreational drugs, alcohol and
> tobacco included.
There is no real justification for initiating violence against someoen
because you disapprove of his choices in his diet.
Bill Fason
> The decision on
> what pain-killing method, which drug, and the
> amount to use is one best left to medical
> professionals, not narcotics enthusiasts.
Actually the decisions is best left to the person who owns the body in
question, i.e., the individual himself in consultation with his
physician.
Jasper O'Malley
>Rev. Warfare,
> You apparrently had a toke or two while writing your response.
Is this the best argument the law enforcement community can come up
with? Is your position so weak that you need to resort to non sequitir
ad hominems?
Let me know if you need a translation.
Cheers,
Mick
--
The Reverend Jasper P. O'Malley dotdot:jo...@webspan.net
Freelance Crackerjack ringring:1800fubared
SEND HELP woowoo:http://www.webspan.net/~jooji
Explorer
> Cliff Schaffer wrote:
>
> > You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
> > post-surgical recovery time in half.
>
> Not in all cases. Sometimes "high doses of
> morphine" can kill the patient. The decision on
> what pain-killing method, which drug, and the
> amount to use is one best left to medical
> professionals, not narcotics enthusiasts.
I would include the DEA under the "narcotic enthusiasts" category. They
are not my doctor thank you very much.
Cliff Schaffer
>
>So what? Are you saying since something else is
>more risky, it's okay to GET HIGH ON POT and risk
>your unborn child? Only a stoner.......
No, the argument is that people who get excited about pregnant women smoking
pot are pretty hypocritical if they ignore the much larger damage done by
alcohol and tobacco. Let's get the priorities straight, OK?
>
>Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a
>right. Just because using another substance is
>MORE risky doesn't make it right to risk your kid
>by smoking pot.
There isn't any evidence that I know of that a pot smoking parent is any
greater risk to their kids than a non-pot-smoking parent.
>
>And I understand odds quite well, thank you.
That's cool. Now have you read any of the most basic research on the
subject? See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer
Cliff Schaffer
>:>
>:
>:So tell me, Rock. What is the difference between heroin and medical
>:morphine?
>:
>
>Medical morphine is under the supervision of a physician
>while heroin is self medicicated. One is done as a health
>care issue and the other is done for god knows what reasons.
>
You didn't answer the question. What is the fundamental medical
difference between them? Why is one illegal and the other not?
Do I detect that you really don't know?
Cliff Schaffer
>:
>:You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
>:post-surgical recovery time in half.
>
>And it is not self medicated. It is under a doctors care and supervision.
Do you think this is a justification for jailing someone? So, if a doctor
prescribes it (like the heroin maintenance clinics in Europe) then I take it
you wouldn't have any objection?
You missed the question on the difference between heroin and morphine. Want
to try it again?
>:
>:My biggest bitch with those who support prohibition is that they
invariably
>:know nothing about the subject. Like you, for instance. I bet I could
ask
>:you twenty basic questions and you couldn't answer even one. I will
>:further bet that you have never read any of the most basic research on the
>:subject.
>:
>I have. I am just a few minutes from Purdue's main campus.
>And the Pharmacy school. The Ph.ds that I have spoken
>with are not in favor of widening the number of recreational
>drugs in the market place. Most would love to see more
>restrictions on the ones we now have. The damage to the
>human body from alcohol and tobacco already too much.
Well, then, you ought to be able to answer these basic questions:
1) When were these drugs originally outlawed?
2) Why were they outlawed?
3) In the last 100 years there have been about 20 major studies of drug
policy. Name them and tell me what they said.
4) Name any significant study of drug policy in the last 100 years which
supports our current policy.
5) How many people are actually killed by drugs in the US each year?
Include tobacco, alcohol, prescription and over the counter drugs.
When you fail those, we will go to the rest.
>
>:You can start with http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of
>:Drugs and Drug Policy.
>:
>
>There is no real justification for recreational drugs, alcohol and
>tobacco included.
"justification"?? What does that mean? People have been taking them for
several thousand years, with or without "justification". Apparently, their
opinion differs from yours. More correctly stated, there is no
justification for jailing people for taking a drug, even if they took the
drug without justification.
Cliff Schaffer
>Cliff Schaffer wrote:
>
>> You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
>> post-surgical recovery time in half.
>
>morphine" can kill the patient.
Rarely, at best. Aspirin kills as many people as the opiates.
>The decision on
>what pain-killing method, which drug, and the
>amount to use is one best left to medical
>professionals, not narcotics enthusiasts.
>
That may be true, but there are a lot of people who aren't going to follow
your good advice. If they don't, there is no productive purpose in jailing
them.
I take it you still haven't read the major studies of drug policy.
Cliff Schaffer
>
>No rational reply. How typical.
So you can imagine how other people feel when they ask you a question and
you can't cite anything to back up your opinion. How typical.
M.Simon
Simon
=============
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:09:41 GMT, kathleen <kath...@netscape.net>
wrote:
>Bill Fason wrote:
>>
>> Actually the decisions is best left to the person who owns the body in
>> question, i.e., the individual himself in consultation with his
>> physician.
>
>Certainly, in consultation with his/her
>physician. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
>
>But there are many, many more options for pain
>control than "high doses of morphine" these days,
>or simply giving feedback to the physician on how
>much pain is being experienced, or whether or not
>a certain amount of a drug controls that pain.
Dean, Greg
:>:morphine?
:>:
:>
:>Medical morphine is under the supervision of a physician
:>while heroin is self medicicated. One is done as a health
:>care issue and the other is done for god knows what reasons.
:>
:
: You didn't answer the question. What is the fundamental medical
:difference between them? Why is one illegal and the other not?
:
:Do I detect that you really don't know?
There is little difference. A slight chemical variance.
Again it is more the medical reasons than anything.
Besides both are illegal to use without a doctors
supervision. And heroin is not as pure plus it is
more addictive per gram than medical morphine.
M.Simon
Its the way we started this here little experiment.
There are a LOT of us out here who like it that way.
Love it or Leave it.
Simon
=====================================================
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 03:06:23 GMT, ozi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Doug,
>
>I think your imagination is running away with you ,dont try to imply something
>that is really not there...
>
>If you want drug legalisation..stand for it on a political platform,until such
>time the law is the law..and it has to be observed.
>
>We are the people who have to deal with these drug crazed idiots....
>
>
>The noisy minority ,are still just that...a minority!
>
>
>ozibear
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
Dean, Greg
:>> : Not in my state thank you.
:>>
:>> Actually, the voters in your state have already spoken and they
:>> chose legalization.
:>
:>Actually, Crock and his ilk don't think they answer to the voters. They
:>are the law.
:
:I am a voter too.
:
:Sgt. Rock
And I am the guy who writes laws for my state legislators (of
my party). And the guy who helps get these folks elected.
Bill Fason
> >
> > Actually the decision [regarding pain management] is best left to the person who > > owns the body in question, i.e., the individual himself in consultation with his
> > physician.
kathleen wrote:
> Certainly, in consultation with his/her
> physician. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
>
> But there are many, many more options for pain
> control than "high doses of morphine" these days,
> or simply giving feedback to the physician on how
> much pain is being experienced, or whether or not
> a certain amount of a drug controls that pain.
Unfortunately the current government policy of "drug war" carries many
unintended consequences. Side-effects of the drug war include the
persecution of physicians who prescibe medicine to relieve pain and
consequently the undertreatment of pain. The DEA should be shut down.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/asap/DEADLYM.htm
Deadly Morals
By Katherine Eban Finkelstein
THE DEA IS BUSTING DOCTORS FOR PRESCRIBING DRUGS-AND PATIENTS ARE
DYING IN PAIN
DONALD DEWBERRY, 44, a retired aircraft mechanic, went to Dr. John
McFadden several years ago after two failed surgeries for degenerative
disk disease. 7he pain in his neck was crippling, and even moving his
eyes triggered it. Dr. McFadden, who is medical director of the Tupelo
Pain Clinic in Tupelo, Mississippi, prescribed Dewberry narcotic
painkillers known as opioids, which are highly effective and rarely
addictive when taken to relieve pain.
Unfortunately for McFadden, he was under surveillance. Federal and state
narcotics investigators first went to his red-brick clinic in 1987 on a
tip from the Mississippi State Board of Pharmacy that he was
overprescribing painkillers. They sifted through his inventory logs for
evidence that narcotic medications had been diverted to the street for
black-market resale. McFadden claims that only minor record-keeping
errors were found. Yet because McFadden specialized in pain treatment
(and therefore had prescribed narcotics such as Vicodin and Tylenol #3),
he was subject to continuing suspicion. Over
the next nine years, agents from the Mississippi State Board of Medical
Licensure periodically investigated his prescribing habits.
A new front had been opened in the drug war, and patients in pain were
potential enemies. Even though McFadden, the only pain specialist in
northern Mississippi, administered legal medications of great benefit,
his prescribing of narcotics targeted him as a suspect.
In March 1996 a state medical board investigator arrived at his clinic
with a search warrant. "We had been expecting him. We knew he had to do
his job, so we were friendly and said, 'You can look at any-thing you
want,"' McFadden recalls. The agent seized the medical charts of 36
patients. Several months later McFadden was notified that the medical
board had charged him with 11 counts of violating the Mississippi
Medical Practice Act, including unprofessional conduct "likely to harm
the public."
After two days of administrative hearings and 30 minutes of
deliberation, the medical board-whose members are appointed by the
governor-suspended McFadden's medical license and prohibited him from
prescribing a variety of controlled substances on an outpatient basis.
McFadden's censure has had a chilling effect in Mississippi medical
circles. To avoid similar repercussions or scrutiny, other area doctors
have virtually stopped prescribing narcotics. One doctor in Tupelo
posted a notice in his waiting
room: DO NOT ASK ME TO REFILL PAIN MEDICATIONS. In a doctor's office 40
miles away in
Corinth, a sign read DON'T ASK FOR OPIOIDS.
McFadden's patients, meanwhile, were left in pain. When Dewberry
returned to his longtime family practitioner in nearby Oxford and asked
for a prescription, the doctor chewed him out. "'You're just an
addict,"' Dewberry recalls him saying. He has since stopped taking
medication, and the pain keeps him in bed: "I'm in this haze of fighting
pain. I'm trying to raise two teenagers, and I have a mortgage on the
house. But if I said, 'Heck, if it all falls to pieces . . .' then it
does."
By almost any measure, America has lost its war on illegal drugs.
Cocaine and heroin still cross the nation's borders. "Cat," or
methcathinone, can be purchased in any city, despite endless law
enforcement efforts to buy and bust. Meanwhile, the real threat from
illegal drugs has fed America's opiophobia, an irrational fear of
narcotic pain relief. Needing a winnable war, the government has cracked
down in doctors' offices. Across the country, state agents, allied with
the DEA, have staked out pain clinics under the assumption that wherever
narcotics are prescribed, diversion of the drugs will
soon follow. In pursuing this theory, the government has criminalized an
entire class of patients and scared doctors into abandoning them.
As a result, pain is grievously undertreated. According to the National
Chronic Pain Outreach Association, an estimated 34 million patients
suffer chronic pain and lose 50 million workdays a year. Seven million
of these patients cannot relieve their pain without opioids, but there
are only approximately 4000 doctors in the country willing to prescribe
them. A recent New England Journal of Medicine editorial noted that 56
percent of cancer outpatients and 82 percent of AIDS outpatients
received inadequate pain treatment. Fifty percent of hospitalized
patients with a range of illnesses also
received inadequate pain treatment.
[snipped]
MAM
wrote:
> :>
> :>Medical marijunal under a doctors care is not he legalization of
> :>heroin, coke ect.
> :
> :
> :
> :So tell me, Rock. What is the difference between heroin and medical
> :morphine?
> :
>
> Medical morphine is under the supervision of a physician
> while heroin is self medicicated. One is done as a health
> care issue and the other is done for god knows what reasons.
It's funny to me that you think that the drug has a different effect on one
person than another...Holy Water from a priest or Holy Water from the
7-11...no difference...
MAM
MAM
wrote:
> There is no real justification for recreational drugs, alcohol and
> tobacco included.
How about recreation?
MAM
MAM
<kath...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Cliff Schaffer wrote:
>
> > You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
> > post-surgical recovery time in half.
>
> Not in all cases. Sometimes "high doses of
> morphine" can kill the patient. The decision on
> what pain-killing method, which drug, and the
> amount to use is one best left to medical
> professionals, not narcotics enthusiasts.
I would think it to be better for the patient AND the doctor to decide
together...
And as the patient (user) I am the only one qualified to have the final say...
>
> kathleen
MAM
MAM
<kath...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Bill Fason wrote:
> >
> > Actually the decisions is best left to the person who owns the body in
> > question, i.e., the individual himself in consultation with his
> > physician.
>
> Certainly, in consultation with his/her
> physician. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
>
> But there are many, many more options for pain
> control than "high doses of morphine" these days,
I think he was refering to post-op recovery...
> or simply giving feedback to the physician on how
> much pain is being experienced, or whether or not
> a certain amount of a drug controls that pain.
Are painkillers something bad that need to be suppressed?
>
> kathleen
sz...@my-dejanews.com
Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:29:12 -0800, "Cliff Schaffer"
> <scha...@smartlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Sergeant Rock wrote in message <36ab5ccf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:48:22 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> >>
> >>Medical marijunal under a doctors care is not he legalization of
> >>heroin, coke ect.
> >
> >
> >
> >So tell me, Rock. What is the difference between heroin and medical
> >morphine?
>
> Scool is out for today.
Why is recreation illegal, teechur?
>
> Sgt. Rock
pro...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Scool is out for today.
The teach is off.
kathleen
>
> Actually the decisions is best left to the person who owns the body in
> question, i.e., the individual himself in consultation with his
> physician.
Certainly, in consultation with his/her
physician. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
But there are many, many more options for pain
control than "high doses of morphine" these days,
or simply giving feedback to the physician on how
much pain is being experienced, or whether or not
a certain amount of a drug controls that pain.
kathleen
do...@stone-soup.com
wrote:
>:>:
>:>
>:>Look, I don't like to use drugs as a crutch. Even in health care.
>:>My mother has 50 years of nursing. Three of my five sisters
>:>are nurses. I grew up with the stuff. And I know the limitations
>:>of drugs. It is mostly a crutch. The body heals itself. All medicine
>:>can do, at this point, is remove what is causing the problem.
>:>Thus I will use antibiotics for a sinus infection, for example.
>:>But I rarely use pain killers like aspirin For one thing I dislike the
>:>feeling of loss of control. I can work thru pain.
>:
>:You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
>:post-surgical recovery time in half.
>:
>
>And it is not self medicated. It is under a doctors care and supervision.
>
Doctors? Come now. Doctors kill more people with bad drug
percriptions than all of the ilegal drugs.
>:>
>:>I guess that is my big bitch with drug abusers (including alcohol)
>:>is that I see them as weak, as using a crutch, as having little
>:>discipline.
>:
>:
>:My biggest bitch with those who support prohibition is that they invariably
>:know nothing about the subject. Like you, for instance. I bet I could ask
>:you twenty basic questions and you couldn't answer even one. I will
>:further bet that you have never read any of the most basic research on the
>:subject.
>:
>
>I have. I am just a few minutes from Purdue's main campus.
>And the Pharmacy school. The Ph.ds that I have spoken
>with are not in favor of widening the number of recreational
>drugs in the market place. Most would love to see more
>restrictions on the ones we now have. The damage to the
>human body from alcohol and tobacco already too much.
>
We don't seem to know the same people from the same Pharmacy school.
The ones I know think that the drug laws kill 100 times as many people
as they help.
>:You can start with http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of
>:Drugs and Drug Policy.
>:
>
>There is no real justification for recreational drugs, alcohol and
>tobacco included.
>
Now while I might agree with that statement, I don't feel that I have
the right to tell some one else what is justified for them. "Nobodys
business if you do"
>
>
>
>
do...@stone-soup.com
wrote:
>Cliff Schaffer wrote:
>
>> You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
>> post-surgical recovery time in half.
>
>Not in all cases. Sometimes "high doses of
>morphine" can kill the patient. The decision on
>what pain-killing method, which drug, and the
>amount to use is one best left to medical
>professionals, not narcotics enthusiasts.
>
>kathleen
You sure have a lot more trust in doctors than most of us do. The
last time I saw a doctor was in VN when I was shot and I would guess
that next time I see one it will be where my wife can bury me.
Michael Zarlenga
: > The citation you provided says that a child who "has ever been
: > exposed to any chest X-ray" has an addiitonal risk MORE THAN FOUR
: > TIMES that of the child of a mther who "ever used marijuana."
: So what? Are you saying since something else is
: more risky, it's okay to GET HIGH ON POT and risk
: your unborn child? Only a stoner.......
Only a stoner ... what? Only a stoner would leap to such a foolish
and obviously exaggerated conclusion as you did?
I'll tell you what Kathleen ... I'll supply my hair for analysis. You
can have whatever drug tests you want run on it. You pay for the tests.
No matter what the results, all the results will be made public on the
Internet and, only if I pass every single test you have run, only then
will you publicly apologize for calling me a stoner.
Do we have a deal?
: > the risk is 186% greater? (Not Kathleen, obviously, or she would
: > have understood that the 40% increased risk is the LOWEST of any
: > of the factors examined).
: Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a
: right. Just because using another substance is
: MORE risky doesn't make it right to risk your kid
: by smoking pot.
: And I understand odds quite well, thank you.
You do? Ok, then tell us all how many more cases of AML should
we find in a 1,000-member group of "has had a chest X-ray" (OR=2.86)
than in a 1,000 member group of "mother used marijuana at some time"
(OR=1.40).
Take your time and double check your math ... I'll wait.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
ozi...@my-dejanews.com
I think your imagination is running away with you ,dont try to imply something
that is really not there...
If you want drug legalisation..stand for it on a political platform,until such
time the law is the law..and it has to be observed.
We are the people who have to deal with these drug crazed idiots....
The noisy minority ,are still just that...a minority!
ozibear
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Brian B
wrote:
>"BF" == "Bill Fason" writes:
>
>BF> > More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Does anyone know where this propagandistic and all-too-familiar image
>originates from historically?
>
>Also, are there any books on the subject of the history of drug
>propaganda written from pro-drug perspective?
>--
Yes!
Crack in America : Demon Drugs and Social Justice
Reinerman and Levine
ISBN 0-520-20242-2
-Brian
Brian B
wrote:
>:>:
>:>
>:>Look, I don't like to use drugs as a crutch. Even in health care.
>:>My mother has 50 years of nursing. Three of my five sisters
>:>are nurses. I grew up with the stuff. And I know the limitations
>:>of drugs. It is mostly a crutch. The body heals itself. All medicine
>:>can do, at this point, is remove what is causing the problem.
>:>Thus I will use antibiotics for a sinus infection, for example.
>:>But I rarely use pain killers like aspirin For one thing I dislike the
>:>feeling of loss of control. I can work thru pain.
>:
>:You probably missed that fact that high doses of morphine can cut the
>:post-surgical recovery time in half.
>:
>
>And it is not self medicated. It is under a doctors care and supervision.
>
>:>
>:>I guess that is my big bitch with drug abusers (including alcohol)
>:>is that I see them as weak, as using a crutch, as having little
>:>discipline.
>:
>:
>:My biggest bitch with those who support prohibition is that they invariably
>:know nothing about the subject. Like you, for instance. I bet I could ask
>:you twenty basic questions and you couldn't answer even one. I will
>:further bet that you have never read any of the most basic research on the
>:subject.
>:
>
>I have. I am just a few minutes from Purdue's main campus.
>And the Pharmacy school. The Ph.ds that I have spoken
>with are not in favor of widening the number of recreational
>drugs in the market place. Most would love to see more
>restrictions on the ones we now have. The damage to the
>human body from alcohol and tobacco already too much.
>
>:You can start with http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of
>:Drugs and Drug Policy.
>:
>
>There is no real justification for recreational drugs, alcohol and
>tobacco included.
>
Dean, you're just no fun at all.
I think I'll decide what is justified for me thank you very much.
-Brian
Brian B
Rock) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:53:46 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>Zarlenga) wrote:
>
>>Sergeant Rock (Sgt...@xSgtRockx.com) wrote:
>>: I for one could care less what drug you do in your home. It does not
>>: to take a rocket scientist to realize if you leagalize drugs you will
>>: among other things have more people under the influence of drugson the
>>: highways. Alcohol is bad enough. Now factor in drugs. Not around my
>>
Well I think the whole problem is that despite ridiculously harsh
sentencing and billions of dollars spent on enforcement, drug use
remains commonplace. Will decriminalization increase or decrease drug
use? I'm not sure. Do you know anyone that doesn't indulge only
because it is illegal? I do know all those billions of taxpayer
dollars would be better spent on medical treatment and education.
Millions of Americans want drugs and are willing to pay for them. No
amount of enforcement/persecution of suppliers is going make that
lucrative market go away. If you want to decrease drug use, I would
suggest trying to curb the demand - not the supply.
>>The above is known as an appeal to "common sense." It's the same
>>fallacious "common sense" reasoning that brought us the flat Earth,
>>the Earth in the center of the universe, and "heavier than air flight
>>is not possible."
>>
>>--
>>-- Mike Zarlenga
>> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
>No rational reply. How typical.
If you feel so strongly about the issue, you should read more. Your
arguments leave alot to be desired.
Brian
M.Simon
wrote:
State narcotics investigators first went to his red-brick clinic in
1987 on a tip from the Mississippi State Board of Pharmacy that he was
overprescr bing painkillers. They sifted through his inventory logs
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
Sergeant Rock
Zarlenga) wrote:
>kathleen (kath...@netscape.net) wrote:
>: > The citation you provided says that a child who "has ever been
>: > exposed to any chest X-ray" has an addiitonal risk MORE THAN FOUR
>: > TIMES that of the child of a mther who "ever used marijuana."
>
>: So what? Are you saying since something else is
>: more risky, it's okay to GET HIGH ON POT and risk
>: your unborn child? Only a stoner.......
>
>Only a stoner ... what? Only a stoner would leap to such a foolish
>and obviously exaggerated conclusion as you did?
>
>I'll tell you what Kathleen ... I'll supply my hair for analysis. You
>can have whatever drug tests you want run on it. You pay for the tests.
>No matter what the results, all the results will be made public on the
>Internet and, only if I pass every single test you have run, only then
>will you publicly apologize for calling me a stoner.
I'd like to choke you out publicly.
>Do we have a deal?
Yes.
>
>: > the risk is 186% greater? (Not Kathleen, obviously, or she would
>: > have understood that the 40% increased risk is the LOWEST of any
>: > of the factors examined).
>
>: Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a
>: right. Just because using another substance is
>: MORE risky doesn't make it right to risk your kid
>: by smoking pot.
>
>: And I understand odds quite well, thank you.
>
>You do? Ok, then tell us all how many more cases of AML should
>we find in a 1,000-member group of "has had a chest X-ray" (OR=2.86)
>than in a 1,000 member group of "mother used marijuana at some time"
>(OR=1.40).
>
>Take your time and double check your math ... I'll wait.
>
Bill Fason
>
> I'd like to choke you out publicly.
Why is it that drug warriors have so much rage inside them? So ready to
inititate violence.....
Phil Stovell
It always amazes me Rock threatening violence (normally to "dopers",
as he calls them). Perhaps somebody should report him to his
superiors, if he is, indeed, a police officer.
He's the only one who behaves like that. Most of the other policemen
seem quite nice. I realise that all large organisations have their bad
apples, but it's unusual to see one in such a world-wide public forum.
--
Phil Stovell
Petersfield, Hants, UK
ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk
http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/
Steve Furbish
"Dean, Greg" wrote:
>
> And I am the guy who writes laws for my state legislators (of
> my party). And the guy who helps get these folks elected.
ONE of the guys perhaps. I don't see where that's much of a
"counter-punch" to Rock's claim that he's a voter however?
Are you saying that you're personally responsible for the
current state of law and that all those who want to complain
should address you directly? ;-)
Steve
Wilbur Streett
>Sergeant Rock wrote to Michael Zarlenga:
>>
>> I'd like to choke you out publicly.
>
>Why is it that drug warriors have so much rage inside them? So ready to
>inititate violence.....
My guess would be alcohol.
But I don't believe that Rock is even a cop.
Either way, that is against the law.
Wilbur
Steve Furbish
"M.Simon" wrote:
>
> This is America pal. We violate laws we don't like at will.
>
> Its the way we started this here little experiment.
>
> There are a LOT of us out here who like it that way.
>
> Love it or Leave it.
>
> Simon
While your claim (concerning the start of the "experiment")
is true, you may recall that the original Patriots didn't
violate the law for the sake of violating it? They held to a
higher purpose splendidly articulated in Jefferson's
composition of June-July 1776. They were not lawless nor
void of respect for the need of Government. A call to
Revolution seems premature..
Steve
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
to which they are accustomed" - Declaration of Independence,
final draft
Michael Zarlenga
: On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:00:51 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
: Zarlenga) wrote:
: >kathleen (kath...@netscape.net) wrote:
: >: > The citation you provided says that a child who "has ever been
: >: > exposed to any chest X-ray" has an addiitonal risk MORE THAN FOUR
: >: > TIMES that of the child of a mther who "ever used marijuana."
: >
: >: So what? Are you saying since something else is
: >: more risky, it's okay to GET HIGH ON POT and risk
: >: your unborn child? Only a stoner.......
: >
: >Only a stoner ... what? Only a stoner would leap to such a foolish
: >and obviously exaggerated conclusion as you did?
: >
: >I'll tell you what Kathleen ... I'll supply my hair for analysis. You
: >can have whatever drug tests you want run on it. You pay for the tests.
: >No matter what the results, all the results will be made public on the
: >Internet and, only if I pass every single test you have run, only then
: >will you publicly apologize for calling me a stoner.
: I'd like to choke you out publicly.
: >Do we have a deal?
: Yes.
: >
: >: > the risk is 186% greater? (Not Kathleen, obviously, or she would
: >: > have understood that the 40% increased risk is the LOWEST of any
: >: > of the factors examined).
: >
: >: Once again, two wrongs - or more - don't make a
: >: right. Just because using another substance is
: >: MORE risky doesn't make it right to risk your kid
: >: by smoking pot.
: >
: >: And I understand odds quite well, thank you.
: >
: >You do? Ok, then tell us all how many more cases of AML should
: >we find in a 1,000-member group of "has had a chest X-ray" (OR=2.86)
: >than in a 1,000 member group of "mother used marijuana at some time"
: >(OR=1.40).
: >
: >Take your time and double check your math ... I'll wait.
: >
: >--
: >-- Mike Zarlenga
: > finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Saved for posterity.
Garrett Johnson
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:06:40 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
> >: Jails and Prisons are needed.
> >
> >One thing we need fewer of are laws making victimless crimes, like
> >smoking pot, illegal. Change that and 60% of the federal prison speace
> >we already have will become available for REAL criminals, like rapists,
> >murderers, batterers, muggers, etc, all of whom currently serve SHORTER
> >average sentences than the average non-violent federal drug offender.
>
> More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
Response #1) So everyone who smokes pot is drug crazed, huh?
Response #2) So theren't any drug users around you already?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
M.Simon
They violated it because they didn't like it. Americans will not obey
laws they don't like. Love It or Leave It.
It is obvious that a portion of the population has declared the drug
laws insufferable. Most unfortunate.
A large enough portion so that aprox 99.99% of all drug crimes are
never prosecuted. In fact the police are unaware of almost all drug
crimes.
Simon
===============================================
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
DNarsh
Card is gonna "Max Out".
How many future generations are we gonna lay this debt on to?
It seems everyone is ready to say build, house and maintain a massive prison
system so long as we are making jobs for the farmers being kicked off the land
and hiding the kids we turn our backs on in the inner city.
Is there no end to you folks spending extreme?
Ever figure out how much cheaper and more humane it would be to look at those
kids rather than condemn by labeling and turning away. Looking straight ahead
and locking the car's doors?
How long you gonna keep stepping over the folks lying in the streets homeless
and asking the cops to clean up what you are calling trash?
Snap out of it. It IS criminal to spend other unborn children's labor.
Let's solve our problem instead of passing it on. We made this mess let us
clean it up by education and instilling hope not hate Remove the "need? to
escape reality with drugs by making the reality worth living in.
That's a big challenge but it's more moral than ignoring it and pasing it on to
the future. You do know don't you that the cost of warehousing these folks
don't stop when you pass on or are looking for your retirement money.
MAX
Babies need to be taught to walk and talk
If you want them to hate, you'll have to teach them that also
Standing straight amoung cripples does not make one strong. Sainthood does not
come off the sins of sinners. http://www.narsh.com
WINGS OF AN ANGEL
Cliff Schaffer
>:
>
>There is little difference. A slight chemical variance.
>Again it is more the medical reasons than anything.
In truth there is no significant medical difference. So why is one totally
illegal and the other not?
>
>Besides both are illegal to use without a doctors
>supervision.
That doesn't answer the question. One is totally illegal under all
circumstances. The other is legal for medical us. Why?
> And heroin is not as pure
You ought to see that is only a function of the fact that one is illegal and
the other is not. Heroin can be manufactured just as pure as morphine. It
is morphine.
> plus it is
>more addictive per gram than medical morphine.
They are both addictive, and there are some drugs which are more powerful
than heroin that are legal. That doesn't explain why it is illegal, either.
I take it (through all of the explanations) that you really don't know why
one became illegal and the other didn't.
Steve Furbish
"M.Simon" wrote:
>
> Of course they didn't violate the law for the sake of violating it.
> They violated it because they didn't like it. Americans will not obey
> laws they don't like. Love It or Leave It.
I suppose that's where we find a transition from Americans
to criminals? Without a practical sustainable political
purpose those who violate laws of government by choice are
recorded in history merely as common criminals.
> It is obvious that a portion of the population has declared the drug
> laws insufferable. Most unfortunate.
A swift and decisive revolution of the type that occurred in
the late 18th century is unlikely at best under today's
conditions.
> A large enough portion so that aprox 99.99% of all drug crimes are
> never prosecuted. In fact the police are unaware of almost all drug
> crimes.
Really? And yet the pro-legalization folks generally make a
very different assertion?
Steve
do...@stone-soup.com
<sfur...@cybertours.com> wrote:
>
>
>"M.Simon" wrote:
>>
>> This is America pal. We violate laws we don't like at will.
>>
>> Its the way we started this here little experiment.
>>
>> There are a LOT of us out here who like it that way.
>>
>> Love it or Leave it.
>>
>> Simon
>
>While your claim (concerning the start of the "experiment")
>is true, you may recall that the original Patriots didn't
>violate the law for the sake of violating it? They held to a
>higher purpose splendidly articulated in Jefferson's
>composition of June-July 1776. They were not lawless nor
>void of respect for the need of Government. A call to
>Revolution seems premature..
>
>Steve
>
>"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
>established should not be changed for light and transient
>causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
>mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
>sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
>to which they are accustomed" - Declaration of Independence,
>final draft
Seems that using your reference. DoI
-Warrentless searches
-Seizure with out due process.
-Ignoring medical marajuana laws, 4th paragraph DoI
-Refusing to tell people how to get back property siezed, 7th
paragraph DoI
-12 paragraph selfevident
-15th paragraph NAFTA, GATT
-18th paragraph Any and all embargos when not at war.
-19th paragraph Any fee not voted on passed by any agency.
-20th paragraph New laws that keep sex criminals locked up after their
sentence is expired.
And more if you care to look. Doesn't seem very premature.
Nathan Engle
> More drug crazed idiots on the lose in our society. Great!
Yeah, you know those naughty pot heads. Give them half a
chance and before you know it they'll get themselves ORGANIZED
into a well-oiled political machine. I can see why you would
be frightened by something as likely to happen as that...
--
Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
BLOBn...@indiana.eduBLUB BLOBhttp://php.indiana.edu/~nengleBLUB
"Some Assembly Required"
Steve Furbish
do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
> Seems that using your reference. DoI
> -Warrentless searches
> -Seizure with out due process.
> -Ignoring medical marajuana laws, 4th paragraph DoI
> -Refusing to tell people how to get back property siezed, 7th
> paragraph DoI
> -12 paragraph selfevident
> -15th paragraph NAFTA, GATT
> -18th paragraph Any and all embargos when not at war.
> -19th paragraph Any fee not voted on passed by any agency.
> -20th paragraph New laws that keep sex criminals locked up after their
> sentence is expired.
>
> And more if you care to look. Doesn't seem very premature.
An interesting take on the current state of affairs,
however, one that appears to justify criminality rather than
address bonafide grievances? In any event,
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."
The mechanism for change is present seems without need to
resort to revolution. Unfortunately for some, in a
democratic republic a majority can (and does) set standards
for the rest to live under. It would seem that a call to
revolution at this point and based on those grievances could
not pass muster.
Steve
do...@stone-soup.com
<sfur...@cybertours.com> wrote:
>
>
>"M.Simon" wrote:
>>
>> Of course they didn't violate the law for the sake of violating it.
>> They violated it because they didn't like it. Americans will not obey
>> laws they don't like. Love It or Leave It.
>
>I suppose that's where we find a transition from Americans
>to criminals? Without a practical sustainable political
>purpose those who violate laws of government by choice are
>recorded in history merely as common criminals.
>
>> It is obvious that a portion of the population has declared the drug
>> laws insufferable. Most unfortunate.
>
>A swift and decisive revolution of the type that occurred in
>the late 18th century is unlikely at best under today's
>conditions.
>
Swift and decisive? The longest war we have ever been involved in.
With less than 1/3 fighting and at least 1/3 against.
M.Simon
<sfur...@cybertours.com> wrote:
>
>
>"M.Simon" wrote:
>>
>> Of course they didn't violate the law for the sake of violating it.
>> They violated it because they didn't like it. Americans will not obey
>> laws they don't like. Love It or Leave It.
>
>I suppose that's where we find a transition from Americans
>to criminals? Without a practical sustainable political
>purpose those who violate laws of government by choice are
>recorded in history merely as common criminals.
I guess their purpose is the destruction of the drug laws. OK now?
>> It is obvious that a portion of the population has declared the drug
>> laws insufferable. Most unfortunate.
>
>A swift and decisive revolution of the type that occurred in
>the late 18th century is unlikely at best under today's
>conditions.
We like the slow torture methods here. Who said revolutions have to
be fast or violent? Is this a rule?
>> A large enough portion so that aprox 99.99% of all drug crimes are
>> never prosecuted. In fact the police are unaware of almost all drug
>> crimes.
>
>Really? And yet the pro-legalization folks generally make a
>very different assertion?
>Steve
If there are 1 billion drug crimes a year how many have to be detected
to get 100,000 prisoners a year? 00.01%
( Gvmt estimates 13 million regular drug users. Suppose they use twice
a week. >1 billion drug crimes)
Simon
M.Simon
<sfur...@cybertours.com> wrote:
>
>
>do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
>
>> Seems that using your reference. DoI
>> -Warrentless searches
>> -Seizure with out due process.
>> -Ignoring medical marajuana laws, 4th paragraph DoI
>> -Refusing to tell people how to get back property siezed, 7th
>> paragraph DoI
>> -12 paragraph selfevident
>> -15th paragraph NAFTA, GATT
>> -18th paragraph Any and all embargos when not at war.
>> -19th paragraph Any fee not voted on passed by any agency.
>> -20th paragraph New laws that keep sex criminals locked up after their
>> sentence is expired.
>>
>> And more if you care to look. Doesn't seem very premature.
>
>An interesting take on the current state of affairs,
>however, one that appears to justify criminality rather than
>address bonafide grievances? In any event,
The British Government of 1776 was of the same opinion.
>
>"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
>these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
>abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
>foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
>such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
>Safety and Happiness."
>
>The mechanism for change is present seems without need to
>resort to revolution. Unfortunately for some, in a
>democratic republic a majority can (and does) set standards
>for the rest to live under. It would seem that a call to
>revolution at this point and based on those grievances could
>not pass muster.
>Steve
Jews were never a majority in Germany. Does this mean that the
minority is always subject to the will of the majority. I don't think
so. And neither did the founders.
M.Simon
population that violates the drug laws. And law enforcement is
powerless to stop them.
What now?
Simon
===================================================
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:50:02 -0500, Steve Furbish
<sfur...@cybertours.com> wrote:
>
>
>do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
>
>> Seems that using your reference. DoI
>> -Warrentless searches
>> -Seizure with out due process.
>> -Ignoring medical marajuana laws, 4th paragraph DoI
>> -Refusing to tell people how to get back property siezed, 7th
>> paragraph DoI
>> -12 paragraph selfevident
>> -15th paragraph NAFTA, GATT
>> -18th paragraph Any and all embargos when not at war.
>> -19th paragraph Any fee not voted on passed by any agency.
>> -20th paragraph New laws that keep sex criminals locked up after their
>> sentence is expired.
>>
>> And more if you care to look. Doesn't seem very premature.
>
>An interesting take on the current state of affairs,
>however, one that appears to justify criminality rather than
>address bonafide grievances? In any event,
>
>"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
>these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
>abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
>foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
>such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
>Safety and Happiness."
>
>The mechanism for change is present seems without need to
>resort to revolution. Unfortunately for some, in a
>democratic republic a majority can (and does) set standards
>for the rest to live under. It would seem that a call to
>revolution at this point and based on those grievances could
>not pass muster.
>
>Steve
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
Stormcrow
do...@stone-soup.com(Doug) wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:08:06 -0500, Steve Furbish
> <sfur...@cybertours.com> wrote:
> >
> >"M.Simon" wrote:
> >>
> >> This is America pal. We violate laws we don't like at will.
> >>
> >> Its the way we started this here little experiment.
> >>
> >> There are a LOT of us out here who like it that way.
> >>
> >> Love it or Leave it.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> >While your claim (concerning the start of the "experiment")
> >is true, you may recall that the original Patriots didn't
> >violate the law for the sake of violating it? They held to a
> >higher purpose splendidly articulated in Jefferson's
> >composition of June-July 1776. They were not lawless nor
> >void of respect for the need of Government. A call to
> >Revolution seems premature..
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
> >established should not be changed for light and transient
> >causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
> >mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
> >sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
> >to which they are accustomed" - Declaration of Independence,
> >final draft
>
> -Warrentless searches
> -Seizure with out due process.
> -Ignoring medical marajuana laws, 4th paragraph DoI
> -Refusing to tell people how to get back property siezed, 7th
> paragraph DoI
> -12 paragraph selfevident
> -15th paragraph NAFTA, GATT
> -18th paragraph Any and all embargos when not at war.
> -19th paragraph Any fee not voted on passed by any agency.
> -20th paragraph New laws that keep sex criminals locked up after their
> sentence is expired.
>
> And more if you care to look. Doesn't seem very premature.
Anyone care for a little "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine...?
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet
sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not
thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and
raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon
subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine
or...
"Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined
to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be
included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to
be trusted; weak men, who cannot see; prejudiced men, who will not see; and a
certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it
deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the
cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the
evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the
precariousness with which all American property is possessed. . . . But if
you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house
been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your
wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have
you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and
wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who
have? But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then
you are unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and
whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward,
and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those
feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should
be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the
felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking
revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue
determinately some fixed object." - Thomas Paine
or lastly...
"… a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and
in that case we pay our money for nothing . . . I make the sufferers case
my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property
destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as a man, sensible of injuries,
I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound
thereby.
Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us,
is of all others, the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected
under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave
resistance, be at last cheated into slavery." - Thomas Paine
Stormcrow
Another day, another midget clown.
Steve Furbish
do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
> Swift and decisive? The longest war we have ever been involved in.
> With less than 1/3 fighting and at least 1/3 against.
From the "shot heard 'round the world" to the treaty in
Paris was a mere eight years. How long would you anticipate
an actual revolution taking under contemporary conditions?
Let's also not overlook the fact that it's a bit difficult
to find John Hancock, George Washington, Patrick Henry, et
al in the current libertarian camps...
Steve