Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
NanLeeCro
Is the buzz phrase "The War against drugs is a failure" Pro-Drug propaganda
SPIN? "Prisoners of the Drug War"??? see excerpts below
Even "High" rhetorhic propaganda to incite recruits!
If I didn't know better, I would say it sounds like they plagarized the very
effusive Ms. Spowles...
Excerpts from the DRCNet: _____________________________________________________
"If you're looking for the best, quickest, easiest way to join the
anti-drug war movement, you've found it. If you're not on DRCNet, you're
not "in the loop". " [hip, elite, or hip elite]
"PRISONERS OF THE DRUG WAR exposes the heart-wrenching mandatory
sentences given to people who aren't that much different from the rest
of us..."
"If you are opposed to Prohibition, or even if you just think the War on
Drugs has gone too far, ..."
______________________________________
pro*hi*bi*tion (noun)
First appeared 14th Century
1 : the act of prohibiting by authority
2 : an order to restrain or stop
3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture,
transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors[drugs] except for medicinal and
sacramental purposes
public law (noun)
First appeared 1773
1 : a legislative enactment affecting the public at large
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Luk
> I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to drug policies
> currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?
>
> Col Klink
Hi, Klink,
Is this place dead or what !
Luk
Luk
> >Is this place dead or what !
> >
> >Luk
>
> I know you aren't talking to me, Luk but, can I say I think too. :)
> Why don't you pick a fight with Eric and liven the place up?
He ain't around.
And why don't you think I'm talking to you, Granny?
Seems t'me I wrote something to you a couple of days ago.
Luk
Luk
Luk wrote:
Oh, yeah yeah yeah.
I get it now. You meant I wasn't addressing you.
(But I'm never not speaking to you. You're kool.)
Yup. It's been dead here all day.
Too pretty outdoors I guess.
Went out m'self for a while -- when I got through
cleaning up after the squirrel, that is.
Lucy
GMSpider
In article <357B3755...@mindspring.com>, Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
writes:
>Hi, Klink,
>
>Is this place dead or what !
>
>Luk
I know you aren't talking to me, Luk but, can I say I think too. :)
Why don't you pick a fight with Eric and liven the place up?
Grandmother Spider
Visit the Girl Gang Web Pages at
http://members.aol.com/gmspider/index.html
kathleen flick
Cowboy #54 wrote:
> I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to drug policies
> currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?
>
> Col Klink
How many died on the streets this week due to drug policies currently
enforced?
Kathleen
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Sun, 7 Jun 1998 21:08:43 -0700,
on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
"Elliott Finesse" <e...@usnb.net> cast this ASCII:
>kathleen flick wrote in message
><357B138B...@mail.msy.bellsouth.net>...
>>Cowboy #54 wrote:
>>> I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to drug policies
>>> currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?
>>How many died on the streets this week due to drug policies currently
>>enforced?
>Is one not enough?
In "The Moral and Practical Case for Drug Legalization", an extensive
and heavily documented study in 18 Hofstra Law Review 607 (1990),
James Ostrowski computes estimates of the number of deaths caused by
drug prohibition annually: 7,925 total.
In 4 categories he separated out the counts that were clearly due to
the prohibition, that is, those deaths that would not have occurred
but for the prohibition.
The breakdown (ibid. at 655) is
Murders incident to street crime: 1200
Black market murders (turf wars, etc.): 825
Drug related AIDS (due to prohibition of clean needles: 3500
Poisoned drugs/no quality control: 2400
------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 7925
He adds that as of 1990 NIDA estimated about 250,000 are infected with
AIDS due to the unavailablity of sterile injection equipment.
A short summary of the economic costs (presented w/o the footnotes or
I'd be typing all night):
"The total costs of drug-related law enforcement -- courts, police,
prisons, on all levels of government -- is about $10 billion each
year. Each dollar spent on drug enforcement yields seven dollars in
economic _loss_. Prohibition takes $10 billion from taxpayers and
uses it to raise $80 billion for organized crime and drug dealers,
impoverishing many drug users in the process. To pay for expensive
black-market drugs, poor drug users then victimize the taxpayers by
stealing $7.5 billion from them. Thus the total economic cost of
prohibition is about $80 billion each year (excluding the $7.5
billion in thefts)."
He notes that the figure does not cover the more difficult to estimate
economic figures, such as funding for treating AIDS caused by dirty
needles, etc.
Ostrowski wrote 8 years ago. Things have changed since then, but not
for the better.
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc., and are NOT legal advice.
"How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, hold-ups, burglaries,
and deeds of maniacal insanity it [marijuana] causes each year, especially
among the young, can only be conjectured." << Harry J. Anslinger, 1937 >>
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: Cowboy #54 <d...@YOUDONTNEEDTHIStexas.net>
>Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998 19:01 EDT
>> Is the buzz phrase "The War against drugs is a failure"
>
>I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to drug >policies
currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?
>
>Col Klink
A plaintive new buzz word:
"I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to drug policies
currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?"
Who died on the streets and...how and why?
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>
>> How many died on the streets this week due to drug policies currently
>> enforced?
>>
>> Kathleen
>
>
>I dont have the body count handy, but this is an every day event >in the inner
cities.
>
>Col Klink
The pro-legalization/decriminalization "militant' net sites I scanned do not
bemoan drug-related death tolls. Many extol the virtues of
mind-altering drugs and fault the injustice of the law. Some of them want
EVERYBODY to "turn on" so they can TRULY find their true reality through "high"
trip to ultimate perception.
Instituted laws are not purely deterent nor preventative.
Laws have never prevented crime or lawbreaking.
Considering the high number of child abuse deaths and infanticide
cases, should we decriminalize related laws since obviously
human nature's overwhelming deviant imperatives cannot
contained?
NanLeeCro
>>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Mon, Jun 8, 1998 00:51 EDT
George submitted a 1990 study:
The breakdown (ibid. at 655) is
Murders incident to street crime: 1200
Black market murders (turf wars, etc.): 825
Drug related AIDS (due to prohibition of clean needles: 3500
Poisoned drugs/no quality control: 2400
------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 7925
The above "victim" toll represents the results, for the greater
part, of willful self-destruction. Applying Darwin's theories of
"survival of the fittest" and "natural selection", the drug culture
is more doomed by its own actions than by societal laws.
The high cost of protecting society and pursuing criminals
will not change by rescinding any laws. The Black Market trade will not
suddenly stop nor will tragic consequences of
hard drug use. A permissive policy will only enable drug use.
GMSpider
In article <357B4092...@mindspring.com>, Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
writes:
>> I know you aren't talking to me, Luk but, can I say I think too. :)
>> Why don't you pick a fight with Eric and liven the place up?
>
>He ain't around.
>
>And why don't you think I'm talking to you, Granny?
>Seems t'me I wrote something to you a couple of days ago.
>
>Luk
>
>
>
I just meant that this message wasn't directed at me. Some people
around here post to the group like it was email or something.
Grandma
Luk
> Luk wrote:
> >Hi, Klink,
> >Is this place dead or what !
Elliot Finesse wrote:
>No that is the tree rat you were after that died
>and is smelling up the place.
My dear Mr. no-archive:yes,
I realize the temptation to make light of what was in fact a very worrisome
experience is more than I would expect some of you to overcome. The poor
creature is not, as you so indelicately phrased it, "smelling up the place".
He or she obviously jumped out of the window, and since the window was two
stories off the ground, he or she very likely was not in very good condition
after the fall, a fact which did not escape the notice of two dogs who occupy
the back yard.
However I happen to know there are some readers here who understand that the
"tree rat" was only the hapless victim of an inadvertent fall down the chimney,
and had done nothing to deserve the fate he or she ultimately met. It comforts
me to know that when I had the opportunity I did everything reasonably expected
to help the poor creature, up to and including setting out a bowl of water,
next to the cage with the peanut butter.
So if you'll just back off, there are some of us who would just as soon forget
about the whole thing.
Luk
Luk
GMSpider wrote:
>Some people around here post to the group
>like it was email or something.
I've noticed that, Gramma.
I think it's awful.
Luk
LatherZap
Nan wrote
>pro*hi*bi*tion (noun)
>First appeared 14th Century
> 1 : the act of prohibiting by authority
> 2 : an order to restrain or stop
> 3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture,
>transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors[drugs] except for medicinal and
>sacramental purposes
>
>public law (noun)
>First appeared 1773
> 1 : a legislative enactment affecting the public at large
Umm, very nice.
no...@none.of.your.fucking.business.com
Col, don't know who we're talkin' to here...but they're Dumb Dumb Dumb. Who
died on the streets today? Your mamma.
K
I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, and I don't know
why I'll do it again.
Bart Simpson
Cowboy #54 wrote in message <357C1C...@texas.net>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>> "I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to drug
policies
>> currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?"
>>
>> Who died on the streets and...how and why?
>
>Do you really have your head that far in the sand? I assert again - you
>dont know enough about this issue to be taken seriously. Keep on talking
>- you make more points for my side every time you reply!!!!
>
>Col Klink
Eric Saeger
KChas...@aol.com wrote:
> I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, and I don't
> know why I'll do it again.
> Bart Simpson
MMMmmm! Looks who's back! Write me something disgusting pronto before
your riotgrrrl status is revoked!
--
Remove the obvious to reply
QA Analysis done from my home! http://members.aol.com/ManORuin/QA.html
Bot Bait: ab...@whitehouse.gov tmil...@iname.com panas...@aol.com
net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov pyr...@ftc.gov resell...@hotmail.com
rhu...@fcc.gov d...@daltek.net lksi...@sockets.net ma...@daltek.net
bizi...@aol.com d...@sparrow.aoci.com 9809...@ix.netcom.com
newco...@memail.com ax...@metrocity.net
no...@none.of.your.fucking.business.com
Eric Saeger wrote in message <357C1F...@fmrNoSpam.com>...
>KChas...@aol.com wrote:
>> I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, and I don't
>> know why I'll do it again.
>> Bart Simpson
>
>MMMmmm! Looks who's back! Write me something disgusting pronto before
>your riotgrrrl status is revoked!
BITE ME before your asshole status is revoked.
K
PS: I don't do fair-weathered friends
Eric Saeger
Did Trent put you up to that or are you temporarily nuts?
> PS: I don't do fair-weathered friends
Does anyone out there speak Female at all? I think someone's uppity!
no...@none.of.your.fucking.business.com
Eric Saeger wrote in message <357C27...@fmrNoSpam.com>...
>KChas...@aol.com wrote:
>> BITE ME before your asshole status is revoked.
>
>Did Trent put you up to that or are you temporarily nuts?
>
>> PS: I don't do fair-weathered friends
>
>Does anyone out there speak Female at all? I think someone's uppity!
TRANSLATION for the thinking impaired......YOU SUCK !! (show me proof you
don't)
K
Phyllis McGinley:
"Getting along with men isn't what's truly important. The vital knowledge is
how to get along with one man"
Eric Saeger
KChas...@aol.com wrote:
> TRANSLATION for the thinking impaired......YOU SUCK !! (show me proof you
> don't)
OK, Bunny, enough Vitriol Cola. Dad's got a biiiiig hug for Punkin!
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Mon, Jun 8, 1998 13:09 EDT
>> "I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to >>drug policies
currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?"
>>
>>Subject: OT: Can Communication Themes Reveal Disorders?
>
>Do you really have your head that far in the sand? I assert again - >you dont
know enough about this issue to be taken seriously. >Keep on talking you make
more points for my side every time >you reply!!!!
>Col Klink
Col: Spinning your wild stuff is not making points - you are deluding
yourself.
COL wrote: "I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to drug
policies currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?"
Yes, your comment BROMIDIC BUZZ! Did they die, OD or were they murdered? Who
and how and why? Were they children or adults? Were they criminals or good
citizens? Your
BUZZ is meaningless and pointless - just hostile & hyperbolic.
Where is it written in the Anti-Drug policy mandating that people should die on
the street? Were the cops on the streets making them "die" on the streets?
If you want to make a point,
use your head. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: Cowboy #54 <d...@YOUDONTNEEDTHIStexas.net>
>> BUZZ is meaningless and pointless - just hostile & hyperbolic.
>> Where is it written in the Anti-Drug policy mandating that >>people should
die on the street? Were the cops on the streets >>making them "die" on the
streets? If you want to make a point,
>> use your head. from Nan
>
>I suppose I could bother to bring forth my best effort to respond, >but I tend
to reserve that effort for something worthwhile.
>Col Klink
Col. - how about advocating on behalf of the victims of drug
addiction-neglected, endangered children living in filth and deprivation
instead of offering vain rationales for drug users.
NanLeeCro
Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: Cowboy #54 <d...@YOUDONTNEEDTHIStexas.net>
>> Murders incident to street crime: 1200
*Committed by murderers breaking the law
and who do not care about life.
>> Black market murders (turf wars, etc.): 825
*Turf wars, gang wars = self-destruct
>> Drug related AIDS (due to prohibition of clean needles: 3500
*******This is the ultimate BULL!
***If they can buy the frikkin dope, they can buy the
***frikkin needles.
***I have bought disposable syringes to medicate my horses and
pets!!!!!!!!!!!!! for frikkin nothing - pennies! What a frikkin
God Damn scam!!!!!!!!! Can there be no illicit needle trade?
>> Poisoned drugs/no quality control: 2400
That is enough to keep anyone away
from drug use - POISONED DRUGS
***Wouldn't be a good CHOICE at all.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Total: 7925
>>
Nan wrote:
>> The above "victim" toll represents the results, for the greater >>part, of
willful self-destruction.
>
Col wrote: Then I could say the same about the people who willfully take drugs.
>Besides, you asked about the costs of getting rid of drug laws, >and the above
proof was thrown down on the table. Now you >choose to make light of it,
explain it away.
I call it a frikkin farce to present that as "proof"!
Col.>How typical. Its rude to ask for proof, then
>ignore it when it has been provided. Not to mention, it mmakes >you look like
you dont know what you are talking about.
I am RUDE: I DO KNOW how cheap disposable syringes, so THERE!
Nan wrote:>> Applying Darwin's theories of
>> "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection",
>
>Then I could say the same about the people who willfully take >drugs.
Yep, you should say that about willfull drug use. THEY ALL
KNOW THE RISKS. They become at the mercy of the drug.
Nan wrote:
>> the drug culture is more doomed by its own actions than by >>societal laws.
The high cost of protecting society and pursuing >>criminals will not change
by rescinding any laws.
>WRONG WRONG WRONG. You havent comprehenbded a word we have said about the
reduced costs of enforcing the laws of the failed drug policies.
I do not accept that law enforcement has failed. The drug war is a political
game. The cost to combat drug traffic is worth to me and to society. I do
not consider the Turf War deaths indicative of
a failed drug policy. If anything, Turf Wars should be
encouraged. Self-Destruct!!
> I suspect it is because you dont want to - you have made up your >mind. Fine
- why dont you just come clean and admit it. You have >ceased to be a serious
player in any discussion on this issue. All >you have on your side is a lot of
speculation about the US as it >could be if there were no drug laws. We have
shown you the >proof of nearly 8,000 people killed a year.
In a million ways, you arguments fall flat.
Criminals killing criminals!!!!!!! That is nat a Drug War failure.
Col wrote: You have demonstrated you dont care about this fact.
My heart does not pine for dead criminals.
Nan wrote:>> The Black Market trade will not
>> suddenly stop nor will tragic consequences of
>> hard drug use. A permissive policy will only enable drug use.
>
>Then explain why there is no black market for beer, know-it-all.
Man, are you naive! There is a healthy black market in liquor and
cigarettes. I know. I live close to the Canadian Border.
I used to live close to the Mexican Border. There is a lot of black
marketeering, smuggling, dealing stolen goods, and not all of it is related to
drugs. It is "free enterprise" "Supply & Demand"
>The more you say, the less sense you make. You have clearly >lost the debate
here. Col Klink
You clearly have lost your mind if you think so. "Dirty Needles", indeed.
What consumate BullCrap! If they can buy the dope, they can buy the needles.
They do not have to share.
They share because they don't care - that fact has nothing to
do with the Drug War at all. from Nan
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, 10 Jun 1998 04:34:07 GMT,
on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) cast this ASCII:
[ snip ]
>I do not accept that law enforcement has failed. The drug war is a political
>game. The cost to combat drug traffic is worth to me and to society. I do
>not consider the Turf War deaths indicative of
>a failed drug policy. If anything, Turf Wars should be
>encouraged. Self-Destruct!!
And what of the bystanders who are hit by the turf war bullets?
Should they just be considered necessary collateral damage?
[ snip ]
>>Then explain why there is no black market for beer, know-it-all.
>Man, are you naive! There is a healthy black market in liquor and
>cigarettes. I know. I live close to the Canadian Border.
>I used to live close to the Mexican Border. There is a lot of black
>marketeering, smuggling, dealing stolen goods, and not all of it is related to
>drugs. It is "free enterprise" "Supply & Demand"
The trade in illegal drugs is just "free enterprise" or "supply &
demand" as well. The law of supply and demand simply can't be
repealed by making the substances supplied and demanded illegal.
The "liquor and cigarette" black market near borders is just a special
case of the same general phenomenon as the trade in illegal drugs. If
a substance is illegal or very heavily taxed on one side of the border
the black market will flourish.
>>The more you say, the less sense you make. You have clearly >lost the debate
>here. Col Klink
>You clearly have lost your mind if you think so. "Dirty Needles", indeed.
>What consumate BullCrap! If they can buy the dope, they can buy the needles.
>They do not have to share.
>They share because they don't care - that fact has nothing to
>do with the Drug War at all. from Nan
In most jurisdictions possession of hypodermic needles is illegal
without a prescription. It certainly is in California, by Cal. B&P
Code Section 4149. Drug addicts usually don't have prescriptions for
their injection equipment, and hence can't get them except through a
black market, or through needle exchange.
It took a trial in which the jury refused to convict the needle
exchangers to make needle exchange possible here in my county. In
fact, the jury foreman and some other jury members joined the
defendant doing needle exchange on the streets the day after the
trial.
Needle exchange in Cal. is entirely privately funded by charitable
organizations and it operates on a shoestring. In my county alone it
has saved the government tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in
medical care costs that would have occurred without it.
Needle exchange experience and studies have shown very clearly that
addicts who have access to sterile injection equipment by and large do
not share needles, and new HIV and other bloodborne infections drop
dramatically when access to sterile equipment is made possible.
In areas without access to sterile injection equipment, HIV infection
among intravenous drug users doubles about every two years until
virtually the entire iv user population is infected. In areas with
access to sterile equipment, the infection rate among iv users remains
stable.
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.and are NOT legal advice.
"When we look down the road, I would say 10, 15, 20 years from now,
in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably be outlawed in the United States."
<< Thomas Constantine, Director, DEA, 4/26/98, on ABC's "20/20" >
glas
It is terribly short-sighted and self-centered to believe that dirty
needles do not affect all of us.
The plague that is AIDS touches all of our lives. From the costs to
valuable lives wasted to the high cost of astronimical medical bills
to supporting the disabled state that AIDS infected people are reduced
to.
It is a threat to *everyone*. How many teenagers have gotten it from
their early experiments with sex? How many people have gotten it from
impulsive unprotected sex? How many babies have been born only to
suffer a life of misery and eventually die from it because mommy was
addicted to something or someone that was bad for them? How many
innocent people will die because of a fear of giving or recieving
blood products? How many medical persons will die because of
accidental needle sticks or splash contact?
Is it acceptable to you that these people will die?
Are you sacrificing innocents on the cross of self-righteous
indignation? Go ahead and sit there on your high horse and proclaim
that you know what is best for people living lives and surviving
situations about which you know nothing.
Maybe that is acceptable to you, but it isn't to me. If a needle
exchange program can save even one of these lives, then it is worth
whatever it costs and whatever it takes.
Don't ask me to go look up the facts because I don't have the time for
that, but I have read plenty about victims of child abuse growing up
to become addicts in an effort to self medicate. There are many
reasons that people become addicted to drugs. It is not my place to
judge why or whether or not they are worthy of concern, nor is it
yours. Even addicts deserve care and concern.
I know, I used to be one.
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
|I do not accept that law enforcement has failed. The drug war is a
political
|game. The cost to combat drug traffic is worth to me and to society.
I do
|not consider the Turf War deaths indicative of
|a failed drug policy. If anything, Turf Wars should be
|encouraged. Self-Destruct!!
|
|> I suspect it is because you dont want to - you have made up your
>mind. Fine
|- why dont you just come clean and admit it. You have >ceased to be a
serious
|player in any discussion on this issue. All >you have on your side is
a lot of
|speculation about the US as it >could be if there were no drug laws.
We have
|shown you the >proof of nearly 8,000 people killed a year.
|
|In a million ways, you arguments fall flat.
|Criminals killing criminals!!!!!!! That is nat a Drug War failure.
|
|Col wrote: You have demonstrated you dont care about this fact.
|
|My heart does not pine for dead criminals.
|
|Nan wrote:>> The Black Market trade will not
|>> suddenly stop nor will tragic consequences of
|>> hard drug use. A permissive policy will only enable drug use.
|>
|>Then explain why there is no black market for beer, know-it-all.
|
|Man, are you naive! There is a healthy black market in liquor and
|cigarettes. I know. I live close to the Canadian Border.
|I used to live close to the Mexican Border. There is a lot of black
|marketeering, smuggling, dealing stolen goods, and not all of it is
related to
|drugs. It is "free enterprise" "Supply & Demand"
|
|>The more you say, the less sense you make. You have clearly >lost
the debate
|here. Col Klink
|
|You clearly have lost your mind if you think so. "Dirty Needles",
indeed.
|What consumate BullCrap! If they can buy the dope, they can buy the
needles.
|They do not have to share.
|They share because they don't care - that fact has nothing to
|do with the Drug War at all. from Nan
|
|
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
|>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
|>From: Cowboy #54 <d...@YOUDONTNEEDTHIStexas.net>
|
|>> "I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due to
>>drug policies
|currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?"
|>>
|>>Subject: OT: Can Communication Themes Reveal Disorders?
|>
|>Do you really have your head that far in the sand? I assert again -
>you dont
|know enough about this issue to be taken seriously. >Keep on talking
you make
|more points for my side every time >you reply!!!!
|>Col Klink
|
|Col: Spinning your wild stuff is not making points - you are
deluding
|yourself.
|
|COL wrote: "I wonder if those who died on the streets this week due
to drug
|policies currently enforced feel like this is a buzz phrase?"
|
|Yes, your comment BROMIDIC BUZZ! Did they die, OD or were they
murdered? Who
|and how and why? Were they children or adults? Were they criminals
or good
|citizens? Your
|Where is it written in the Anti-Drug policy mandating that people
should die on
streets?
|If you want to make a point,
|use your head. from Nan
Does it matter how or why they died? They were human beings Nan.
Still people. Still salvageable. Being a drug addict or user does
not revoke your status as a person.
Rapidly losing all respect for your closed mind,
glas
Martha Sprowles
Cowboy #54 wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> > I call it a frikkin farce to present that as "proof"!
>
>
> > Col.>How typical. Its rude to ask for proof, then
> > >ignore it when it has been provided. Not to mention, it mmakes >you look like
> > you dont know what you are talking about.
> >
> > I am RUDE: I DO KNOW how cheap disposable syringes, so THERE!
>
> seen from your blatherings. Do you always talk in non sequitors?
>
> > Nan wrote:>> Applying Darwin's theories of
> > >> "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection",
> > >
> > >Then I could say the same about the people who willfully take >drugs.
> >
> > Yep, you should say that about willfull drug use. THEY ALL
> > KNOW THE RISKS. They become at the mercy of the drug.
>
>
> > Nan wrote:
> > >> the drug culture is more doomed by its own actions than by >>societal laws.
> > The high cost of protecting society and pursuing >>criminals will not change
> > by rescinding any laws.
> >
> > >WRONG WRONG WRONG. You havent comprehenbded a word we have said about the
> > reduced costs of enforcing the laws of the failed drug policies.
> >
> > I do not accept that law enforcement has failed.
>
>
> > The drug war is a political
> > game. The cost to combat drug traffic is worth to me and to society. I do
> > not consider the Turf War deaths indicative of
> > a failed drug policy. If anything, Turf Wars should be
> > encouraged. Self-Destruct!!
>
> you to decide whos lives are "worth" it, and whos are not.
>
> > > I suspect it is because you dont want to - you have made up your >mind. Fine
> > - why dont you just come clean and admit it. You have >ceased to be a serious
> > player in any discussion on this issue. All >you have on your side is a lot of
> > speculation about the US as it >could be if there were no drug laws. We have
> > shown you the >proof of nearly 8,000 people killed a year.
> >
> > In a million ways, you arguments fall flat.
>
>
> > Criminals killing criminals!!!!!!! That is nat a Drug War failure.
>
>
>
> > Col wrote: You have demonstrated you dont care about this fact.
> >
> > My heart does not pine for dead criminals.
>
> other humans. I, now in turn, discount you and your pathetic arguments.
>
> > Nan wrote:>> The Black Market trade will not
> > >> suddenly stop nor will tragic consequences of
> > >> hard drug use. A permissive policy will only enable drug use.
> > >
> > >Then explain why there is no black market for beer, know-it-all.
> >
> > Man, are you naive!
>
> so I will name call. It may make you feel better, but it works no better
> than your failed drug policies.
>
> > There is a healthy black market in liquor and
> > cigarettes. I know.
>
>
> > I live close to the Canadian Border.
>
>
> > I used to live close to the Mexican Border. There is a lot of black
> > marketeering, smuggling, dealing stolen goods, and not all of it is related to
> > drugs. It is "free enterprise" "Supply & Demand"
>
>
> > >The more you say, the less sense you make. You have clearly >lost the debate
> > here. Col Klink
> >
> > You clearly have lost your mind if you think so. "Dirty Needles", indeed.
>
> big. "Dity Logic", indeed.
>
> > What consumate BullCrap! If they can buy the dope, they can buy the needles.
> > They do not have to share.
>
>
> > They share because they don't care - that fact has nothing to
> > do with the Drug War at all. from Nan
>
>
> Col Klink
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> *** What he did there was tell her that she could do whatever she ***
> *** wanted to do, accomplish whatever she wanted to accomplish and ***
> *** he would be there to lift her up and be her strength. ***
> *** If that's not love, I don't know what is. ***
> *** {Written by wide_eye...@mindspring.com} ***
I have a nasty little suspicion about Nan. Do you recall one odd post
of hers in which she argued with George Byrd's sig line? When called on
this, she huffed that this was a peril of "scanning" other peoples'
posts. I suspect that Nan has not actually *read* any of the evidence
presented to her. I suspect, in fact, that she does not actually *read*
the long articles she herself posts. You'll notice that her only
original contributions to the debate are slurs, not points of debate.
Martha
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 01:50 EDT
>In <alt.true-crime>, 10 Jun 1998 04:34:07 GMT,
> on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
> nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) cast this ASCII:
> [ snip ]
>>I do not accept that law enforcement has failed. The drug war is >>a
political game. The cost to combat drug traffic is worth to me >>and to
society. I do not consider the Turf War deaths indicative >>of a failed drug
policy. If anything, Turf Wars should be
>>encouraged. Self-Destruct!!
>And what of the bystanders who are hit by the turf war bullets?
>Should they just be considered necessary collateral damage?
Geroge, you didn't provide stats on dead innocent bystanders.
Fate is arbitrary - we all are subject to it.
> [ snip ]
>>>Then explain why there is no black market for beer, >>know-it-all.
>>Man, are you naive! There is a healthy black market in liquor >>and
cigarettes. I know. I live close to the Canadian Border.
>>I used to live close to the Mexican Border. There is a lot of >>black
marketeering, smuggling, dealing stolen goods, and not all >>of it is related
to drugs. It is "free enterprise" "Supply & >>Demand"
>
>The trade in illegal drugs is just "free enterprise" or "supply &
>demand" as well.
The anti-social/sociopathic mind always finds a way to initiate
illegal, criminal enterprise. Just like the SKs finds his victim.
You blaming the law (AGAIN as ever) for criminal behavior.
>
>The "liquor and cigarette" black market near borders is just a >special case
of the same general phenomenon as the trade in >illegal drugs. If a substance
is illegal or very heavily taxed on >one side of the border the black market
will flourish.
So? That justifies rescinding or lowering all taxes? That fact
justifies nullifying all related laws and regulations?
That is no argument and you know it.
>
>>>The more you say, the less sense you make. You have clearly >lost the debate
here. Col Klink
>>You clearly have lost your mind if you think so. "Dirty >>Needles", indeed
!What consumate BullCrap! If they can buy >>the dope, they can buy the
needles.They do not have to share.
>>They share because they don't care - that fact has nothing to
>>do with the Drug War at all. from Nan
>In most jurisdictions possession of hypodermic needles is illegal
>without a prescription. It certainly is in California, by Cal. B&P
>Code Section 4149. Drug addicts usually don't have prescriptions >for their
injection equipment, and hence can't get them except >through a black market,
or through needle exchange.
Oh, since they CAN get their injection equipment through the
illicit sources - the Black Market, or a free syringe with
every buy, why should the government fund (taxpayers) for
needle exchanges? When I lived in CA, I bought mega sized
syringes for equine medications sold in Tack/Feed stores
without prescription.
The point is: the Majority (that DREADFULLY DISSENTING MORAL MAJORITY) does
not want to PAY for enabling drug use. The costs to protect and reduce drug
use & trade by law enforcement is a better value than supporting a drug
culture.. Most citizens do not want to fund needles. They oppose
decriminalization because they do not want to fund needles and sustaining
"drug medications" for addicts. They do not want to fund a leizure drug
culture and by enablling an extant drug culture, extend the drug culture to
omnipotence.
May I refer you to Dr. Leary's statements re: his crusade?
I posted it under another topic.
>It took a trial in which the jury refused to convict the needle
>exchangers to make needle exchange possible here in my >county. In fact, the
jury foreman and some other jury members >joined the defendant doing needle
exchange on the streets the >day after the trial.
I do not object to private agencies or persons supplying
free needles to addicts in a needle exchange program. Nevertheless, this case
you cite does not justify nullifying drug laws. If a user is HIV diagnosed, we
are not responsible if he
continues to share needles and to have unprotected sex.
The "enlightenment" from drug use is suicidal euphoria. .
>Needle exchange in Cal. is entirely privately funded by >charitable
organizations and it operates on a shoestring. In my >county alone it has
saved the government tens or hundreds of >millions of dollars in medical care
costs that would have occurred >without it.
Excellent! Can you cite how many alcoholics and drug addicts (and feigned
"mentally ill") are currently SUSTAINED, not rehabilitated, through federal and
state funded health services and welfare systems??? Can you project how many
more would be so if drug use was not illegal? The abiding disease is the
pathetic "congregate need" to use drugs - the *War* should address that woeful
cultural deficiency as well. Unlike Ginsburg and Kerourac, I don't need a drug
trip to hear the subtle intricate fibers of Brahams' Quintet in A & D.
Arrogant and self-righteous? Yep, because the DRUG SCENE is irresponsible
escapism. I don't want to support or enable drug use, nor should I have to do
so. As ever, we are at the impasse. Digging the serenity of
Brahams, from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>It is terribly short-sighted and self-centered to believe that dirty
>needles do not affect all of us.
Glas, I do not object to providing sterile needles to users.
Providing sterile needles is such a faint bandaid in covering the overall
problem, but it is a commendable humane effort.
That humane effort has nothing to do with the DRUG WAR and decriminalization of
drug use. I highly endorse preventative
programs. I do not endorse exclusivity public funding and decriminalization to
enable hard drug users and addicts to continue their downwardly spiral towards
self-destruction - possible AIDS/HIV for example, at the expensive and
detriment to the greater society. I do not want to live in and support a
predominating drug culture. I refuse to do so, and my assertion is no more
self-centered and short-sighted than the addicts' choice of a destructive
lifestyle which does, as you point out, affect all of society. The inverted
reasoning to solving this serious problem is astounding. The bottom-line
objective is either to enable or to prevent. Best to ya, glas, anyway. :-))
from Nan
.
NanLeeCro
glas wrote:
Don't ask me to go look up the facts because I don't have the time for that,
but I have read plenty about victims of child abuse growing up to become
addicts in an effort to self medicate. There are many reasons that people
become addicted to drugs. It is not my place to judge why or whether or not
they are worthy of concern, nor is it yours. Even addicts deserve care and
concern.
I know, I used to be one.
glas
Dear glas,
I didn't mean to ignore your above comments. Sadly I recognize there are
deep-seeded causes driving people to knock-out their painful realities and
using drugs or alcohol for psycho-emotional relief or release. Addicts do need
care and concern, not enabling of their addiction, but attendence to the rooted
causes of their need for drugs. Rehab for addiction and extensive counseling
for self-realized adjustment I highly advocate. We have an increasingly
disordered youth - too many ADD and ADHD cases per capita. These kids are the
most susceptible to future drug use.
Too many are already addicted, by necessity, to Ritalin.
Yes, Valium and Ritalin are both highly addicting prescribed
medications. We need positive problem solving techniques in our life's
preparation curriculum - the first course is PREVENTION.
I think you are wonderful, glas, to declare yourself so candidly.
I love bravery and honesty. Best to you, from Nan
Martha Sprowles
NanLeeCro wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
> >From: "glas" <gl...@donet.com>
> >Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 07:44 EDT
> glas wrote:
> but I have read plenty about victims of child abuse growing up to become
> addicts in an effort to self medicate. There are many reasons that people
> become addicted to drugs. It is not my place to judge why or whether or not
> they are worthy of concern, nor is it yours. Even addicts deserve care and
> concern.
>
> I know, I used to be one.
>
> glas
>
> I didn't mean to ignore your above comments. Sadly I recognize there are
> deep-seeded causes driving people to knock-out their painful realities and
> using drugs or alcohol for psycho-emotional relief or release. Addicts do need
> care and concern, not enabling of their addiction, but attendence to the rooted
> causes of their need for drugs. Rehab for addiction and extensive counseling
> for self-realized adjustment I highly advocate. We have an increasingly
> disordered youth - too many ADD and ADHD cases per capita. These kids are the
> most susceptible to future drug use.
> Too many are already addicted, by necessity, to Ritalin.
> Yes, Valium and Ritalin are both highly addicting prescribed
> medications. We need positive problem solving techniques in our life's
> preparation curriculum - the first course is PREVENTION.
> I think you are wonderful, glas, to declare yourself so candidly.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm on my other machine (like Halle, I have an enormous room filled with
computers on which I can masquerade as anyone I want to) where I don't
have Nan killfiled (yet), and I happened to see this comment about
Ritalin.
This is nonsense. My husband and my son have serious ADD. They both
take Ritalin. They *need* Ritalin, but they don't *want* to take it.
If they don't take it, certain things occur in their behavior--and they
don't care! Well, actually, they *do* care, but only if they are aware
of how they're acting--but to say that this is an addictive drug is
absolutely ludicrous. When my son takes a "holiday" from Ritalin--which
is common practice in youngsters, whose appetite is sometimes affected
by the medication--he has no "withdrawal symptoms"--he simply eats more
food. How do you mean that Ritalin is addictive?
Valium addictive? Duh. Where do you think the Betty Ford Institute
came from? You anti-legalizers say that "drug addicts" can't function
in society, yet how many corporate wives kept themselves High on Valium
for years and years, and did a fine job of it? People can and do
function while using addictive drugs; this is not to suggest that it's a
good idea, but it is the truth.
Where did you get your incorrect anti-Ritalin propaganda? Phyllis
Schlafly (and Ritalin, oddly, *is* an area where a medication is
politicized)?
Martha
NanLeeCro
>>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 08:42 EDT
>Message-id: <357E80...@texas.net>
>
>>> Col.>How typical. Its rude to ask for proof, then
>> >ignore it when it has been provided. Not to mention, it mmakes >>>you look
like you dont know what you are talking about.
>>
>> I am RUDE: I DO KNOW how cheap disposable syringes, so THERE!
>
>You are also ignorant, as well, but then I merely aver what we all >have seen
from your blatherings. Do you always talk in non >sequitors?
I answer directly your blatherings.
>
>> Nan wrote:>> Applying Darwin's theories of
>> >> "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection",
>> >
>> >Then I could say the same about the people who willfully take >drugs.
>>
>> Yep, you should say that about willfull drug use. THEY ALL
>> KNOW THE RISKS. They become at the mercy of the drug.
>
>You are ignorant of the facts.
Your opinions are not facts.
>
>> Nan wrote:
>> >> the drug culture is more doomed by its own actions than by >>>>societal
laws. The high cost of protecting society and >>>>pursuing criminals will
not change by rescinding any laws.
>>
>> >WRONG WRONG WRONG. You havent comprehenbded a >>>word we have said about
the reduced costs of enforcing the >>>laws of the failed drug policies.
>>
>> I do not accept that law enforcement has failed.
>
>Thanks for for admitting that you are ignorant.
Dear Col.
You just don't get it: because people choose to commit crimes and disobey
laws does not invalidate the need for those laws.
Law enforcement does not go into action until there a suspicion of a committed
crime or a crime is actually committed. Your reasoning is so inverted it
defies a term to describe it.
>
>> The drug war is a political game. The cost to combat drug >>traffic is
worth to me and to society. I do
>> not consider the Turf War deaths indicative of
>> a failed drug policy. If anything, Turf Wars should be
>> encouraged. Self-Destruct!!
>
>Laughing heartily at you. Then your life has little value. It is not >for you
to decide whos lives are "worth" it, and whos are not.
Dear Col.: I am CERTAINLY not going to rely on your judgement in determining
my values, get it?
The decision is not mine if they self-destruct. They are responsible for their
own actions.
>> > I suspect it is because you dont want to - you have made up >>>your mind.
>>>Fine - why dont you just come clean and admit it. You have >>>ceased to be
a serious player in any discussion on this issue. >>>All you have on your side
is a lot of speculation about the US >>>as it could be if there were no drug
laws. We have
>> shown you the proof of nearly 8,000 people killed a year.
>>
>> In a million ways, you arguments fall flat.
>
>Yet you cant tell me one of the reasons. Mystic.
>
>> Criminals killing criminals!!!!!!! That is nat a Drug War failure.
Criminals killing criminals is a hell of a success! How do
the Drug War people get them to do that?
>Stares at you. (Can anyone really be that stupid?)
Not agreeing with you is too easy to be stupid.
>
>> Col wrote: You have demonstrated you dont care about this fact.
>>
>> My heart does not pine for dead criminals.
>
>Well there it is, isnt it. You at least admit you discount the lives of
>other humans. I, now in turn, discount you and your pathetic >arguments.
I do admit I discount the value of the lives of CRIMINALS
compared to the lives of those who are the victims of criminals.
>> Nan wrote:>> The Black Market trade will not
>> >> suddenly stop nor will tragic consequences of
>> >> hard drug use. A permissive policy will only enable drug >>>use.
>> >
>> >Then explain why there is no black market for beer, >>>know-it-all.
>>
>> Man, are you naive!
>
>Translation: you have caught me on this point, and I can not >refute it, so I
will name call. It may make you feel better, but it works no better than your
failed drug policies.
They are alleged by you to be failed drug policies. They are not my policies,
but I support them. I just cannot figure why you are so
passionately concerned about the costs of providing law enforcement for the
protection and security of lawbiding citizens who would rather pay those costs
than the costs of enabling a
drug culture to flourish.
>
>> There is a healthy black market in liquor and
>> cigarettes. I know.
>
>And how many people die as a result?
I don't know. I think those Felons take a chance, don't you?
>> I live close to the Canadian Border.
>
>I live close to the Mexican border. So what?
Just to indicate to you that is where smuggling crosses-over.
>> I used to live close to the Mexican Border. There is a lot of >>black
marketeering, smuggling, dealing stolen goods, and not all >>of it is related
to drugs. It is "free enterprise" "Supply & >>Demand"
>
>Then why are you bringing it up? Do you ever finish a point?
The point you MISSED was there has been and very well always may be smuggling
and illicit traffic. Decriminalization will not stop that. The illicit
activity goes on even with legal commodities.
>
>> >The more you say, the less sense you make. You have clearly >>>lost the
debate here. Col Klink
>>
>> You clearly have lost your mind if you think so. "Dirty >>Needles", indeed.
>
>I have never used those words. Straw man. Yes, you have lost >this one big.
"Dity Logic", indeed.
Dear Col. You quoted George's stat. chart re: needles. I respond directly to
everything you say. Identify my "strawmen".
Is one of them Mr. BullCrap?
>> What consumate BullCrap! If they can buy the dope, they can >>buy the
needles. They do not have to share.
>
>Take it up with the straw man.
Must be those Men In Black hopping into those Black 'copters.
>> They share because they don't care - that fact has nothing to
>> do with the Drug War at all. from Nan
>
>You still have not convinced me you know what you are talking >about.
>Col Klink
Dear Col. I think the obvious is too obvious for you.
You have not convinced me of anything except your
steadfastness to your true beliefs. I always enjoy a mutally
respectful discussion and exchange of opinions. from Nan
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
|
|Dear glas,
|I didn't mean to ignore your above comments. Sadly I recognize there
are
|deep-seeded causes driving people to knock-out their painful
realities and
|using drugs or alcohol for psycho-emotional relief or release.
Addicts do need
|care and concern, not enabling of their addiction, but attendence to
the rooted
|causes of their need for drugs. Rehab for addiction and extensive
counseling
|for self-realized adjustment I highly advocate. We have an
increasingly
|disordered youth - too many ADD and ADHD cases per capita. These
kids are the
|most susceptible to future drug use.
|Too many are already addicted, by necessity, to Ritalin.
|Yes, Valium and Ritalin are both highly addicting prescribed
|medications. We need positive problem solving techniques in our
life's
|preparation curriculum - the first course is PREVENTION.
|I think you are wonderful, glas, to declare yourself so candidly.
|I love bravery and honesty. Best to you, from Nan
The thing is, how many people are going to seek help for a problem
that is illegal to have? If you are addicted to drugs you are going
to be too afraid that what you tell about yourself will be used
against you and that information can be used to lock you away in jail
for a very long time.
If I had been caught during my period of using, I would probably still
be in prison. What good would that have served? I would be sitting
in a jail cell, a waste of space. Who would have raised my children?
They would be parentless. Would I have gotten therapy to deal with my
addiction? Probably not.
Instead, because I never did get caught, I climbed out of my
addiction. Instead of being a drain, I am a productive, contributing
member of my community. This happened because I was fortunate enough
to live in a place that had people more inclined to treat than
condemn. I got help instead of punishment which would have done me no
good, nor anyone else. My children got to keep their mother.
It's not right Nan. Sending people to jail because they choose to use
a substance that you disapprove of is not right.
I disapprove of alcohol. I have seen more damage done to lives with
alcohol than with any other drug abused. Would I suggest putting
alcohlics in prison? No, and evidently neither would you. However,
it is just as terrible a drug as any other you have mentioned in this
debate, if not worse.
Altering your state of mind is the issue. Whether you do it with
alcohol, caffeine, cocaine, marijuana, pain killers, or Hershey bars,
it shouldn't be a crime, it should be a predicator for caring and
concern. The reasons for the self medication should be the issue not
the chosen method. And discrimination between which drugs are okay
and which drugs are not is not doing anyone any good.
glas
grif...@ix.netcom.com
Am I the only one who sees this as a *money* problem? IMO, some people
prefer that their tax dollars and discretionary funds be spent to help
those suffering from the effects of drug use, "hard times", and
intolerance. Others want to keep their tax dollars and discretionary
funds for themselves...or spend it on the death penalty, wars, and
investigations. I prefer to align myself with the first group.
Linda
grif...@ix.netcom.com
NanLeeCro wrote:
> Dear Martha,
> However, I will not discuss ANYTHING with you until
> you recant your "high art" and "pretty art" *stuff*.
Good grief!!!! You disagree on one thing, so you refuse to discuss
anything else! People must be flocking to your door to be your friend!
I wish I had the wit and verbal agility of a Luknhard or a dmc to
express myself well, because I'm chomping at the bit! Since I don't,
I'll just say it: You are rude and hateful, and you insult people who
disagree with you and then accuse *others* of attacking you! You came
into this newsgroup with an attitude, and you have consistently
maintained it. I doubt that either your incessant posting of published
"treatises" or your manner of discourse has brought anyone over to your
side.
"from Linda"
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 14:19 EDT
>
>Where did you get your incorrect anti-Ritalin propaganda? >Phyllis Schlafly
(and Ritalin, oddly, *is* an area where a >medication is politicized)?
>
>Martha
Dear Martha,
If by "politicized" you mean controversial, I agree.
However, I will not discuss ANYTHING with you until
you recant your "high art" and "pretty art" *stuff*.
I do not trust your habit of false connections and
mispresentations of what I say. Check out the NET for
info re: the Ritalin controversy. Of course, there are
pros and cons, and generalizations from both sides.
from Nan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All change is not growth; all movement not forward.......E. Glasgow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SL
The DEA has recently established an office called: Diversion.
This is for prescription drug abuse and legal drugs, diverted from the manufacturer
that slither into the drug scene. Recent studies reveal that many in this sector of
drug abusers are hard core addicts. Most are "legal" substance abusers. There are
many "Pain Management" MD's who have NO hospital privileges and "specialize" in
providing addicts with their opiates in the most genteel way... And others,
including Dentists with patients who have TMJ and other problems who dole out the
goodies - for a price.
Some statistics suggest that up to half of addicts are fed their drugs through
"proper" channels. So???
What we are doing with the criminalization of substance abuse, discriminating
against one segment of self-medicators is insane.
~SL
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 07:46 EDT
>COL wrote: "I wonder if those who died on the streets this week >due to drug
|policies currently enforced feel like this is a buzz >phrase?"
>
>Nan wrote: Your BUZZ is meaningless and pointless - just hostile >&
hyperbolic. Where is it written in the Anti-Drug policy >mandating [mandates]
that people should die on the street? Were >the cops on the streets making
them "die" on the streets?
glas writes:
>Does it matter how or why they died? They were human beings >Nan. Still
people. Still salvageable. Being a drug addict or user >does not revoke your
status as a person.
>Rapidly losing all respect for your closed mind,
>glas
Dear glas,
You may respect any mind you want. I speak my mind,
and I really haven't noted any open minds on this issue.
People are very dedicated to their positions. Col.'s premise
that street crime casualties are caused by the Anti-Drug
policy and its enforcement is illogical and anti-social.
If you accept his premise, then you must accept that any crime
is caused by a anti-crime policy and its enforcement.. The consistant argument
of proponents is to blame lawbreaking on the law. By this very example, a
reasonable and responsible person would reject a cause based on that premise.
The arguments pro vs con come down to a simple line:
Enable hard drug use or prevent hard drug use.
The choice is very obvious for me. It is a humane and considered choice. I
will not support a drug culture and its extension. Whether or not you respect
my viewpoint, I respect where you are coming from in your own life's experence.
Sincerely from Nan
NanLeeCro
>="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" SIZE=3>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement -
>It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 00:59 EDT
Dear Martha,
If by "politicized" you mean controversial, I agree.
However, I will not discuss ANYTHING with you until
you recant your "high art" and "pretty art" *stuff*.
I do not trust your habit of false connections and
mispresentations of what I say. Check out the NET for
info re: the Ritalin controversy. Of course, there are
pros and cons, and generalizations from both sides.
from Nan
>I'll just say it: You are rude and hateful, and you insult people >who
disagree with you and then accuse *others* of attacking >you! You came into
this newsgroup with an attitude, and you >have consistently maintained it. I
doubt that either your incessant >posting of published "treatises" or your
manner of discourse has >brought anyone over to your side.
>
>"from Linda"
I have NEVER accused anyone of*attacking me* ever! (?)
I maintain my independence and I am not a groupie.
I don't require a "flame" entourage. I have not been intimidated
by aggressive responses and I meet them in kind. This tcng is
is not my social club. I do not respect Martha's demonstrated deliberate
manipulative misrespresentations of what I have stated - in particular re:
Art.. I assure you, I am not interested in playing the game of "getting people
on my side".
I don't play sides. Believe, I don't play sides. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 01:20 EDT
>Dear Nan,
>In a post a few days back, you stated that you don't feel anyone in > the
group is making a case against marijuana, that we are >discussing "hard drugs"
by which you mean (correct me if I am >wrong) cocaine, heroin and
methamphetamine.
Dear LS,
I do not oppose or support the legalization of Hemp & MJ. I have stated over
and over again I oppose those drugs defined as "hard drugs" some of which you
note above in your post..
My focus is not on accommodating the user, but the medical, familial and social
consequences resulting from hard drug
addiction. I oppose an extended Drug Culture by decriminalization and/or
permissive policies. My choice is
based on what I perceive serves the greater good for society,
in preference to enabling drug usage.
The following excerpt is one example forming the basis of
my carefully considered position is this issue:
*Pregnancy and opioid addiction: Problems of the heroin-addicted mother are
transferred to the fetus; because heroin and methadone freely cross the
placental barrier, the fetus readily becomes drug-dependent. The mother
infected with HIV or hepatitis B virus may transmit the virus to her neonate.
Pregnant addicts seen early enough should be encouraged to enter a methadone
maintenance program. Obviously, such plans should
include the obstetrician and pediatrician who will treat the dependent infant.
Pregnant women withdrawn from heroin or methadone late in the 3rd trimester
risk the precipitation of labor. Pregnant women seen at or near term may best
be stabilized on methadone. Abstinence would be better for the fetus, but
experience indicates that withdrawn mothers often revert to heroin and withdraw
from prenatal care. The methadone-maintained mother may nurse her newborn
without apparent clinical problems in the child, and the minimal concentrations
in breast milk have been confirmed. The infants of opioid- dependent mothers
may
present with tremors, a high-pitched cry, jitters, convulsions, and
tachypnea. For a discussion of problems of the neonate, including drug
withdrawal and fetal alcohol syndromes, see Metabolic Problems in the Newborn,
Chapter 189 METABOLIC PROBLEMS IN THE NEWBORN and Drugs in
Lactating Mothers, Feeding, Chapter 185 DRUGS IN LACTATING MOTHERS. See also
Drugs in Pregnancy,
Chapter 178 DRUGS IN PREGNANCY.
The above excerpt represents the REALITY of drug use
and that reality determines my choice: the issue is clear -
Enabling or Preventing - so simple. My choice is obvious.
My reasons are humanitarian. from Nan
.
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:28:38 -0400,
on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
"glas" <gl...@donet.com> cast this ASCII:
> . . .
> What good would that have served? [. . . ]
> Who would have raised my children?
> Would I have gotten therapy . . .? Probably not.
>Instead, . . . My children got to keep their mother.
>It's not right Nan. Sending people to jail because they choose to use
>a substance that you disapprove of is not right.
Thank you, Glas, for an incredibly courageous statement.
The more folks who find the courage to speak the truth as you have,
the better off we all are.
G "your kids have a great mom" B
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. & are NOT legal advice.
"As for drug proscription, I don't think it's possible
except by inaugurating a society in which we wouldn't want to live."
<< William F. Buckley, "National Review" , Dec. 28, 1992, p 55 >>
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: grif...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 00:59 EDT
Dear Linda,
Do you have any salient comments on the following quoted excerpt of Dr. Timothy
Leary's "crusade"?
The Timothy Leary Text Archives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Arthur (Koestler)
Things are happening here which I think will interest you. The big, new, hot
issue these days in many American circles is DRUGS. Have you been tuned in on
the noise?
[edit]
There are inevitable political-sociological complications. The expected groups
are competing to see who should control the new drugs. Medicine and psychiatry
are in the forefront. Psychiatric investigators (hung up as they are on their
own abstractions) interpret the experience as PSYCHOTIC- and think they are
producing model-psychosis. Then too, the cops and robbers game has started.
Organized bohemia (and don't tell me it ain't organized, with rituals as rigid
as those of the Masoic order)
is moving in. There is the danger that mescalin and psilocybin will go the way
of marijuana ( a perfectly mild, harmless, slightly mind-opening substance, as
you know). And of course the narcotics bureau hopes that it will go the same
way--so they can play out their side of the control game.
We are working to keep these drugs free and uncontrolled. Two tactics. We are
offering the experience to distinguished creative people. Artists, poets,
writers, scholars. We've learned a tremendous amount by listening to them tell
us what they have learned from the experience.
We are also trying to build these experiences in a holy and serious way into
university curricula. I've got approval to run a seminar here--graduate
students will take the mushrooms regularly and spend a semester working
through, organizing and systematizing the results. Its hard for me to see how
anyone can consider himself a theologian, psychologist, behavioral scientist if
he had not had this experience. So how does it sound? If you are interested
I'll send some mushrooms over to you. Or if you've already been involved I'd
like to hear about your reaction. I'll be in London around June 8th and would
like to tell you more about the cosmic crusade. [edit]
Best Regards to you,
T.L
###
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, 11 Jun 1998 12:48:56 GMT,
on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) cast this ASCII:
>Dear glas,
>You may respect any mind you want. I speak my mind,
>and I really haven't noted any open minds on this issue.
>People are very dedicated to their positions. Col.'s premise
>that street crime casualties are caused by the Anti-Drug
>policy and its enforcement is illogical and anti-social.
>If you accept his premise, then you must accept that any crime
>is caused by a anti-crime policy and its enforcement..
That is simply not so. Back in the days when it was a crime to be gay
in California, police used to fill the jails with gay men (and even
some women) whose only crime was being gay. Kicking in the bedroom
doors was an acceptable cop practice. Violence ensued in making many
arrests; undercover snitches set up unwitting people; there was often
violence whenever a snitch got found out; gay people lived in fear of
being found out, and many, if not most, had to lead marginal lives.
Changing the law changed that for the better. Some talented and hard
working openly gay people are now business and professional leaders.
We are much better off for that change.
> The consistant argument
>of proponents is to blame lawbreaking on the law. By this very example, a
>reasonable and responsible person would reject a cause based on that premise.
If there were a law making it a felony to wear red underwear we could
lock up large numbers of people too. And no doubt some people would
reject changing the law because all those criminals deserved it.
>The arguments pro vs con come down to a simple line:
>Enable hard drug use or prevent hard drug use.
There are much broader alternatives.
1. Do more of what we are doing, and more harshly, which has solved
nothing and has made things worse for over 80 years; or
2. Permit access to these drugs for adults, placing reasonable
restrictions on time, place & manner of use similar to what we do with
alcohol and tobacco, holding addicts responsible as we hold alcohol
and tobacco users for refraining from harm to others, thus permitting
addicts to lead more normal and productive lives; and
3. opening many avenues to addiction recovery by parallels to the
policy in (2): place reasonable user fees or taxes on the substances
to fund addiction recovery for those addicted and education efforts
for those at risk of becoming addicted; and
4. stringently enforcing laws against sales to minors, just we do in
many jurisdictions, and ought to do in all jurisdictions, with alcohol
and tobacco.
> The choice is very obvious for me. It is a humane and considered choice. I
>will not support a drug culture and its extension. Whether or not you respect
>my viewpoint, I respect where you are coming from in your own life's experence.
> Sincerely from Nan
Every culture already is a "drug culture" and every culture always has
been a "drug culture". The only question is what segments of society
politicians choose to marginalize with laws enforceable only by a
police state. Societies which choose to marginalize fewer generally
have fewer overall "drug problems" as a result.
No country which has ever claimed to be "drug free" has ever been
actually free. They have been police states, and they still had some
populations of users of various drugs.
NanLeeCro
>Altering your state of mind is the issue. Whether you do it with
>alcohol, caffeine, cocaine, marijuana, pain killers, or Hershey >bars, it
shouldn't be a crime, it should be a predicator for caring >and concern. The
reasons for the self medication should be the >issue not the chosen method.
And discrimination between which >drugs are okay and which drugs are not is not
doing anyone any >good.
>glas
Dear glas,
If the issue depended only on informed choices by intelligent, emotionally
stable and socially responsible adults, there would be little opposition to
decriminalization. If you can propose how the reality of serious social
problems will change for the better and destructive results will disappear, I
will listen.
My opposition to Decriminalization is based on the negative consequents
resulting from drug addiction and use, in particular among the youth. I
submit to you and others interested in the Drug Issue the following edited
items from an extensive formal study:
A Summary of "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse
Initial Findings Research Summary"
March 1994 Prepared by David Huizinga, Ph.D.
Denver Youth Survey
Rolf Loeber, Ph.D. Pittsburgh Youth Study
Terence P. Thornberry, Ph.D.Rochester
Youth Development Study
*Delinquency and Substance Use
Substance use and involvement in delinquent behavior are clearly
interrelated. The more serious the youth's involvement in drug use, the more
serious is his or her involvement in delinquency, and vice versa. This is
observed across age, gender and ethnic groups.
*Families and Delinquency
Poor family attachment relates to both delinquency and drug use. Youth who do
not feel a strong emotional bond with their parents are more likely to commit
street crimes and to use drugs.
Poor parenting behavior--failure to communicate with and monitor
children--relates to both delinquency and drug use. Parental
conflicts--inconsistency of punishment and avoidance of
discipline--relate only to delinquency.
*A link has been found to exist between childhood victimization and delinquent
behavior. Greater risk exists for violent offending when a child is physically
abused or neglected early in life. Such a child is more likely to begin violent
offending earlier and to be more involved in such offending than children who
have not been abused or neglected.
*Peers and Delinquency
Associating with peers who are delinquent, who use drugs, or both
relates strongly with both delinquency and drug use. Youth who associate with
peers who use drugs at Year 2 have much higher rates of drug use at Year 3.
Also, youth who use drugs at Year 2 are much more likely to associate with
drug-using peers at Year 3.
*Being a member of a delinquent gang also relates strongly to delinquency and
drug use. The rate of delinquency of gang members, during the time they are
members of a gang, is quite high.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This information is provided by the Office of Prevention, Texas Youth
Commission, e-mail preve...@tyc.state.tx.us ###
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 14:01 EDT
>Message-id: <6lp61i$9t3$1...@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>NanLeeCro wrote in message
>>Dear Col.
>> You just don't get it: because people choose to commit crimes >>and disobey
laws does not invalidate the need for those laws.
Parks (she's sick you know) violated a law, and that >>her disobeiance was
needed. I am sure you could list other laws >>that have been disobeyed, by
Martin Luther King Jr. Ghandi, >>and any number of other activists. Susan B.
Anthony
>>come to mind?
>
>The point is of course that their are laws that illegalize certain >behaviors
that on the surface do not cause harm. For instance, >being black or a woman.
Laws against helping slaves escape are >another example of laws that criminal
lize non-harmful behavior.
>
>At the time those laws were in effect, many people with good >intentions, just
like you, supported the bad laws with all kinds or >tortured logic. But they
were finally abolished with the help of >people who believed, and as it turned
out, rightfully, that the laws >were wrong so they disobeyed them.
>
>This is the scenario we have today. Millions of people are >disobeying drug
laws, laws that on the surface criminal lize >behavior that was at one time
legal. There is absolutely no >consensus on the righteousness of the drug
laws. The mere fact >that millions violate them every day is enough to
>rexamine them. The fact that the intent of the laws has not beeen >in anyway
successful in 80 years adds more fuel to the need to >critically rexamine the
laws.
>So yes, violating bad laws is important. It is just another way of >getting
the bad law to change.
By what you suggest here, Civil Disobedience is the same as a criminal
disobeying the law and COMMITTING a crime.
Committing a crime is a social protest. Therefore, in my own self-interest, I
may disobey laws because I deem they are bad, bad in that those laws prevent my
doing what I want for my sake alone.
I do not see how you cannot possibly equate the revolting racial discrimination
"laws" of that begone time with the current anti-drug trafficking/sales laws.
You cannot possibly put the two issues on an ethical par, can you? One is
clearly a Human Rights issue. Smuggling is on a par with civil rights and
racial equality? Beyond belief. How insulting to all righteous causes and
protests for civil rights and racial equality. I have heard just every
strange and convoluted justification, but that is the living end. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 12:38 EDT
Nan wrote:
>>If you accept his premise, then you must accept that any crime
>>is caused by a anti-crime policy and its enforcement..
>That is simply not so. Back in the days when it was a crime to be >gay in
California, police used to fill the jails with gay men (and >even some women)
whose only crime was being gay. Kicking in >the bedroom doors was an
acceptable cop practice. Violence >ensued in making many arrests; undercover
snitches set up >unwitting people; there was often violence whenever a snitch
got >found out; gay people lived in fear of being found out, and many, >if not
most, had to lead marginal lives.
George,
Your keep rolling those bales into straw men. I was raised in
Calif. and I have always known Gay Men, always! and I am 60+ years old. My Gay
Friends would come to our aprtment before going to their "party" (I was
married then) in Drag on Halloween because that was the ONLY time they could
legally and safely be in Drag on the streets. I am very sensitive to the Gay
Rights Issue, and always have been - it is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue.
Drug trafficking, drug smuggling, drug sales are not HR
issues. Please do not try to dignify the Drug issue by putting it on an equal
basis with Gay Human Rights. That makes me ill.
VTY, from Nan
>
>Changing the law changed that for the better
Slimpickins
****Glas, excellent points! Beautiful post! Thanks.., you probed my bored
brain :}! Best, Slim
glas wrote:
> good, nor anyone else. My children got to keep their mother.
>
> It's not right Nan. Sending people to jail because they choose to use
> a substance that you disapprove of is not right.
>
> I disapprove of alcohol. I have seen more damage done to lives with
> alcohol than with any other drug abused. Would I suggest putting
> alcohlics in prison? No, and evidently neither would you. However,
> it is just as terrible a drug as any other you have mentioned in this
> debate, if not worse.
>
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 11:52 EDT
>...I have raised in my post (which I have taken the liberty to >restore below
for those interested in discussion rather
>than propagandistic dismissal of alternatives) that you do not >really want to
discuss any alternatives which do not fit neatly into >your "true belief"
>system.
LS: Your "true belief" system is as valid to you as my belief system is valid
to me. Henceforth, when I hear that SPIN term used in spurious inference, it
receives the same notice as N*z*:
PLONK....discussion cancelled ....
term
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Propagandists deliberately manipulate logic and employ malicious inferences in
order to promote their cause. A misrepresentation is an express or implied
statement contrary to fact.
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
|glas writes:
|>Does it matter how or why they died? They were human beings >Nan.
Still
|people. Still salvageable. Being a drug addict or user >does not
revoke your
|status as a person.
|>Rapidly losing all respect for your closed mind,
|>glas
|
|You may respect any mind you want. I speak my mind,
|and I really haven't noted any open minds on this issue.
|People are very dedicated to their positions. Col.'s premise
|that street crime casualties are caused by the Anti-Drug
|policy and its enforcement is illogical and anti-social.
consistant argument
|of proponents is to blame lawbreaking on the law. By this very
example, a
|reasonable and responsible person would reject a cause based on that
premise.
|
|
|Enable hard drug use or prevent hard drug use.
|
choice. I
|will not support a drug culture and its extension. Whether or not
you respect
|my viewpoint, I respect where you are coming from in your own life's
experence.
| Sincerely from Nan
How do you determine which drugs are "hard" drugs and which are not?
For me, alcohol would be a "hard" drug. It impairs the ability to
function normally. It destroys many lives. It is a devastating drug
that is extremely difficult to shake.
When I chose to break my 4gm. a day cocaine habit, I switched to
alcohol. I can honestly tell you that alcohol did more damage to my
life than cocaine ever did. Much more. It was much more difficult to
stop drinking too as alcohol is everywhere. I drank all night and
then spent every day with a hangover until time to go drinking again.
I almost lost my life on several occasions due to my recklessnes when
drunk. It wouldn't have been a big loss at the time because being
drunk was all I was. Not to mention the sexual partners that I had
that would not have been even interesting to me if I had not been
drunk and it was time to go home.
One night I met a nice guy tho. He walked me home and didn't even ask
to come in. Surprisingly enough, he came back the next night too.
And he brought with him a little bit of marijuana. He talked me into
staying home and smoking that with him instead of going to the bar.
We had a real nice time and he came back over the next night with
more. Pretty soon, I was smoking instead of drinking and it changed
my life. When I was stoned, my mind would fly! The possibilities
seemed limitless as to what I could do or become. What a refreshing
change!
I began reflecting on what I was doing and where I was going. Whereas
before I didn't want to do anything but lay on the couch and watch tv
and nurse my hangover till it was a decent hour for going to the bar,
now I was out taking walks in the woods and doing fun things with my
kids. I started enjoying life again. I still had problems, but
instead of drinking about it, I started thinking about it.
I don't drink anymore - at all. I don't smoke pot anymore either, but
not because I think it's bad, I just don't feel like it. My life is
full. I thank God for being able to smoke it tho when I needed it
because I feel it saved my life and it gave my kids their mother back.
Marijuana use can put you in jail for a long time. Why? It's
natural. No one should be sitting in a jail cell for smoking pot.
glas
(by the way, I married the guy. He turned out to be a keeper, and he
still smokes sometimes. But he's a grown up and that is his choice)
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: lordsir
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 11:52 EDT
>Until you are able to step back far enough to gain a more >all-encompassing
point of view, your passion and compassion is >simply a waste of bandwidth. I
cannot discuss these issues with >someone who is so unwilling to discuss them.
>Regards,
>Lord sir
Dear LS,
I don't want to engage in an elongated post. I can't stand dealing with the
frikkin >>> <<<< >>>> <<<< quote format.
My perspective is far more all-encompassing than yours. Your short-sighted
viewpoints on the issue are evident by their narrow focus and self-serving
interest. I have not noted "compassion" as a motivating impetus in your
arguments. This issue for me is what benefits society not the user. The
common denominator is
society not the user. We are at an impasse because I just restate myself and
so do you. Nothing new, no revelations, same old
Hash according to our respective belief and value systems.
Would I HONOUR one reasonable, one sensible, one shock of recognized virtue in
the proponents' arguments? I certainly would. That is why I do not argue
against MJ for medicinal purposes. I know it has, without ever using it or
needing to,
topical, inhaled and internal medicinal properties. I agree it is probably a
better and more benign alternative to alcohol for ADULTS who want to be
intoxicated or in an altered state.
Everyone has aired their viewpoint. We know where each
other stands and the way we stand. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>I have a nasty little suspicion about Nan. Do you recall one odd >post of
hers in which she argued with George Byrd's sig line? >When called on >this,
she huffed that this was a peril of >"scanning" other peoples' posts. I
suspect that Nan has not >actually *read* any of the evidence presented to her.
I suspect, >in fact, that she does not actually *read*
>the long articles she herself posts. You'll notice that her only
>original contributions to the debate are slurs, not points of debate.
>
>Martha
Slurs? Suspicions? Not read? Didn't Iago say, "...I have a nasty suspicion,
Othello-guy"? I suspect if I say you reflect the "Bad Seed"-grownup practicing
self-serving "propaganda" as a idle past time, I suspect your above fully
quoted statements proves your own spurious intentions. I suspect your cronies
may soothe you with their support. But, I suspect your disengenuous intentions
remain emblazoned in the Deja archives . You want to play this way? Can you
play it without your flame entourage?
I suspect Martha suffers irresolvable frustrations. I suspect her overt "good
natured" bawdiness belies repressed sexual identity conflicts. I suspect her
need to manipulatate attention to herself is a hunger which seeks validation by
others using a pathological course of malicious inferences and inflammatory
misrepresentations. I suspect her pattern of inconsistancy and
self-contradiction is indicative of her identifying with "liberally correct"
causes because fo an essentially shallow core of self.
I suspect The *New Yorker* forms her "true beliefs" filling in the shallow
channels of her Id-imperative. I suspect her "modeling" avant garde image is a
need for exalted status and entitlement.
I suspect Martha's projections, e.g. "slurs", should be considered dishonest,
but she feels immune to criticism or censure.
I suspect this thread is dead, because it is now all about
MARTHA. from Nan
grif...@ix.netcom.com
NanLeeCro wrote:
> Dear Linda,
> Do you have any salient comments on the following quoted excerpt of Dr. Timothy
> Leary's "crusade"?
No, I don't.
Also, I don't know when the letter was written or whether the plans he
mentioned came to fruition. I didn't keep up with Timothy Leary, but I
do know he died.
Linda
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: lordsir
>> I am very sensitive to the Gay Rights Issue, and always have >>been - it
is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue. Drug trafficking, drug >>smuggling, drug sales are not
HR issues. Please do not try to >>dignify the Drug issue by putting it on an
equal
>>basis with Gay Human Rights. That makes me ill.
>>VTY, from Nan
>
>Nan,
>
>You are demented. "Drug" use has to do with peoples rights to >choose - it is
indeed a HR issue.
LS, You insult Human Rights causes by equating them with
free choice drug usage. YOU are demented if you don't see it.
Ls wrote: "your narrow-minded "true beliefs" regarding the issues being
discussed in these threads."
Ls, your "true beliefs" are convoluted and narrow-minded as to equate
monumental Human and Civil Rights issues with an agenda of self-grafication and
self-interest for a sub-society. Outrageous!.
LS writes:
"...your self-righteous and self-centered indignation and energies can be
channeled into some truly humane and humanitarian directions.
LS! My energies are well channeled in my advocacy for the protection of
neglected and abused children suffering in tragic family and home conditions
because of parental drug/alcohol abuse and addiction. You are channeled into
the Hedonistic/Self-Gratification/Ego-Centric agenda zone.
Listen Kid! I don't have to think about it. I see it and I smell it
first hand, and when I'm there, I am not in an altered state of sophist
loftiness. My senses implode with the reality of it.
Don't waste your time with me, LS. Please...... from Nan
NanLeeCro
>>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 18:40 EDT
>> Beyond belief. How insulting to all righteous causes and
>>protests for civil rights and racial equality. I have heard just >>every
strange and convoluted justification, but that is the living >>end. from Nan
>
>Actually most civil libertarians are for the re-legalization of drugs.
That "fact" makes Drug Decriminalization an universally profound ethical cause
equal to Human Rights, Racial and Gay Rights?
You cannot seriously propose that, can you? By doing so,
you only cement the opposition's resolve. Who would want to align themselves
with people who think that way? Cripes!
OK, I get it. You want us to react with revulsion. You are really on the
anti-drug legalization side of the issue. Whew! from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 17:41 EDT
LS, has anyone mentioned to you lately that your following
discourse mirrors cult and Jehovah Witness' indocrination tactics? Same
"rhetorical" almost verbatim. from Nan
"Nan, you look like a fool and you have obviously lost the debate, and you have
lost the "drug" war too. Too bad.
Oh my, what a tragic loss of useless discourse with an hippocrite."
Hummm, me thinks you protest to much, yon Sir.
You present a clear case of projection, Kind Sir.
"I will gladly take that as an indication of your inability to address the
substance of my post, ..."
No Substance.......LS, no substance. Your just humping the same old "true
belief" bromide. I do not mourn the loss of
useless discourse with you at all. Truly believe me. from Nan
PattyC4303
>Applying Darwin's theories of
>is more doomed by its own actions than by societal laws.
The above was from NAN
It is this sort of thinking that really, really scares me. If only it were
that simple....
PattyC
PattyC4303
From Nan...
> I suspect her overt "good
>natured" bawdiness belies repressed sexual identity conflicts.
Um, Nan, this is getting ridiculous. You are resorting to the "cronies" and
"flame entourage" theories....
Your arguement re: the decriminalization of drugs has been well addressed by
the Col and Lordsir.... while you may have a point to make, you diminish it
with the type of comments you make about Martha. So she is not with you in
some things.... now you know what she is "repressing?"
Sounds pretty weak to me.
I say legalize all of it. I guess this is something already addressed, but...
how do you reconcile your stance when alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL?? Should
we make those also illegal? If not, what is the difference??
PattyC
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 18:09 EDT
>My Dear Nan,
>You really are quite full of yourself aren't you.
>
LS, let me clue you in: The worse way, absolutely least productive manner in
which to "persuade" someone is to BAIT them, taunt them. Don't waste your time
with me, because you, and a few other proponents, have argued in such a manner
as to drive me away from any consideration I would want to give to this issue.
You lose it by your low tactics and irrelevant presentations, and narrowly
focused interest. Shall we just part here, please?
Call it a lost cause, because it is. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>I have a nasty little suspicion about Nan. Do you recall one odd >post of
hers in which she argued with George Byrd's sig line? >When called on this,
she huffed that this was a peril of >"scanning" other peoples' posts. I
suspect that Nan has not >actually *read* any of the evidence presented to her.
> I suspect, in fact, that she does not actually *read*
>the long articles she herself posts. You'll notice that her only
>original contributions to the debate are slurs, not points of debate.
>Martha
Dear PattyC,
I responded to Martha's above post. Have you read it? This is personal, and
has nothing to do the with pro and con merits of the Drug Issue. I just want
to show Martha that once she opens with a gambit, she can expect a closing
gambit. That may seem like a vague explanation to you, but Martha will
understand it. Your support of Martha is commendable. Cronyism is an old
fashioned term and it doesn't apply to you anyway.. I just threw in a little
more NH nostagia with "flame entourage". No theories at all. Just wholesome
play on words. Innocent banter. You know how
Martha loves "banter".
PattyC, as far as the drug issue is concerned, every one seems
quite committed to their position on the issue. Just a bunch of
rhetorical exercises.
It's between Martha and me: I took great offense and I am
vengeful by employing cloy for her coy ploy. It all started when she said
something like *Nan thinks* Art should be pretty.
Grievous error to misrepresent my thinking on ART.
But, then again, Martha cultivates the art of misrepresentation.
Reconciling alcohol and tobacco? Alcohol is not = to heroin, heroin is not =
to tobacco, tobacco is not = to alcohol.
A simple equation. Thanks for writing, from Nan
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
|>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
|>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 12:38 EDT
|
|Nan wrote:
|>>is caused by a anti-crime policy and its enforcement..
|
>gay in
|California, police used to fill the jails with gay men (and >even
some women)
|whose only crime was being gay. Kicking in >the bedroom doors was an
|acceptable cop practice. Violence >ensued in making many arrests;
undercover
|snitches set up >unwitting people; there was often violence whenever
a snitch
|got >found out; gay people lived in fear of being found out, and
many, >if not
|most, had to lead marginal lives.
|
|George,
|Your keep rolling those bales into straw men. I was raised in
|Calif. and I have always known Gay Men, always! and I am 60+ years
old. My Gay
|Friends would come to our aprtment before going to their "party" (I
was
|married then) in Drag on Halloween because that was the ONLY time
they could
the Gay
|Rights Issue, and always have been - it is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue.
|Drug trafficking, drug smuggling, drug sales are not HR
|issues. Please do not try to dignify the Drug issue by putting it on
an equal
|basis with Gay Human Rights. That makes me ill.
|VTY, from Nan
Hmmmm...Gay Rights...Drug legalization...
AH HAH! Here you go...the issues are one and the same. No one has a
right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot put into their own
body.
glas
(if the drugs were legal, there would be no Drug trafficking or Drug
smuggling)
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
snip...
|
|Reconciling alcohol and tobacco? Alcohol is not = to heroin, heroin
is not =
|to tobacco, tobacco is not = to alcohol.
|A simple equation. Thanks for writing, from Nan
I see the equation this way Nan...
Addiction is = to mind alteration, mind alteration is = escapism,
escapism is = to addiction.
Still not worthy of jail time.
glas
Martha Sprowles
What's Nan's problem with this letter? Timothy Leary was a pioneer in
using hallucinogens to enlarge people's emotional and intellectual
boundaries; he was not some guy who hung around schoolyards trying to
get children hooked on Happy Pills. He was interested in allowing
artists and philosophers the opportunity to see what happened in their
work if they used mind-altering substances. Because he presented his
ideas with joy and a sense of humor, poor Nan seems to believe he was
some kind of buffoon.
But then, Nan doesn't understand what is meant by "cocktail-party
conversation," either.
Martha
Martha Sprowles
Elliott Finesse wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> Cowboy #54 wrote in message <35809B...@texas.net>...
> >Survival of the fittest is judged by the passing on of genes. In other
> >words, procreating. A huge argument could be made that drug use is a
> >determinate in this matter. How many people get goofed up on drugs and
> >in so doing, create progeny?
>
> There is a lot more to the origin of species and evolution that merely the
> passing on of genes. But I am on your side here Col. and if using mind
> altering drugs was disadvantageous with respect to adaptation, we would have
> seen it by now. It isn't.
>
> Fortunately, the one thing we humans did evolve, our brain, allows other
> physical items, like drug use to be minimized with respect to evolution.
>
> I suspect one day they will find the gene that confers addiction on
> individuals.
My thought, too. It seems clear that in many cases there is a genetic
element in addiction--many studies have shown alcoholism, for example,
can "run" in families--so by Nan's logic, drug users would be providing
future generations of drug users, not dying out as a "race."
Martha
Martha Sprowles
She thinks I have *SEXUAL IDENTITY PROBLEMS!!???* Well.... um, don't we
all?
And so what if I do? At least I *read* what is posted by people I don't
agree with. And I have never, ever attempted to debate a sig line.
Old Droopy-Drawers is off her rocker, imho.
Martha, with all due respect
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 23:46 EDT
Dear LS,
I will be MORE than willing to discuss this "issue" re: Martha with HER. I
would just LOVE IT! SO while I am off to the Dejas to
copy (in full context) her initial offending post, please copy - in full
context - her lastest offending post to which I replied I appreciate your
biased cronyism - it is inherent to your true belief system.
I am merely mocking her for what she started. The words "suspect" and
"suspicion" started with her. The
issue is really between Martha and me. Let her handle it -
alone - toe to toe - like a Mensch. This kinda stuff is not consistant with
your pacifistic spirituality of Buddha and Pala, et ala.
Speaking of pentultimate hypocrisy, you are super to come to
her aid..........Knightly Sir. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 12:38 EDT
Nan wrote:
By this very example, a reasonable and responsible >>person would reject a
cause based on that premise.
>
>If there were a law making it a felony to wear red underwear we >could lock up
large numbers of people too. And no doubt some >people would reject changing
the law because all those criminals >deserved it.
There are multi-colour options, aren't there? Eh, George?
Nan wrote:
>>The arguments pro vs con come down to a simple line:
>>Enable hard drug use or prevent hard drug use.
George wrote:
>There are much broader alternatives.
Dear George,
"Permit' and "restrictions" are your operating concepts here.
George wrote:
>Every culture already is a "drug culture" and every culture >always has been a
"drug culture".
Nan writes:
And by that line of reasoning, every culture has been a
"murder culture".
George wrote:
The only question is what segments of society politicians choose to marginalize
with laws enforceable only by a police state.
Nan writes:
Convoluted reasoning - "...laws enforceable only by a
police state"? Define "police state" in contrast with a state
that has law enforcement, please. from Nancritical
For the caring populace at large:
"...critical thinking means the ability to evaluate the assumptions,
evidence, and inferences of what one reads and the ability to present one's
ideas in a sound, logical, and thorough argument.
In other words, there are specific skills which critical thinkers use, and
these specific skills are the main subject matter in a critical thinking
course. For instance, the skill of recognizing common logical fallacies helps
thinkers to reject slick but empty persuasive approaches..." Source: Ye Olde
Textus from Nan
Societies which choose to >marginalize fewer generally have fewer overall
"drug problems" >as a result. No country which has ever claimed to be "drug
free" >has ever been actually free. They have been police states, and >they
still had some populations of users of various drugs.
>
Martha Sprowles
lordsir wrote:
>
> Dear Nan,
>
> I could have wasted my time (and I still may) going back to your posts and
> clipping all of your name calling, baiting and bullying. Instead I chose as an
> expedient example your recent post to Martha.
>
> So again, you completely miss the point.
>
> I don't come to defend Martha, she is capable enough.
>
> I just tried to show you by example of your own words how you behave.
>
> Another inept and/or wasted effort on my part.
>
> "Biased Cronyism" ? Too much !
>
> Regards,
>
> Lord Sir
>
> In article <199806121222...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, nanl...@aol.com
> says...
> >
> >>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
> >>Date: Thu, Jun 11, 1998 23:46 EDT
> >
> >Dear LS,
> >I will be MORE than willing to discuss this "issue" re: Martha with HER. I
> >would just LOVE IT! SO while I am off to the Dejas to
> >copy (in full context) her initial offending post, please copy - in full
> >context - her lastest offending post to which I replied I appreciate your
> >biased cronyism - it is inherent to your true belief system.
> > I am merely mocking her for what she started. The words "suspect" and
> >"suspicion" started with her. The
> >issue is really between Martha and me. Let her handle it -
> >alone - toe to toe - like a Mensch. This kinda stuff is not consistant with
> >your pacifistic spirituality of Buddha and Pala, et ala.
> >Speaking of pentultimate hypocrisy, you are super to come to
> >her aid..........Knightly Sir. from Nan
> >Propagandists deliberately manipulate logic and employ malicious inferences in
> >order to promote their cause. A misrepresentation is an express or implied
> >statement contrary to fact.
>
> Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
*sigh*
Again. Nan believes that people who disagree with her are a "gang" or
"sorority." I suppose it does not occur to her that reasonable people
may hold beliefs counter to her own, and she assumes, as have certain
other people here, that people who agree on an issue (especially if an
element of joking enters it) are a Cabal. (Well, of course she's
correct on that one; there *is* a Cabal.)
She is unable to tolerate disagreement on the facts. She is driven to
snide name-calling, which she justifies by saying that I have
misrepresented her feelings about Art. All I know is that I said she
thought Art should be Pretty. If this is not true, I don't know how I'm
supposed to know that; I based my judgment on what she herself said
about whose works she likes and whose she doesn't. All I know is, I'm
confused about my sexual orientation.
Marvin
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Fri, Jun 12, 1998 02:00 EDT
Nan wrote:
>> > I suspect her overt "good natured" bawdiness belies >>>repressed sexual
identity conflicts.
Martha:>> She thinks I have *SEXUAL IDENTITY PROBLEMS!!???* Well.... um, don't
we all?
Martha, the word is "SUSPECT", not thinks it so.
Just another example of your primitive device of
misrespresentation. You always trap yourself.
>And so what if I do? At least I *read* what is posted by people I >don't
agree with. And I have never, ever attempted to debate a >sig line.
Martha, you just employ deceptive and distortion tactics.
>Old Droopy-Drawers is off her rocker, imho.
Martha:
I suspect Old Nan is on to your stylistic indirect manipulating inferences,
Kid. Just be careful what you attribute to me because I am always in the
de-bunking mode on my ricketty rocker. I respect dissenting viewpoints, but
not dishonest isrepresentations.
That is your forte - it deserves mockery. (cannot put the appropriate accent).
from Nan
>Martha, with all due respect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Propagandists deliberately manipulate logic and employ malicious inferences to
promote their cause. A misrepresentation is an implied statement contrary to
fact.
Ergo:ethos, logos, pathos.
Douglas M. Case
In article <199806112335...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>I suspect Martha suffers irresolvable frustrations. I suspect her overt "good
>natured" bawdiness belies repressed sexual identity conflicts. I suspect her
>need to manipulatate attention to herself is a hunger which seeks validation by
>others using a pathological course of malicious inferences and inflammatory
>misrepresentations. I suspect her pattern of inconsistancy and
>self-contradiction is indicative of her identifying with "liberally correct"
>causes because fo an essentially shallow core of self.
>I suspect The *New Yorker* forms her "true beliefs" filling in the shallow
>channels of her Id-imperative. I suspect her "modeling" avant garde image is a
>need for exalted status and entitlement.
>I suspect Martha's projections, e.g. "slurs", should be considered dishonest,
>but she feels immune to criticism or censure.
>I suspect this thread is dead, because it is now all about
>MARTHA.
It's awright, Nan. You're a coward in bully's clothing, and you either
can't or won't distinguish between a challenge in harmless debate and a
challenge to your carefully constructed body armor. So you lash out
indiscriminately, and in doing so you reveal more of yourself than you
intend, or we want, and that makes you angrier. It's awright, Nan. We've
seen it all before.
It's a beautiful morning here, after a night of rough weather. I hope
it's nice where you are. Maybe you can find a trail through the woods,
pick some flowers, weed a garden. Maybe you could turn off the box for
two or three days, come what may. All us blockheads will still be here,
disingenuous and lacking in integrity as always, when you return.
Promise.
Segovia said it is not technique that makes a player, but heart. Maybe
your finger exercises here serve to clear your receptacle of all that
stable muck you spread around. I do hope so. Anyway, you're not the
first, you won't be the last. It's awright.
dmc
---------------------
All panegyrics are mingled with an infusion of poppy.
胡onathan Swift
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme(for Nan)
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
>Date: Fri, Jun 12, 1998 06:29 EDT
Dear Nan,
> I could have wasted my time (and I still may) going back to your >posts and
clipping all of your name calling, baiting and bullying. >Instead I chose as an
expedient example your recent post to >Martha.
>
> So again, you completely miss the point.
LS, DO IT! But, in FULL CONTEXT! Don't play the Martha-Game. You called me
a "hypocrite" right to my very screen. This is name calling, yeah? I do my
utmost to avoid name calling - I describe rather ascribe. For instance,
"Biased Cronyism" is descriptive not ascribitive. If you were not a "true
believer", your objectivism would prevail. You haven't achieved the pure
cosmic detachment yet. But, you're cute. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme(for Nan)
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
>Date: Fri, Jun 12, 1998 06:29 EDT
>Again. Nan believes that people who disagree with her are a >"gang" or
"sorority."
Nope! Just noting the obvious conglomerate bias.
> I suppose it does not occur to her that reasonable people
>may hold beliefs counter to her own, and she assumes, as have >certain >other
people here, that people who agree on an issue >(especially if an element of
joking enters it) are a Cabal.
I always thought your self-declared "Cabal" was a joke.
>(Well, of course she's correct on that one; there *is* a Cabal.)
>She is unable to tolerate disagreement on the facts. She is driven >to snide
name-calling, which she justifies by saying that I have
>misrepresented her feelings about Art.
Martha, your art is devious misrepresentation as your above
comments well demonstrate.
>> All I know is that I said she thought Art should be Pretty.
You are blatantly false, blatantly false.
>If this is not true, I don't know how I'm supposed to know that; I >based my
judgment on what she herself said
>about whose works she likes and whose she doesn't. All I know >is, I'm
confused about my sexual orientation.
I have never, never have used the term "pretty" regarding *my* evaluation of
any ART. It was your term, and now out of COMPLETE COWARDLY DENIAL, you
attribute the term to me. By your initial use of that term "pretty", you
exposed your *posturing* - and I called you on it. Martha, I suspect your
"confusion" is more about your inability to be truthful and forthcoming,
unless, of course, that is the orientation of your true belief. I suspect it
is. from Nan, wondering why Othello
could not see through the evil machinations of Iago.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Fri, Jun 12, 1998 02:00 EDT
>
>She thinks I have *SEXUAL IDENTITY PROBLEMS!!???* Well.... um, don't we all?
Nan said: Suspects, not "thinks".
>
>And so what if I do? At least I *read* what is posted by people I >don't
agree with. And I have never, ever attempted to debate a >sig line.
To Martha, without due respects:
To paraphrase Lanham: 'The rhetorical "stylist" has no central self to be true
to.... feels at home in his/her roles and lives to play them. The more
elaborate the performance, the more representative it is. The "Rhetorical
poser" is an actor and insincerity is the mode of being. Insincerity is a
chronic flaw,
do you not agree, Martha? from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
>Elliott Finesse wrote:
Well, Martha, that is not the point I was making, but you made another one for
me. Elliot Finesse clarified the Col.'s misunderstanding of my reference to
the Darwin theories and how they could apply to the self-destruct "turf wars".
Yet, if decriminalization of drug use/addiction expands the extant drug
culture, the point you illustrate above (as mine by extended reasoning) could
well prove a correct conclusion. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Fri, Jun 12, 1998 10:40 EDT
I have a nasty little suspicion about Nan. Do you recall one odd post of hers
in which she argued with George Byrd's sig line? When called on this, she
huffed that this was a peril of "scanning" other peoples' posts. I suspect
that Nan has not actually *read* any of the evidence presented to her. I
suspect, in fact, that she does not actually *read* the long articles she
herself posts. You'll notice that her only original contributions to the
debate are slurs, not points of debate.
Martha
>>I suspect Martha suffers irresolvable frustrations. I suspect her >>overt
"good natured" bawdiness belies repressed sexual >>identity conflicts. I
suspect her need to manipulatate attention to >>herself is a hunger which seeks
validation by others using a >>pathological course of malicious inferences and
inflammatory
>>misrepresentations. I suspect her pattern of inconsistancy and
>>self-contradiction is indicative of her identifying with "liberally
>>correct" causes because fo an essentially shallow core of self.
>>I suspect The *New Yorker* forms her "true beliefs" filling in >>the shallow
channels of her Id-imperative. I suspect her >>"modeling" avant garde image
is a need for exalted status and
>>entitlement. I suspect Martha's projections, e.g. "slurs", should >>be
considered dishonest, but she feels immune to criticism or >>censure. I suspect
this thread is dead, because it is now all about
>>MARTHA.
BULLY!!!!???? Let's see.....Nan vs. how many?
Sr. Citizen Bully takes on the Liberalis extremis ad nausem?
Too much! In the mind of the beholder, your intrigrity is conspiciuously
disjunctive. from Nan
Martha Sprowles
lordsir wrote:
>
> In article <358103...@REMOVETHISerols.com>, Martha says...
>
> All I know is, I'm
> >confused about my sexual orientation.
> >
>
> Dear Comrade Marvin, Fellow Exalted Devil Incarnate,
>
> Don't worry Comrade Marvin, The Cabal™ has already forwarded to you by secret
> courier a full supply of the Special Gender Switching Drugs™. Now you can be
> whatever gender you wish whenever you want.
>
> Be careful though. In a relatively few cases some people have grown impenetrable
> sideburns on their hips.
>
> Regards,
>
> Comrade Lord Sir - Devil Incarnate
Comrade:
<in a tiny whisper> is it true we're going to have our asses laminated?
DOG3
In article <358103...@REMOVETHISerols.com>, Martha Sprowles
<spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com> writes:
>All I know is, I'm
>confused about my sexual orientation.
>
>Marvin
>
>
Come on over for dinner. I'll slip that blue Halston number I've been saving
around your shoulders and you'll be back in the garden shed in no time.
Michael <- concerned about Marvin
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 01:20 EDT
>NanLeeCro wrote in message
>>>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>
>Nan, it was YOUR side that declared the War On (some) Drugs. You cannot fault
anyone who is an innocent bystander or an enemy of that war your side declared
for fighting back.
>
>If you have an innocent friend become a casualty in the WOsD, then you have
the instigators, (your side) to blame for it.
>
>It's a war. People die in wars. The war has been fought for 20 years and
drug use and abuse has not changed one iota. Drugs have been illegal for 80
years now in this country and your side hasn't accomplished anything but
increase the violence.
>
>How long will your side continue to hit its head against a brick > wall before
they learn......IT CANNOT BE WON!
Dear Finesse,
I am not sure I answered your post - there have been so many posts to answer,
so little time.
First the War on Drugs is not my SIDE. It is the govt's war.
The "side" I take is a stand against decriminalization of drug use and the main
reason is the inevitable extension of the
Drug Culture.
Somehow, I cannot understand the "innocent friend" casualty. I do not doubt
innocent people get in the crossfire or innocently arrested. But this happens
all the time in non-drug related crimes.
Law enforcement cannot eliminate all crime or contain it.
Increased violence? By whom? Law enforcement? I don't understand you
meaning. Increased pressure by the law?
Please clarify.
You write: "It cannot be won!" Such a passionate statement.
I don't see drug use and illicit traffic disappearing totally as a result of
the Govt's "war on drugs". The purpose is to reduce, contain,
oppose, harass, prosecute, enforce, and so on, re: the Drug Culture, I would
assume. Based on that, I think YOUR expectation that if drug use is not
totally eradicated by the on-going WoD,
the WoD is a failure - because you want it to be a failure.
The more I have researched this issue, the more it appears
the alleged drug failure is an untruth often repeated to be accepted as a truth
(ala Goebbels) from Nan
Terry Hallinan
Cowboy #54 <d...@YOUDONTNEEDTHIStexas.net> wrote:
>Survival of the fittest is judged by the passing on of genes. In other
>words, procreating. A huge argument could be made that drug use is a
>determinate in this matter.
Sloe gin used to be the drug of choice. Maybe there is a better one
today.
>How many people get goofed up on drugs and
>in so doing, create progeny?
>Col Klink
Lots.
Too bad the worst drugs are legal and the least harmful drugs illegal.
Best, Terry
"Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
- The Devil's Dictionary
Terry Hallinan
patty...@aol.com (PattyC4303) wrote:
>I say legalize all of it. I guess this is something already addressed, but...
> how do you reconcile your stance when alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL?? Should
>we make those also illegal? If not, what is the difference??
>PattyC
Alcohol and tobacco have more influential friends.
PattyC4303
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
>Date: Sun, Jun 14, 1998 01:35 EDT
>Message-id: <35833...@nntp2.borg.com>
Terry,
Have I mentioned latley how much I love you???
PattyC
Debby Sobwick
NanLeeCro wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
> >Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 01:20 EDT
>
> >NanLeeCro wrote in message
> >
lurking because I'm never really sure what I want to say. I think some
drugs should be legalized. Mankind has lived with drugs since humanity
started. We only started having this problem since the FDA was created
back in the 1930's I belive. Before then we all got along quite well
without all the rules and regulations. People who want to be on drugs
will anyway no matter how many laws we pass. Adults should be free to
make up thier own minds on this issue. If you pick up old medical books
from the turn of the century you will find that we did use these drugs
and managed to still have a working society. For instance did you know
that paragoric was used to treat women with menstral cramps. That has
morphine. When coca cola was invented it had cocaine in it! We all got
along quite nicely without the FDA thank you. The only thing they should
use the FDA for is to do things like inspect meat packing plants etc.
Get them out of the drug
business! Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>(who believes in freedom of choice)
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: "Elliott Finesse" <e...@usnb.net>
>>Well, Martha, that is not the point I was making, but you made >>another one
for me. Elliot Finesse clarified the Col.'s >>misunderstanding of my reference
to the Darwin theories and >>how they could apply to the self-destruct "turf
wars".
>> Yet, if decriminalization of drug use/addiction expands the >>extant drug
culture, the point you illustrate above (as mine by >>extended reasoning) could
well prove a correct conclusion. >>from Nan
>
>I want to addres this issue you believe in that drug use and abuse >will
increase with the re-legalization of politically incorrect drugs.
Dear EF,
"...re-legalization of politically incorrect drugs."
Your above statement is the basis of your cause. You only address the
"prohibition of drug use" and not the social consequences
of hard drug usage and addiction as a "culture", or its effect upon
society/culture, and especially how it underminds the well-being of youth.
Our focal points are so diametrically opposed, there is little point in arguing
together for our positions. There is NO common denominator.
Permissive+enabling vs. Prevention+rehabilitation.
Decriminalization vs. Criminalization
The issue reduced to its most simple terms.
>In this country we have one historical instance or a drug being >prohibited
then re-legalized...alcohol. During Prohibition, ...
>And of course you may disregard this fact, or ask me to prove it. >But I will
leave it up to you to disprove it.
Re: 1920's alcohol prohibition as "proof" (is that is pun?):
1990's is current. The government and police enforcement systems are
different; social and economic dynamics are
different; cause and effect re: issue is present, not past.
The "failure" of alcohol prohibition in 1920's is a lesson not in the failure
of all prohibition measures, but a lesson on how to better mandate and better
enforce prohibition to control and contain
hard drug usage.
This is a "new society" and a different culture than the 1920's.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: "Elliott Finesse" <e...@usnb.net>
>>Dear Finesse,
>>I am not sure I answered your post - there have been so many >>posts to
answer, so little time.
>>
>>First the War on Drugs is not my SIDE. It is the govt's war.
>>The "side" I take is a stand against decriminalization of drug use >>and the
main reason is the inevitable extension of the
>>Drug Culture.
>
>The concept of being against re-legalization of drugs is the same >side as the
Drug Warriors side. One and the same.
Dear EF,
My "concept" of the DW is that the governmental law enforcement's target is
illicit international trade and smuggling of drugs; domestic manufacturing and
street sales. The focus of my stand against decriminalization of DRUG USE is
based on social/cultural/health considerations. So we seem to have different
focal points and social concerns, as well as different interpretations of the
aims of the Drug War. Now, after spending more time than I ever wanted to do
researching the pros and cons of this issue, and reading (to spite Martha's
suspicion that I haven't) Net pages devoted to the pro and con, I have
additional concerns as well as revelations that have only cemented my position.
Most of the aggressive if not hostile proponents posting here have only
alienated me further, much further, by the very character of their arguments
and the character of their delivery. If you read my original posts and their
original posts, it proves my point.
Their mode is Anti-Neuro linguistic and unpersuasive.
>There is no reasonbale reason given that supports the idea that >the drug
culture would be extended...
I do not think that you are concerned in the least with the
extension of the drug culture's possible or probable extension.
Nor has it be in any addressed by proponents except by
citing 1920's prohibition as an example. This example does not
apply to the PRESENT.
Nan wrote:
>>Somehow, I cannot understand the "innocent friend" casualty. I >>do not
doubt innocent people get in the crossfire or innocently >>arrested. But this
happens all the time in non-drug related >>crimes.
>
>All I am saying is don't blame the drug user when you friends >house is taken
away from them because their son sold pot.
The above example you offer: Their son sold them out, not the drug war. It is
difficult to accept the parents of an adult son, selling pot, would be subject
to seizure of their property.
> This has happened and any whining about it would be >hypocritical since you
support the drug war. Also
>if the police bust in and kill your friend, don't whine....it's just a
>casualty of war.
LS, there was such incident in my state several years. But, the local police
was *corrupt*, and after that incident the police chief was fired, and the
officers involved (clearly corrupt) were also fired. It was gross case of
police abuse and illegal use of force.
The is NOT the fault of all law enforcement.
>Casualties that could be eleiminated by re-legalization.
Nan wrote:
>>Law enforcement cannot eliminate all crime or contain it.
>>Increased violence? By whom? Law enforcement? I don't >>understand you
meaning. Increased pressure by the law?
>>Please clarify.
>
>There is a direct correlation with prohibition and homicides. If >you want I
can post the chart.
Well, George posted a chart, and it was not convincing at all.
Criminals murdering criminals (turf wars) is not a casuality stat proving a
valid cause for decriminalization. Drug OD's are
casualities of drug usage not of the Drug War.
Nan wrote:
>>You write: "It cannot be won!" Such a passionate statement.
>>I don't see drug use and illicit traffic disappearing totally as a >>result
of the Govt's "war on drugs". The purpose is to reduce, >>contain, oppose,
harass, prosecute, enforce, and so on, re: the >>Drug Culture, I would assume.
Based on that, I think YOUR >>expectation that if drug use is not totally
eradicated by the >>on-going WoD, the WoD is a failure - because you want it to
be a failure.
>Winning would be to reduce it. It hasn't been reduced and >cannot be reduced
The WOsD si a failure. There has not been a >signficant reduction in drug use
or abuse.
The Drug War targets international illicit drug trade, sales and smuggling.
If the "warriors" stopped, would the illiticit drug trade, sales and smuggling,
and most importantly of all, drug usage just stop? Immediately or
significantly be reduced? No, it would not.
You see, I separate the Drug War issue from the
Decriminalization/Legalization issue. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Sun, Jun 14, 1998 10:08 EDT
Nan wrote to Finesse:
You write: "It cannot be won!" Such a passionate statement. I don't see
drug use and illicit traffic disappearing totally as a result of the Govt's
"war on drugs". The purpose is to reduce, Drug Culture, I would assume.
Based on that, I think YOUR expectation that if drug use is not totally
eradicated by the on-going WoD, the WoD is a failure - because you want it to
be a failure. The more I have researched this issue, the more it appears the
alleged drug failure is an untruth often repeated to be accepted as a truth
(ala Goebbels) from Nan
>> Ergo:ethos, logos, pathos.
>Dear Nan: I have been reading alot of posts on this topic and just
>lurking because I'm never really sure what I want to say. I think >some drugs
should be legalized. Mankind has lived with drugs >since humanity started. We
only started having this problem since >the FDA was created back in the 1930's
I belive. Before then we >all got along quite well without all the rules and
regulations. >People who want to be on drugs will anyway no matter how many
>laws we pass. Adults should be free to make up thier own minds >on this issue.
If you pick up old medical books from the turn of >the century you will find
that we did use these drugs
>and managed to still have a working society. For instance did you >know that
paragoric was used to treat women with menstral >cramps. That has morphine.
When coca cola was invented it had >cocaine in it! We all got along quite
nicely without the FDA thank >you. The only thing they should use the FDA for
is to do things >like inspect meat packing plants etc. Get them out of the drug
>business! Debby
Dear Debby,
If you have been lurking, you are already saturated with my
viewpoint. I do not disagree with appropriate medical use
of drugs - especially medical use of MJ. (I knew people who were addicted to
Coca Cola, by the way. They did not knw it at the time. I had figured it out
in Science class experiments, and foresook CC at once.) As you well know by
now, I am opposed to "free choice" of hard drug usage. I do not agree in many
"free choices" issues. The free choice to molest available children or to
self-determine driving speeds, for instance. If we have a "free choice"
society, then ALL choices must be free, and I choose not to pay my taxes and
tolls.
Re: the FDA - YES! Inspect meat packing plants! Check out those Feed Lots
too! I haven't had a Hamburger for so long, I am UnAmerican. Best to you,
Debby, from Nan
grif...@ix.netcom.com
Debby Sobwick wrote:
> If you pick up old medical books
> from the turn of the century you will find that we did use these drugs
> and managed to still have a working society. For instance did you know
> that paragoric was used to treat women with menstral cramps. That has
> morphine. When coca cola was invented it had cocaine in it!
Hey, Debby...It wasn't that long ago! In 1971, the pediatrician gave me
a prescription for paregoric to treat my son's colic. I think that
(maybe) when *I* was a baby, it was available without a prescription. I
do remember that when I was five, we had some Coca-cola syrup that had
been prescribed for me for *something* (stomach ache?). I'm not sure,
though, 'cause the papyrus that the doctor wrote on has yellowed with
age.
Linda
hall...@borg.com
In article <199806140454...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
patty...@aol.com (PattyC4303) wrote:
> >patty...@aol.com (PattyC4303) wrote:
> >
> >>I say legalize all of it. I guess this is something already addressed,
> >but...
> >> how do you reconcile your stance when alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL??
> >Should
> >>we make those also illegal? If not, what is the difference??
> >
> >>PattyC
> >
> >Alcohol and tobacco have more influential friends.
> >
> >Best, Terry
> Terry,
>
> Have I mentioned latley how much I love you???
>
> PattyC
Where can we meet to disucss it? :-} :-} :-}
Over drinks, of course. <VBG>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
NanLeeCro
>>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Sun, Jun 14, 1998 01:18 EDT
>
>Too bad the worst drugs are legal and the least harmful drugs >illegal. Best,
Terry
Dear Terry,
Heroin is a "least harmful drug"? Crack & Opium too? LSD?
Meth----can't spell it ---? Descend for a reality check.
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, 14 Jun 1998 15:35:11 GMT,
on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) cast this ASCII:
>If you have been lurking, you are already saturated with my
>viewpoint. I do not disagree with appropriate medical use
>of drugs - especially medical use of MJ.
Yet you accept the word of narco-cops over the word of physicians as
to what is appropriate medical use.
The drug law enforcers pursuing the war on drugs in Cal. disagree with
appropriate medical use of marijuana, except for Terence Hallinan, the
DA of SF county and city. In my county alone I have professionally
looked into three arrests and prosecutions for medical marijuana in
the last 9 months.
All the cases were dismissed, but not until judges had made several
egregious rulings for the prosecution, and one patient spent several
months in jail for no crime at all. One judge went so far as to rule,
on the record, that the new law, Proposition 215, which had passed
with 55% voter support, did _not_ permit patients with a doctor's
recommendation to use marijuana. Where some drugs are concerned,
even the plain language of the law doesn't matter to the enforcers.
> (I knew people who were addicted to
>Coca Cola, by the way. They did not knw it at the time. I had figured it out
>in Science class experiments, and foresook CC at once.)
If you "figured out" that a Coca Cola sample had cocaine in it, then
you did it before 1903, because that's when the Coca Cola company
removed cocaine from the recipe and substituted caffein.
> As you well know by
>now, I am opposed to "free choice" of hard drug usage. I do not agree in many
>"free choices" issues. The free choice to molest available children or to
>self-determine driving speeds, for instance. If we have a "free choice"
>society, then ALL choices must be free, and I choose not to pay my taxes and
>tolls.
Thank you for clarifying your position: either all choices must be
legal, or none must be.
>Re: the FDA - YES! Inspect meat packing plants! Check out those Feed Lots
>too! I haven't had a Hamburger for so long, I am UnAmerican. Best to you,
>Debby, from Nan
If every human act is to be either mandatory by law or forbidden by
law, why should the choice of whether or not to eat a hamburger be an
exception?
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. and are NOT legal advice.
"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... "
<< Base Commander, Gen. Jack D. Ripper, from _Dr._Strangelove >>
hall...@borg.com
In article <199806151256...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
> >From: hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
> >Date: Sun, Jun 14, 1998 01:18 EDT
> >
> >Too bad the worst drugs are legal and the least harmful drugs >illegal.
Best,
> Terry
>
> Dear Terry,
> Heroin is a "least harmful drug"? Crack & Opium too? LSD?
> Meth----can't spell it ---? Descend for a reality check.
> from Nan
As you know the single most powerful anaesthetic for those in the most
painful terminal stages of cancer have it withheld because of the danger of
addicted. That is heroin, of course. One estimate is that no more than 5%
of users become addicted. 100% of users of tobacco become addicted and it
retains the most powerful draw of any addictive substance known. It kills
many more than any other drug. Are you seriously contending nicotine is not
a terrible drug? The damage done by alcohol is known by many who have seen
dt's. The death and destruction wrought on others by this drug is unmatched
by any illegal substance.
One notable person who tells the story most literally is Dr. Dean Edell. He
is not a user except of caffeine as far as I know.
Douglas M. Case
Paregoric, which is camphorated tincture of opium, not morphine, was an
over-the-counter medication until the late 1960s.
dmc
---------------------
I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.
-Agnes "Mother Teresa" Bojaxhiu
NanLeeCro
>(Terry Hallinan)
>> >Date: Sun, Jun 14, 1998 01:18 EDT
>> >
>> >Too bad the worst drugs are legal and the least harmful drugs >>>
illegal. Best, Terry
>>
> Dear Terry,
> Heroin is a "least harmful drug"? Crack & Opium too? LSD?
> Meth----can't spell it ---? Descend for a reality check.
> from Nan
Terry wrote:
>As you know the single most powerful anaesthetic for those in the >most
painful terminal stages of cancer have it withheld because of >the danger of
addicted. That is heroin, of course.
The argument is not pro/con for Heroin as prescribed medical use, or as a
medically anaesthetic .
The issue is Legalization of all drugs for self-determined use.
Tobacco and Coffee are not "hard drugs". The comparison
does not make an valid argument. It is sandbox logic.
Terry wrote: One estimate is that no more than 5% of users become addicted.
Nan ASKS: Terry, you say 5% of heroin users become addicted? What % of opium
users, % of LSD users, % of Meth. users % of cocaine users became addicted. If
drug using was legal, what % of users would extend their addiction? How many
new users?
100% of users of tobacco become addicted and it retains the most powerful draw
of any addictive substance known. It kills many more than any other drug. Are
you seriously contending nicotine is not a terrible drug?
By tobacco is a "powerful draw" - do you mean attraction or
habit forming? Nicotine does not cause intoxication nor is it a narcotic.
Would you suggest criminalizing tobacco and
decriminalizing heroin? I don't think you give one flying
fig about tobacco "addiction" and its health hazards. The proponents for
decriminalization of all drugs and free choice
usage are only interested in legality of usage and legal
availability of drugs of choice. I have skimmed through many
of the Pro Legal NET pages. Hedonistic self-interest
and sandbox logic prevails in them. (except for medically
prescribed MJ. Heroin can be prescribed if medically
indicated.) The arguments reflect arrested adolescent logic
with a spoiled-child demand for total permissiveness.
Before I started researching this issue, I assumed the constant SPIN that the
Drug War was an evident failure. Now, I am sure it isn't a failure and it will
have to be on-going, and more militant.
The proponents in this TC have used baiting, name calling, vile attributions,
and hostile tactics all of which by its very nature prove the weakness of
their arguments. For them the focus of their
cause is a narrow self-interest if not anti-social. Decriminization
Pro or Con is not a political issue, it is a social issue. Those who
support decriminizaton need to make it one. This issue's advocates are false
"liberals" representing a narrow special interest and attempting to
politicized a serious social issue.
Inevitable results:
Decriminalization=Enabling Criminalization=Rehabilitation
If the argument is "free choice" then I shall exert my "free choice" to NOT pay
taxes to a government/society enabling a drug culture. An extended drug
culture will be far more costly than the "Drug War" in dollar and social value.
from Nan
If nicotine is a terrible drug, then it should be prohibited as well as
alcohol and other terrible drugs.
> The damage done by alcohol is known by many who have seen
>dt's. The death and destruction wrought on others by this drug is >unmatched
by any illegal substance.
Have you ever watched a person in heroin withdrawal? It is
just as horrible as the DTs.
>
>One notable person who tells the story most literally is Dr. Dean >Edell. He
is not a user except of caffeine as far as I know.
Definitely criminalize coffee, tea, and soft drinks.
Candy highs are pretty devastating too. Carbos!!!
And MacDonald's French Fries. from Nan
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, 16 Jun 1998 17:15:53 GMT,
on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) cast this ASCII:
> [ "glas" <gl...@donet.com> wrote ]
>>NanLeeCro wrote ...
>>snip...
>>Tobacco and Coffee are not "hard drugs". The comparison
>>does not make an valid argument. It is sandbox logic.
It all Depends upon what one means by "hard". If "hard" means "does
physiological damage", and the "hardness scale" is based upon
physicological damage per doseage unit, then tobacco and alcohol are
the two "hardest" drugs in common usage, legal or illegal.
>Glas wrote:
>I beg to differ.
> I gave up cocaine quite easily but I am having a devil of a
>time giving up my cigarettes and don't even want to
>contemplate loss my morning mugs of coffee.
> I have to get up early on Saturday
>and Sunday even tho I don't have to go to work simply because
> I drink coffee all week and if I don't get it at the regular time
> I get to spend the day with a migraine.
> It sounds like a hard drug to me.
>Dearest glas,
>Want the 800 phone # for Caffeine/Coffee/Cola Anon.? CCC?
>Caffeine is not a narcotic. Nicotine is not a narcotic.
Actually, Caffeine has properties of a stimulant, as most physicians
use the term "stimulant". Nicotine has mostly properties of a
"stimulant" in small dosages and a "narcotic" in larger doses, again,
as most physicians use the terms. However, the government's
classifications of drugs do not correspond to most physicians'
classifications.
Heroin is properly classified by government as a narcotic; but cocaine
is misclassified by government as a narcotic; marijuana is also
misclassified by government as a narcotic.
Even physicians' classifications are necessarily loose descriptions,
as is any scientific taxonomy. But government's (mis)classifications
are based upon pure politics, calculated to support government's
policies.
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.and are NOT legal advice.
"For unrestricted use the West has permitted only alcohol and tobacco;
all other chemical Doors in the Wall are labeled Dope, and their
unauthorized takers are Fiends." <<Aldous Huxley, Doors of Perception>>
hall...@borg.com
In article <3586AFD1...@mail.msy.bellsouth.net>,
kfl...@mail.msy.bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
> hall...@borg.com wrote:
>
> > It is rather ironic that one of the objections to merinol pills which are
> > legalized extracts of marijuana is that they cause the user to get higher
> > than a therapeutic puff on a joint.
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again, whether or not anybody believes
it.
> Marinol is considered by doctors to be a THIRD-CHOICE drug for relieving
nausea
> caused by chemotherapy. The reason it is third-choice is because it does not
work
> as well as the first- and second-choice drugs.
>
> Another reason that physicians do not prescribe Marinol (that is the correct
> spelling) more frequently is that it can cause hypotension, or low blood
pressure,
> in patients, which can be problematic in people who are otherwise debilitated
by
> chemotherapy.
>
> BTW, Marinol is also listed as an orphan drug for the enhancement of appetite
in
> AIDS patients; the hypotension side effect can be problematic for them, too.
>
> > Very expensive pills for the nausea caused by cancer treatments can be a bit
of
> > problem when they are thrown up.
>
> Certainly, pills can be thrown up. Are you going to try to imply that Marinol
would
> never be thrown up by cancer patients?
Geez, Kathleen, I say marinol (sorry about spelling) pills are quite likely
to be thrown up and you ask if I implied that marinol pills would never be
thrown up. Is everybody reading impaired? No I didn't imply any such thing.
A pill treating nausea is likely to be thrown up. How the hell can I make
it clearer?
>Presently there are _many_ different
drugs,
> and combinations of drugs, for the treatment of nausea caused by cancer
treatments
> now. It isn't MJ or Marinol or nothing. And some of them can be administered
> intravenously, if necessary, eliminating the problem of throwing them up.
>
> Of course, smoke cannot be vomited - I won't argue with that. But please do
not try
> to tell me that inhaling smoke - whether from MJ or cigarettes or a house on
fire -
> is not detrimental to one's lungs. I flat-out won't believe you, no matter
how many
> peer-reviewed studies you throw at me.
>
> Kathleen
LOL!
Of course smoking is detrimental to one's lungs. Who says it isn't? Many
drugs have side effects.
Marijuana cannot be legally prescribed by any doctor. A doctor
prescribing marijuana could lose his license to practice as well as being
jailed. Most doctors do not want to go to jail. Therefore they do not
prescribe marijuana. Often doctors know little about the drugs they prescribe
anyway which is a whole different subject.
Marinol pills are a poor substitute for marijuana for many reasons including
those stated. It is rather pointless to compare marinol to other drugs and
then claim it is the same as comparing marijuana to the same drugs.
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:50:15 GMT,
on "Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme"
>Certainly, pills can be thrown up. Are you going to try to imply
> that Marinol would never be thrown up by cancer patients?
> Presently there are _many_ different drugs, and combinations
> of drugs, for the treatment of nausea caused by cancer treatments
>now. It isn't MJ or Marinol or nothing. And some of them can be
> administered intravenously, if necessary, eliminating the problem
> of throwing them up.
I think you are missing the point. Marijuana or Marinol work in cases
where other anti-nausea drugs do not. Marinol and other orally
administered anti-nauseants have many disadvantages relative to
ordinary marijuana for those with severe nausea. A primary
disadvantage is that Marinol is taken orally, and is often vomited
before it can be effective. Intravenous administration of anything is
generally more difficult and dangerous than inhalation of a vaporized
(but not burned) substance. However, marijuana vaporizers are illegal
under the federal 1988 omnibus anti-drug (and parphenalia) act, and
many similar state statutes.
Another disadvantage of Marinol is its extremely high cost and its
very short shelf life. It must be stored refrigerated, and even then
has a short shelf life. Perhaps the greatest advantage of marijuana
is that if it is legal for patients and caregivers to grow it, it is
extremely inexpensive relative to all anti-nausea drugs.
Another is the inability of a patient to titrate accurately a useful
Marinol dose. With any orally administered drug the anti-nausea
effect can take considerable time to manifest. With inhalation
(either vaporized or smoked), each partial inhalation has an almost
instant effect. With such fast feedback the patient can titrate the
exact dosage necessary to quell nausea without taking more than
intended.
>Of course, smoke cannot be vomited - I won't argue with that.
> But please do not try to tell me that inhaling smoke - whether
> from MJ or cigarettes or a house on fire - is not detrimental
> to one's lungs.
The issue is not whether inhalation of marijuana smoke is perfectly
harmless, but rather whether it is relatively less harmlful than
tobacco smoke. The lesser relative harm is quite well established,
even by the Tashkin studies once one understands the exact results in
light of the methodology.
However, devices to achieve the least dangerous and most accurate
ingestion method, vapor inhalation, are illegal.
Add to this that the government's "war on drugs", and most states'
budgets as well, focus upon marijuana. Almost half of the federal
anti-drug budget, and most states', are for marijuana enforcement.
> I flat-out won't believe you, no matter how many
>peer-reviewed studies you throw at me.
Fascinating. Peer-reviewed scientific studies are bunk, I suppose, in
light of revealed truth from government's enforcers. You'd like the
official drug warriors in my county. Not only do peer-reviewed
scientific studies mean nothing to them -- neither does the law.
In my county the DA and the narcotics squad are having a field day
prosecuting medical patients and primary caregivers. The drug
warriors love it because they're "sending the right message to the
children". The DA led the statewide fight against Prop. 215 but it
passed by 55% of the voters, and over 66% in his own county. But that
makes no difference to the DA or to his narcotics cops.
The "right message to the children" apparently is that medical
patients should die or go blind regardless of what the voters said or
what the law says. Since the DA and the narcotics squads know they
can't convict patients under the new law, they've taken up a tactic of
disrupting patients' lives as much as possible by raiding, tossing
patients' and primary caregivers' dwellings, confiscating their
medicine, prosecuting to the hilt for a few months, and then
dismissing charges. I've personally seen three such cases within the
past 9 months. One patient spent several months in jail before
dismissal.
Public official drug warriors are not nice, everyday, honest people
who are just upholding the law. They have a totalitarian agenda, and
they enforce it brutally. They get federal and state grant money for
anti-drug enforcement which they use to prosecute medical patients
because the patients are the most vulnerable people, are easy to find,
and don't shoot back at jackbooted narcothugs. They don't have to
give the grant money back if they don't win the cases. It's easy
money and big fun for them, like shooting fish in a barrel.
And, of course, "it sends the right message to the children".
Gawd loves those messengers like he loves drunks. It's very unlikely
that a medical patient would take Joe's advice and send some drug
warriors a richly deserved little message of his own.
I'll give drug warriors credit for being smart enough to have found
the most sumptuous sinecure positions in government, though. Where
else do you get to drink your lunch; get to kick ass on sitting ducks
who are too weak or too decent to shoot back; get speaking engagements
to rant about how medical marijuana is a plot to undermine the youth
of America; and get well paid for it to boot?
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. and are NOT legal advice.
"It [opposition to medical marijuana] is to prohibition what anti-Semitism
is to racists, intellectually absurd, but psychologically essential."
<<Richard Cowan, 6/16/98, >>
<< at http://www.marijuananews.com/that_was_the_week_that__wasn.htm >>
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: Martha Sprowles <sprowle
I'm like glas. When I stop drinking coffee, I get migraines. I've very
gradually cut back and cut back until I can get by with one big mug in the
morning. It's enough to stave off the headaches (calling migraine a headache
is like calling oh hell fill in your own analogy), and I can feel a little
virtuous about getting maybe 2/5 of a monkey off my back.
Martha
Dear Martha,
Join the CCC, or grind your coffee fresh, or treat your caffeine
withdrawal with Heroin or Cocaine. I guarantee either heroin
or cocaine will counteract the awful symptoms you suffer from
coffee drinking. Of course, this topic is not about caffeine
induced piggy-backing "migraine monkeys". Let's discuss heroin
withdrawal, since hard drugs/opiates are the issue for decriminalization. I
think you are engaging in "thread topic pollution" as a diversionary tactic to
minimize the seriousness
of this issue...for whatever reasons. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Wed, Jun 17, 1998 00:33 EDT
**HEROIN: What is it?
Heroin (Photo) is an illegal opiate drug known on the street as smack, junk,
brown sugar, dope, horse, and skunk. Heroin is derived from the resin of the
poppy plant (Photo) which grows predominantly in southeast and southwest Asia,
Mexico and now in Colombia. It is manufactured in remote laboratories (Photo)
using rudimentary equipment, pressed into bricks for bulk shipment to
destination countries like the United States. Smaller amounts are smuggled by
couriers who swallow heroin-filled latex balloons before boarding commercial
airlines.
**Effects?
The physical effects of opiates depend of the opiate used, the dose, and how
the drug is taken. Effects may include:
Short-lived state of euphoria, followed by drowsiness.
Slowed heart rate, breathing, and brain activity.
Depressed appetite, thirst, reflexes, and sexual desire.
Increased tolerance for pain.
**Heroin's addictive properties are manifested by the need for persistent,
repeated use of the drug (craving) and by the fact that attempts to stop using
the drug lead to significant and painful physical withdrawal symptoms. Use of
heroin causes physical and psychological problems such as shallow breath,
nausea, panic, insomnia, and a need for increasingly higher doses of the drug
to get the same effect.
**Heroin exerts its primary addictive effect by activating many regions of the
brain; the brain regions affected are responsible for producing both the
pleasurable sensation of "reward" and physical dependence. Together, these
actions account for the user's loss of control and the drug's habit-forming
action.
**Red Rum Heroin - is a highly potent form of heroin that was recently
responsible for the overdose death of a rock musician in New York. Red Rum and
other brands like it, including Fire Express, Green Honey, and Laundromat, are
much more potent than brands of heroin a decade ago. They are designed to
deliver a strong high by snorting or smoking instead of injecting.
According to New York City police, a sample of the Red Rum heroin tested at a
purity level between 60 and 70 percent. Red Rum's origins are believed to be
South American.
**How is heroin administered?
Heroin is usually taken by intravenous injection (mainlining), snorted or
smoked.
**Dangers?
The means of drug entry can have grave consequences. Uncertain dosage levels
(due to difference in purity), the use of unsterile equipment, contamination of
heroin with cutting agents, or the use of heroin in combination with such other
drugs as alcohol or cocaine (Photo) can cause serious health problems such as
serum hepatitis, skin abscesses, inflammation of the veins, and cardiac disease
(subacute bacterial endocarditis). Of great importance, however, is that the
user never knows whether the next dose will be unusually potent, leading to
overdose, coma, and possible death.
**Needle sharing by IV drug users is fact becoming the leading cause of new
AIDS cases. The AIDS virus is carried in contaminated blood left in the needle,
syringe, or other drug-related implements and is injected into the new user
when he or she uses this equipment to inject heroin or other drugs. There is no
cure for AIDS and no proven vaccine to prevent it.
**Heroin use during pregnancy is associated with stillbirths and
miscarriages. Babies born addicted to heroin must undergo withdrawal after
birth and these babies show a number of developmental problems.
**The signs and symptoms of heroin use include euphoria, drowsiness,
respiratory depression (which can progress until breathing stops), constricted
pupils, and nausea. Withdrawal symptoms include watery eyes, runny nose,
yawning, loss of appetite, tremors, panic, chills, sweating, nausea, muscle
cramps, and insomnia. Elevations in blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate,
and temperature occur as withdrawal progresses.
Other symptoms of heroin overdose include shallow breathing, pinpoint pupils,
clammy skin, convulsions, and coma.
**Opioids? Opioids are synthetic substitutes for opiates that are not derived
from the opium poppy, but have similar effects. They include Darvon, Demerol,
Meperidine, and Methadone. Methadone is legally prescribed for the treatment of
heroin addiction, but it can also cause tolerance and dependency.
Copyright ©1996 by Library Publications ###
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
|>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
|
|I'm like glas. When I stop drinking coffee, I get migraines. I've
very
|gradually cut back and cut back until I can get by with one big mug
in the
|morning. It's enough to stave off the headaches (calling migraine a
headache
|is like calling oh hell fill in your own analogy), and I can feel a
little
|virtuous about getting maybe 2/5 of a monkey off my back.
|Martha
|
|
|Dear Martha,
|Join the CCC, or grind your coffee fresh, or treat your caffeine
|withdrawal with Heroin or Cocaine. I guarantee either heroin
|or cocaine will counteract the awful symptoms you suffer from
|coffee drinking. Of course, this topic is not about caffeine
|induced piggy-backing "migraine monkeys". Let's discuss heroin
|withdrawal, since hard drugs/opiates are the issue for
decriminalization. I
|think you are engaging in "thread topic pollution" as a diversionary
tactic to
|minimize the seriousness
|of this issue...for whatever reasons. from Nan
I too grind my coffee fresh. I happen to be totally consumed with
desire for fresh brewed gourmet coffee every morning. (I've given up
a lot of things, I indulge myself with really good coffee) It is
total nonsense to think that I get less caffeine because the coffee is
fresh ground.
I think that you are the one trying to avoid the issue which is that
"A drug is a drug is a drug".
glas
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>Date: Wed, Jun 17, 1998 00:33 EDT
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Research Report Series
Heroin: Abuse and Addiction
What are the immediate (short-term) effects of heroin use?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon after injection (or inhalation), heroin crosses the blood-brain
barrier. In the brain, heroin is converted to morphine and binds rapidly to
opioid receptors. Abusers typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable
sensation, a "rush." The intensity of the rush is a function of how much drug
is taken and how rapidly the drug enters the brain and binds to the natural
opioid receptors. Heroin is particularly addictive because it enters the brain
so rapidly. With heroin, the rush is usually accompanied by a warm flushing of
the skin, dry mouth, and a heavy feeling in the extremities, which may be
accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and severe itching.
After the initial effects, abusers usually will be drowsy for several
hours. Mental function is clouded by heroin's effect on the central
nervous system. Cardiac functions slow. Breathing is also severely
slowed, sometimes to the point of death. Heroin overdose is a particular risk
on the street, where the amount and purity of the drug cannot be accurately
known.
What are the long-term effects of heroin use?
One of the most detrimental long-term effects of heroin is addiction
itself. Addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease, characterized by
compulsive drug seeking and use, and by neurochemical and molecular changes in
the brain. Heroin also produces profound degrees of tolerance and physical
dependence, which are also powerful motivating factors for compulsive use and
abuse. As with abusers of any addictive drug, heroin abusers gradually spend
more and more time and energy obtaining and using the drug. Once they are
addicted, the heroin abusers' primary
purpose in life becomes seeking and using drugs. The drugs literally change
their brains.
Physical dependence develops with higher doses of the drug. With physical
dependence, the body adapts to the presence of the drug and withdrawal symptoms
occur if use is reduced abruptly. Withdrawal may occur within a few hours after
the last time the drug is taken. Symptoms of withdrawal include restlessness,
muscle and bone pain, insomnia, diarrhea, vomiting, cold flashes with goose
bumps ("cold turkey"), and leg movements. Major withdrawal symptoms peak
between 24 and 48 hours after the last dose of heroin and subside after about a
week. However,
some people have shown persistent withdrawal signs for many months.
Heroin withdrawal is never fatal to otherwise healthy adults, but it can cause
death to the fetus of a pregnant addict.
At some point during continuous heroin use, a person can become addicted to the
drug. Sometimes addicted individuals will endure many of the withdrawal
symptoms to reduce their tolerance for the drug so that they can again
experience the rush.
Physical dependence and the emergence of withdrawal symptoms were once believed
to be the key features of heroin addiction. We now know this may not be the
case entirely, since craving and relapse can occur weeks and months after
withdrawal symptoms are long gone. We also know that patients with chronic pain
who need opiates to function (sometimes over extended periods) have few if any
problems leaving opiates after their pain is resolved by other means. This may
be because the patient in pain is simply seeking relief of pain and not the
rush sought by the addict.
(some edit of original article)
For additional information about NIDA send e-mail to
Infor...@lists.nida.nih.gov
This page last updated Saturday, October 18, 1997. ###
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: hall...@borg.com
>Date: Wed, Jun 17, 1998 00:33 EDT
What is the scope of heroin
use in the United States?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, which may
actually underestimate illicit opiate (heroin) use, an estimated 2.4 million
people use heroin at some time in their lives, and nearly 216,000 of them
reported using it within the month preceding the survey. The survey report
estimates that there were 141,000 new heroin users in 1995, and that there has
been an increasing trend in new heroin use since 1992. A large proportion of
these recent new users were smoking, snorting, or sniffing heroin, and most
were under age 26. Estimates of use for other age groups also increased,
particularly among youths age 12 to 17: the incidence of first-time heroin use
among this age group
increased fourfold from the 1980s to 1995.
The 1996 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), which collects data on drug-related
hospital emergency department (ED) episodes from 21 metropolitan areas,
estimates that 14 percent of all drug-related ED episodes involved heroin. Even
more alarming is the fact that between 1988 and 1994, heroin-related ED
episodes increased by 64 percent (from 39,063 to 64,013).
NIDA's Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG), which provides information
about the nature and patterns of drug use in 20 cities, reported in its
December 1996 publication that heroin was the primary drug of abuse related to
drug abuse treatment admissions in Newark, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and
Boston, and it ranked a close second to cocaine in New York and Seattle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Anti-War on Drug Movement - It's Militant & Extreme
>From: hall...@borg.com
>Date: Wed, Jun 17, 1998 00:33 EDT
What are the opioid analogs and their dangers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug analogs are chemical compounds that are similar to other drugs in their
effects but differ slightly in their chemical structure. Some analogs are
produced by pharmaceutical companies for legitimate medical reasons. Other
analogs, sometimes referred to as "designer" drugs, can be produced in illegal
laboratories and are often more dangerous and potent than the original drug.
Two of the most commonly known opioid analogs are fentanyl and meperidine
(marketed under the brand name Demerol, for example).
Fentanyl was introduced in 1968 by a Belgian pharmaceutical company as a
synthetic narcotic to be used as an analgesic in surgical procedures because of
its minimal effects on the heart. Fentanyl is particularly dangerous because it
is 50 times more potent than heroin and can rapidly stop respiration. This is
not a problem during surgical procedures because machines are used to help
patients breathe. On the street, however, users have been found dead with the
needle used to inject the drug still in their arms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional information about NIDA send e-mail to
Infor...@lists.nida.nih.gov
This page last updated Saturday, October 18, 1997. ###