HAHAHAHA RIVER PHOENIX IS DEAD!!!!
VAXBANDIT
>John Gonzalez (gonz...@netcom.com) wrote:
[..........................]
>The violence on the black market is only there because drugs are
>illegal. Drug distribution channels are by necessity decentralized and
>none of phoenix's money probably ever came close to inner city gangs.
>And upper class gangs (including at the extreme limit the mafia) know
>better than to kill children. Meanwhile, if you'd like to blame anyone
>for the profit involved in drug distribution blame the government. As
>a good example of this, its useful to note that the American mafia
>acquired most of its power during alcohol prohibition while the European
>mafia hasn't had the benefit of such government assistance.
>
Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
too bad we can't leave them in their!
It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
C. Matthew Sharkey
>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
The city of which you speak is Amsterdam. The problems that they encountered
were, if I remember correctly, from the free distribution of Heroin. If you
knew anything about the city in question, you would know that while their illicit drug laws parallel those of the US and others, they practice almost no
enforcement of these laws. In this sense, Heroin was already operativley
"legal" in Amsterdam. Their problem arose through the free distribution of
injectables and syringes to the populace. It stands to reason that if one
centralizes the use of Heroin, or any other drug, the point of centralization
will become characteristic of that drug's use.
>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>too bad we can't leave them in their!
>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
Your literacy amazes me. It is apparent from the lucidity of your argument
that you, sir, have never "pumped your veins full of drug crap!"
Matt
Non Serviam
LSD PCP CIA FBI NSA ATF PLO IRA
bombs ... highjacking ... kill the president
The opinions above are those of everyone around you. You are alone in your
opposition. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up.
Mike McNally
>...a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
This sounds really good when said slowly in a William S. Burroughs voice.
It's a little unrealistic, however; if my experience is meaningful, not
too many scums or bums (assholes, I dunno) would pump joints into their
veins after the first couple tries. You don't get that high, and it
really smarts.
--
Mike McNally
Tolthrye
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
No shit, asshole. Are you really this stupid? Unbelievable.
How does someone with such a complete lack of brains learn
to use a computer?
"Legal to sell and use in this one little park here" is
not even close to "legal and regulated throughout
society". Even an idiot (ie, someone a few dozen IQ
points above VAXBANDIT the wondercabbage there) can
tell you that if you pack all the hardcore drug users
into "a single area" the size of a city park you'll
end up with a crappy situation. That's not the issue.
VAX, you brainless simpering moron, if you can't think
through something that simple do the rest of us a
favor and cut off your dick before you reproduce.
[more of VAXBANDIT's useless whining and complaining deleted]
>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
Do you really believe this? What a clear sign you're an idiot.
What country are you from, anyway?
Reactionary brain-dead limbaughdroids like you are a threat to
freedom and democracy. Stick to screwing your sister and
leave us alone.
Sol Lightman
]In article <1993Nov5.1...@csus.edu>, sha...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
]>The violence on the black market is only there because drugs are
]>illegal. Drug distribution channels are by necessity decentralized and
]>none of phoenix's money probably ever came close to inner city gangs.
]>And upper class gangs (including at the extreme limit the mafia) know
]>better than to kill children. Meanwhile, if you'd like to blame anyone
]>for the profit involved in drug distribution blame the government. As
]>a good example of this, its useful to note that the American mafia
]>acquired most of its power during alcohol prohibition while the European
]>mafia hasn't had the benefit of such government assistance.
]>
]Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ohhhh no! He wouldn't want to be labelled a COMMIE PINKO FAGGOT, now would
he.... that would be soooooo horrible. Give it a rest.
]some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
]which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
Switzerland, the incident is known as NEEDLE PARK.
]And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
]littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
]assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
... because they ghetto-ized the drug problem. Use your brain. Less than
ten square blocks I would not even deign to call ``legalization.'' You
can't expect to get good results with a piddly little ``experiment'' like
that. Legalization must be implemented on a large scale and supplemented by
appropriate health care and social counselling.
]Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
]having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
]buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
]did before!
Huh? Your meaning is not clear. Of course, that's probably because
you are ranting...
]Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
]be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
]too bad we can't leave them in their!
The ``fuckers'' just happen to be your doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers,
blue-collar-workers, corporate executives, philosophers, and artists.
]It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
]forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
OK, lets play it your way. Let's see how long before you forfeit your
rights....
Brian
--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,>
S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ {
415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu |____________ `--~ ;
\_,-__/
* To find out about our on-line library, mail a message with the
* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored
BIER, LAURENCE
>mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>
>>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
>>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>>did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>>too bad we can't leave them in their!
>>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
>
>Your literacy amazes me. It is apparent from the lucidity of your argument
>that you, sir, have never "pumped your veins full of drug crap!"
>
But maybe he should try some. It might make him a better writer. I don't
see how he could get any worse.
*******************************************************************************
"I'm Mr. Burns, blah, blah, blah,
Do this, do that, blah, blah, blah,
I'm so big, blah, blah, blah..." -Homer Simpson
*******************************************************************************
Gary Edstrom
Followup-To lines in the header. It is currently being posted to almost
a dozen newsgroups including "misc.test" which will cause you to receive
automated responses from around the world for a few days!
Someone's idea of a fun!
If you respond to this message, it will be directed only to
alt.flame, alt.drugs, and alt.sex
--
Gary B. Edstrom | Engineer
Internet: g...@netcom.com | Sequoia Software
CompuServe: 72677,564 | P.O. Box 9573
Fax: 1-818-247-6046 | Glendale, CA 91226
VAXBANDIT
>mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
> No shit, asshole. Are you really this stupid? Unbelievable.
> How does someone with such a complete lack of brains learn
> to use a computer?
> "Legal to sell and use in this one little park here" is
> not even close to "legal and regulated throughout
> society". Even an idiot (ie, someone a few dozen IQ
> points above VAXBANDIT the wondercabbage there) can
> tell you that if you pack all the hardcore drug users
> into "a single area" the size of a city park you'll
> end up with a crappy situation. That's not the issue.
Oh it isn't? you mean to tell me the repurcusions of what will happen when an
entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs isn't the issue?
NOW who is the moron butthead!? Also I'm obviously the only one between us with
a fuctioning brain because if you use that empty drugged noggen of yours you'd
relize that if you compare the number of drug users in a european country to
the number of users in the US that the U.S. has a shitload more drug-idiots like
your self! That means that urban junk yards like those in the New York area,
Los Angeles, etc etc etc will be far worse off than some piece of shit park!
Yes maybe they will be more wide-spread than the park... but that's even
worse you stupid asshole!!! Stop smokeing crack and use your brain for once!
>
> VAX, you brainless simpering moron, if you can't think
> through something that simple do the rest of us a
> favor and cut off your dick before you reproduce.
Oh gee... we have another jerk who likes to fantasize about other males getting
their dicks cut off... what?... you got a collection going or something?!
Why don't you start with the idiot who raped his wife and got his cut? You
both have something in common.... no intellegance!
>
> [more of VAXBANDIT's useless whining and complaining deleted]
>
>>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
>
> Do you really believe this? What a clear sign you're an idiot.
Hell yes, anyone who is moronic enough to commit a crime is no longer a citizen
IMHO let them roast for a while... then when they've become nice and crispy
maybe they will have earned a second chance. but as far as drug users are
conserned I say let them burn in hell.
>
> What country are you from, anyway?
the United States of America, what about you jerk? Obviously you are not an
american when you support some bullshit cause like legalizing drugs.
>
> Reactionary brain-dead limbaughdroids like you are a threat to
Limbaughdroids like me? Interesting.. esspecially when I don't support the fat
chump
> freedom and democracy. Stick to screwing your sister and
> leave us alone.
Here we go again... I suppose it's ass-sniff's like you who are responcible for
a culture with absolutely no morals.
William J. Taney
VAXBANDIT <mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu> wrote:
>Hell yes, anyone who is moronic enough to commit a crime is no longer a citizen
>IMHO let them roast for a while... then when they've become nice and crispy
>maybe they will have earned a second chance. but as far as drug users are
>conserned I say let them burn in hell.
>
Reality Check!!! Think about the U.S. justice system and U.S. laws
in general... EVERYONE IS A CRIMINAL, and by your statement the entire
U.S. should be in an internment camp
The system is rigged so that the average person breaks the law all
the time, regardless of whether it is speeding, drug use, playing poker,
having homosexual intercourse, signing your checks in pencil and so
forth... It is not like the U.S. has a distint class of crimials, it is
just that the government targets out those law breakers in the general
public that they don't like and harrass them
--
-- * I won't slave for begars pay, Likewise gold
William J. Taney * or jewels, but I would slave to learn a way
mu...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu * to sink your ship of fools- Robert Hunter
Western Ill Univ *
P. C. Kilinskas
>Oh it isn't? you mean to tell me the repurcusions of what will happen when an
>entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs isn't the issue?
This is a classic. I laughed my ass off when I read this line. Obviously
VAXBANDIT (nice name, you've definitely convinced me you're cool), is a master
of subtle double meaning. I personally would be interested to see what would
happen if the country "went to pot"; especially if it meant getting away from
alcohol.
>Yes maybe they will be more wide-spread than the park... but that's even
>worse you stupid asshole!!! Stop smokeing crack and use your brain for once!
And people like you blame drugs for violence. Stop embarrassing yourself
with this childish ranting.
>Here we go again...I suppose it's ass-sniff's like you who are responcible for
>a culture with absolutely no morals.
Ahhh, now it becomes clear. Whenever someone goes spouting off about "morals",
it is always because they are pissed off that the rest of the world won't
accept their personal definition of right and wrong.
Some people may hate you for the crap you're posting here, but I pity you.
It can't be easy living a life so filled with closed-mindedness and hatred.
Phil
____________________________________________________________________________
p...@acsu.buffalo.edu / "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT. You feel sleepy. Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The opinions
stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Lamont Granquist
>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which)
Switzerland.
>that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
>
>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem!
This doesn't logically follow. That very local policy of legalization
created a massive influx of addicts from the surrounding areas in
Europe. It did not create any addicts it just changed how they were
distributed. Legalization on a nationwide or continentwide scale would
not encounter a problem of this magnitude.
>Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before!
Unlikely. Assuming that everyone who drinks took up smoking pot and adding
in a little fudge factor the worst case scenario would be 3 times that
many people doing the same thing they did before. Meanwhile, national
policy towards treating substance abuse would be shifted from an
utterly useless policy of incarceration to a policy of research and
treatment on demand. Any coneivable short term detrimental effect would
be attenuated by these other factors, which also have the potential to
increase in the long term future due to research -- a potential which
law enforcement completely lacks.
>Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>too bad we can't leave them in their!
Oh yeah, thats a good solution. Place them into prison, create broken
families, exacerbate their personal problems, pay for their incarceration
and place them into an environment where drugs are just as available along
with a criminal subculture for them to learn from. It seems that the negative
effects of incarceration seem to be almost identical to the claimed
negative effects of drugs. How surprising that the cure is as bad
as the disease.
>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
No one has any "rights" at all. The problem is mindless assholes like
yourself who seem to believe that hard-handed criminal justice solutions
to problems have no consequences. Unfortunately in reality you can't "wish
away" social problems by throwing people in jail.
C.J. Corcoran
>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
I know a city where drugs are 100% illegal and you'll find the same
problems in many sections. It's called New York. But in addition to
having syringes all over the ground, and people shooting up everywhere,
you also hear gunfire in the background. You have kids who are forced
into trying crack so a dealer can have another customer. And you have a
new line of criminals who went to jail for using drugs, and came out
knowing alot about other *real* crimes.
>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem!
What problem is that? The problem of all these people breaking the law?
>Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>too bad we can't leave them in their!
Right, just like we had ten times the number of alcoholics right after
alcohol prohibition. And do you really think that those who presently
use drugs in the inner cities are going to be using that much more if
they were legalized? I'm trying to understand how can imply that crime
will go up to support drug-habits. The black market is notorius for
inflating prices. A gram of weed in NY is the same price as a pound of
weed in columbia. Also, maybe now these 'criminals' can get jobs without
having to worry about drug-testing. Oh no, companies will have to hire a
person based on merit, rather than on what they do on their off-hours.
That's horrible! Perhaps you're right, we should stick 'em in prison and
leave them there. However, I'm sending the bill to you because I
certainly don't want to pay to put harmless people in jail.
>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
And it's jerks like you who are completely fucking up this country with
your ignorant views of society. It's jerks like you who gladly give up
their rights without ever weighing the implications.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
- Martin Luther King
Letter From Birmingham Jail
-chris
--
Chris Corcoran "It is by will alone I set
cjc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu my mind in motion..."
Garthe Nelson
Their was a newsreport on
> some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I
forget
> which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100%
legal.
> And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had
syringes
> littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums,
and
> assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
Gee, sounds suspiciously like any donwtown area of a large US city.
I certainly don't advocate drug use or abuse, and I do believe that
people, in general, are too stupid to know what's good for them. However,
it is not your right to advise/tell me what drugs I should/can use. It is
the right of the individual to fry his brain. If he fries somebody else
while frying his brain, it is entirely different matter; but until he
impairs the freedom of another, the individual may dispose of himself as
he wishes.
This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
weak to be worth consideration anyway.
garthe
VAXBANDIT
radio's, cigarettes, recreational facilities, etc etc etc etc
They get all these little stupid ass perks that make their lives easier while
in prison... what the hell for?! All they deserve is food, an hour outside to
get some fresh air, and a cell to rot in. Thats it... other than sanitary
facilities prisons should have nothing else. It's outragious how much money
is spent on prisons because people believe prisoners "have rights" and they
are still citizens...
How about some of those jerks who run those extensive credit card fraud rings?
some of them do it *from prison* and how? by using a goddamn phone! Why the hell
is a prisoner given access to a fucking phone?! Who is he going to need to call?
I see absolutly no reason why a prisoner needs access to the outside world. Let
them stew by them selves! Then when they get out... catching up to the years
they missed is their problem not ours.
Atsushi Kanamori
In article <CG6E...@onyx.indstate.edu> mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu writes:
>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
Since I don't have to share veins with those people, I have no problem with
that.
>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before!
Well I don't see the former as a problem and I hardly see how making the
stuff affordable would *increase* the latter.
>Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison!
And are you willing to pony up the taxes to fund these free
meals and shelter you want to provide for these people?
Joshua Barrett Rogers
this is repulsive.
Thomas Bromley
> It is truly sad that such a fine actor is dead. The title to
> this is repulsive.
(Repulsive title deleted for reasons of taste)
What's really sad is that more attention has been paid to this young man
in the week and a half since his death than was ever paid to him during
his career.
Sad that an actor who took such obvious care in finding the right roles,
and not just jumping aboard any two-bit piece of garbage that would have
made him millions in merchandising royalties never got the acclaim he
deserved, aside from positive reviews and an Oscar nomination.
Apparently, it's better to either (a) act in a Spielberg blockbuster, or
(b) behave outrageously and get your face all over the tabloids next to
Burt, Whoopi, and Shannen, than to try to be a serious actor and make a
career out of your talents.
RIP, River Phoenix. Hope the afterlife treats you better.
--
Tom Bromley tbro...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida
"If you can read this, you're too darn close!"
the Babesther
In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
:)
:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
What about children?
--
_
(_` "I don't take information from orange,
(_,st :) irritating people."
h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu (TTFN!)
Richard Liblanc
>In article <Nov06.155...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sut...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Rich Sutton) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov5.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cjc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.J. Corcoran) writes:
>>{stuff deleted for brevity but the spirit of the following remains}
>>>
>>>I have no sympathy for a police officer who wants to control my
>>>private life. None at all. I'm not about to go out shooting cops, but I
>>>don't think it's a pity when one dies in an attempt to stop Joe Smith
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>from smoking one of those evil marijuana cigarettes. I have no sympathy
>>>for the cop who dies trying to confiscate
>>
>>>
>>>As for Phoenix, I didn't really know him. I'm not even too familiar with
>>>his movies, but regardless of how he died, what gives you the right to
>>>say, "Oh well, he deserves it!" That is a sick attitude. How the hell
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>can you have such a casual disregard for human life? Just because he was
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>different from you, it really doesn't matter that he dies? That is the
>>>same sick attitude which has fueled racism for centuries and led us into
>>>wars.
>>>
>>> -chris
>>
>>Would you answer your own question for us, Chris?
>
>Too bad you cut out the middle portion of the post. I think it makes
>things clear. During WWII, a jew would have no sympathy for a nazi who
>was trying to take away his home, and persecute him for his beliefs. If
>that jew shot that nazi, I doubt any of us would be able to say that he
>had a casual disregard for life. To me, there is a big difference
>between a person (who has done nothing to harm anyone) dying and a
>person (who tries to control your personal freedom) dying. I've
>answered your question in another post. I stand by my convictions.
Now please, tell me i didnt read that...Or at least tell me i didnt understand it
and let some brainfog obscure the point the author tried to made....please...
sigh, remember how all this started? Remember, long time ago, a long long time ago,
a moron posted a flame bait post and now here we are...I guess he must be jubilating
now...Moron :1 Net : 0
> -chris
>--
--
..........Richard Liblanc (lib...@info.polymtl.ca )...............
"There's a sucker born every minute."
"...And they die about that fast too..."
-Grimtooth
Garthe Nelson
> In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe
Nelson) writes:
> :) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
> :) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
> :)
> :) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is
too
> :) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
> What about children?
> (_,st :) irritating people."
> h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu
(TTFN!)
Educate them. The way to prevent people from doing something is to
convince them not to do it. Few people find force convincing and it
usually just leads to an escalation. Observe the weaponry used by those
you propose to rule by force. They don't look too scared.
garthe
Iain P. Grier
the Babesther <h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
>
>
>:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
>:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
>:)
>:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
>:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
>What about children?
>
So don't let your kids smoke dope until they're 21. Problem solved.
Not that getting alcohol was a big hassle when I was growing up anyways...
Bob Calvert
May I interrupt this thread for just one moment...?
Life is wonderful. Today was a great day to be alive!
(I thought that this thread was in dire need of something uplifting!)
--
/////////////// Bob Calvert \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////// r...@wts.com \\\\\\
////// My boss is a Jewish Carpenter \\\\\\
////// Romans 8:32 \\\\\\
Killer
: In article <2b6e2i$n...@universe.digex.net> c...@universe.digex.net (Cat) writes:
: >>MAC (mb...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: Oh, what a load of star-struck crap. All the people I would describe as
: 'beautiful' don't do drugs.
All the people I would describe as 'doing-drugs' are beautiful.
--
--
Killer
cas...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz
__ ___
/ ` | ~ Some say my name is Peter
| | | but they are the ones you have
| __ |--- to keep an eye on.
\__/ o on. |___)ite me.............
{This sig is evolving. Disturbances are to be expected.}
C J Silverio
h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu (the Babesther) writes:
|In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
|:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
|:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
|:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
|:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
|What about children?
What about their parents? Do you think that perhaps parents
have SOME role in assisting their children to make decisions,
eat their celery, turn off the TV, cross with the light, use
alcohol & other drugs only when old enough, and wash behind
their ears, perhaps even WITHOUT government intervention?
Radical concept, I know. While you're pondering it, why
don't you try having this conversation in a newsgroup that
cares? Like, oh, I don't know... talk.politics.drugs maybe?
---
C J Silverio ce...@netcom.com ce...@well.sf.ca.us
"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
john baez
>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
Really? Which country do you live in? I hope you never jaywalk.
john baez
>And it's people like you who insist upon letting the prisoners have television
>radio's, cigarettes, recreational facilities, etc etc etc etc
"People like you," huh? Let's drop this "people like you" stuff fast;
it's an exceptionally poor rhetorical technique. It doesn't mean
anything unless perhaps you are very familiar with the person you are
talking to, which I doubt somehow.
>They get all these little stupid ass perks that make their lives easier while
>in prison... what the hell for?! All they deserve is food, an hour outside to
>get some fresh air, and a cell to rot in. Thats it... other than sanitary
>facilities prisons should have nothing else. It's outragious how much money
>is spent on prisons because people believe prisoners "have rights" and they
>are still citizens...
>How about some of those jerks who run those extensive credit card fraud rings?
>some of them do it *from prison* and how? by using a goddamn phone! Why
>the hell is a prisoner given access to a fucking phone?!
First of all, this has nothing at all to do with what we were talking
about. I don't recall anyone here arguing that prisoners should be
given telephones.
Second of all, you almost contradict yourself. If you think prisoners should
be given sanitary facilities, food, or an hour outside, you are
extending to them some rights. If you think they give up all rights
extended to citizens upon being jailed, there is really no reason to
feed the rascals. Now, perhaps you think that while they give up the
"rights" to food etc. you still favor feeding them out of your love for
humanity. But somehow I doubt such a complex thought would have occurred
to you.
Joshua Geller
> In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe
> Nelson) writes:
> :) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
> :) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
> :) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
> :) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
> What about children?
there are two good answers to this: one is, get them before they reproduce!
if people die from stupidity without leaving progeny it increases the
intelligence of the next generation by just that little bit.
less cynically, if drugs are legal you can at least attempt to regulate
the access of minors to them. this is the case with alcohol, which is
legal, and which children are not legally able to purchase.
josh
Sander Raaymakers
>mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
[STUFF DELETED]
>The city of which you speak is Amsterdam. The problems that they encountered
>were, if I remember correctly, from the free distribution of Heroin. If you
>knew anything about the city in question, you would know that while their illicit drug laws parallel those of the US and others, they practice almost no
>enforcement of these laws. In this sense, Heroin was already operativley
>"legal" in Amsterdam. Their problem arose through the free distribution of
>injectables and syringes to the populace. It stands to reason that if one
>centralizes the use of Heroin, or any other drug, the point of centralization
>will become characteristic of that drug's use.
The reason for the free distribution of syringes was very simple...
Using somebody elses syringe will increase the chances of getting AIDS.
Drug (ab)users could get free syringes for trading in a dirty one.
Registered drug users can even take part in a program where they
get Methadon for free, so they will not have to steal to get their daily kick.
I don't approve of the use of hard drugs, but legalizing it would probably
be a good idea...
Prices would drop, people wouldn't have to steal so much. The only problem
this leaves us with, is keeping all the foreign drug tourists out and
stay good friends with the surrounding countries!! (Especially those
paranoid Americans)
Our drug policy is a lot more liberal than the one in the united states
we have less problems, and virtually NO problems with users of Hashish
or Weed, which BTW can be bought easily anywhere in Holland.
Ciao,
Allessandro
+- san...@and.nl -------------------------------- AND Software -+
| Westersingel 108 |
| Holland, land of clogs, windmills and... 3015-LD Rotterdam |
+---------------------------------------- Tel: +(31)10 4367100 -+
Mike McNally
>an entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs
yuk yuk yuk
--
Mike McNally
VAXBANDIT
What? That's ridiculous, I don't have to worry about that kind'a shit because
I.... *never break the law*. That's right folks... I'm one of the unique
individuals who just don't break the law... Say what you will but you will not
be able to soil the fact that while you guys fuck up from your parking
violations, driving while intoxicated, your fake IDs (for you frat brats),
and what not...
Guys I'm going to be the guy sitting in the back of the court room laughing
my ass off when you fuck-heads get convicted of tax fraud or DWI.
Hell I'm not that evil of a guy... I mean if someone is jailed for some minor
illegal act... sure they should get fed and cleaned.. can't have them looking
and smelling like bums when they are let out and go back to serve society.
But the minor criminals arn't the point.. the problem with society today
is we have too many bambi-loving morons who feel that their is some good in
*every* individual and we should help them with social programs and
rehabilitation so they can serve our society. But your wrong. And one day you
might be one more corpse bleeding in the streets because your social views let
some drugged up punk walk over to the local gun-shop and buy himself a shotgun
so he could hold you up, steal your wallet, and blow your stupid ass wide open.
Of course I couldn't give a rats ass if your dead... I just don't like the idea
that it could happen in my area.
The fact is that those people who continually break the law by commiting
henious acts like theft, murder, selling drugs, etc, will never shape up and
will always go back to doing the same stupid ass thing!
You make drugs legal and you will simply make the fuel that causes these idiots
to screw them selves up even more available! And that causes ME problems, not to
mention your sorry self.
You see the bottom line is... if you make drugs legal.. then criminals can
"pump it up" any time, and that causes more crimes, which might get you killed
and if you get killed... whose going to mow my lawn? or press my suit? or keep
the eletricity and gas coming into my home? or police my neighborhood?
So if anything else... just remember that your here for me.
The Masked Jackal
anything I should be pissed because my tax dollars are supporting your
elitist right wing ass in a higher education system that obviously has done
nothing to raise your awareness. What creates crime is not drugs, but ass-
holes like you who repeatedly fuck with people's freedom to determine what
ever they put in their bodies-so long as no one else is affected. You right
wingers are the first to scream "right to bear arms", then blame criminals
for doing just that. Get a life! The constitution was written on HEMP paper
you insipid fuckhead. And if you want someone to mow your lawn or press your
shirts, get off your lazy ass and practice your conservative preaching: DO IT
YOURSELF, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! It's called right to privacy from total
assholes like yourself
P. C. Kilinskas
>What? That's ridiculous, I don't have to worry about that kind'a shit because
>I.... *never break the law*. That's right folks... I'm one of the unique
>individuals who just don't break the law... Say what you will but you will not
>be able to soil the fact that while you guys fuck up from your parking
>violations, driving while intoxicated, your fake IDs (for you frat brats),
>and what not...
>Guys I'm going to be the guy sitting in the back of the court room laughing
>my ass off when you fuck-heads get convicted of tax fraud or DWI.
Ok, it's all sarcasm... I apologize for responding seriously to your earlier
posts...
Jaap Dijkma
>You see the bottom line is... if you make drugs legal.. then criminals can
>"pump it up" any time, and that causes more crimes, which might get you killed
>and if you get killed... whose going to mow my lawn? or press my suit? or keep
>the eletricity and gas coming into my home? or police my neighborhood?
If you make drugs legal, there's a right way doing it:
-absolutely no advertising.
-only with a licence.
-no really bad drugs, i mean drugs with a major, permanent health-damage.
In almost any city you can have drugs if you want to, so legalizing
drugs won't make a difference. With legal drugs you know what you get
and you know where the money goes (taxes mostly I think). With illegal
drugs you don't know what poisen you get, and you do know that the
money is going to some criminal organization.
When you legalise drugs most big criminals will be out of a job, that's
why those criminal organizations will pay millions to prevent this.
(maybe they allready do...).
======================================================================
jaap dijkma, "Why bother with such a big stone arch?"
univesity of "It's just showing off. There's probably a sticker
nijmegen on the back saying 'My Other Grave Is A Porch'".
-- (Terry Pratchett, Johnny and the dead)
Rae Stabosz
>
>Sad that an actor who took such obvious care in finding the right roles,
>and not just jumping aboard any two-bit piece of garbage that would have
>made him millions in merchandising royalties never got the acclaim he
>deserved, aside from positive reviews and an Oscar nomination.
>
>Apparently, it's better to either (a) act in a Spielberg blockbuster, or
>(b) behave outrageously and get your face all over the tabloids next to
>Burt, Whoopi, and Shannen, than to try to be a serious actor and make a
>career out of your talents.
>
>RIP, River Phoenix. Hope the afterlife treats you better.
>
>
>--
>Tom Bromley tbro...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
>Florida Atlantic University
>Boca Raton, Florida
> "If you can read this, you're too darn close!"
=========================
This is not meant to provoke flames or start a religious debate.
But as I've been reading this thread, and as a person who very much
liked River Phoenix's work, I thought I would mention that those of
you who are Catholic might pray for his soul. Actually, of course,
anyone might pray for his soul but Catholics who subscribe to the
traditional notion that "it is a good and wholesome thing to pray for
the dead" might forget that this is a good act one can perform for the
dead. The month of November, traditionally set aside as a month
dedicated to the souls in purgatory, is a good time to remember
that fact.
Rae
The Machman
>In article <blah blah> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
>
>:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
>:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
>What about children?
Children need their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) to prevent them from
using drugs. That's what parents are for. Government is no substitute
for parenthood.
-- dave
--
/''' The Machman mac...@u.washington.edu david c carroll
c-OO
\ "Big Science. Hallelujah"
-
Lamont Granquist
>:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
>:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
>:)
>:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
>:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
>What about children?
In which case his first point is still quite applicable. They get it
right now -- i found buying pot on my high school campus easier than
buying alcohol there.
jsc...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
>In article <CG6E...@onyx.indstate.edu> mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu writes:
>>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>
>Switzerland.
>
>>that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
>>
>
>created a massive influx of addicts from the surrounding areas in
>Europe. It did not create any addicts it just changed how they were
>distributed. Legalization on a nationwide or continentwide scale would
>not encounter a problem of this magnitude.
>
>>Instead of
>>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>>did before!
>
>in a little fudge factor the worst case scenario would be 3 times that
>many people doing the same thing they did before. Meanwhile, national
>policy towards treating substance abuse would be shifted from an
>utterly useless policy of incarceration to a policy of research and
>treatment on demand. Any coneivable short term detrimental effect would
>be attenuated by these other factors, which also have the potential to
>increase in the long term future due to research -- a potential which
>law enforcement completely lacks.
>
>>Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>>too bad we can't leave them in their!
>
>families, exacerbate their personal problems, pay for their incarceration
>and place them into an environment where drugs are just as available along
>with a criminal subculture for them to learn from. It seems that the negative
>effects of incarceration seem to be almost identical to the claimed
>negative effects of drugs. How surprising that the cure is as bad
>as the disease.
>
>>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
>
>yourself who seem to believe that hard-handed criminal justice solutions
>to problems have no consequences. Unfortunately in reality you can't "wish
>away" social problems by throwing people in jail.
>
My commiting an immoral act, a criminal has said in effect "I truely believe
that it is right and proper to act this way", thus when society punishes a
criminal, it is acting in a way that the criminal cannot possiblely say
is immoral, provided there is the correct link between the crime and the
punishment. In the case of recreational drug use, this means that society
is within the moral system of the drug user when they "act irrationally"
toward the drug user, which might include throwing them in jail. Not to
mention that right of society to advance toward higher moral standards,
which comes from the fact that it is in the interest of every member of
society, including the criminal, that they live in a moral society.
And while it might be better POLICY to adopt a 'corrective' rather than
'punative' stance toward punishment, my arguement still stands.
David Henry Fetter
>in article <CGA5D...@onyx.indstate.edu>, mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu writes:
>
>>You see the bottom line is... if you make drugs legal.. then criminals can
>>"pump it up" any time, and that causes more crimes, which might get you killed
>>and if you get killed... whose going to mow my lawn? or press my suit? or keep
>>the eletricity and gas coming into my home? or police my neighborhood?
>
>If you make drugs legal, there's a right way doing it:
There are many right ways, but there are major problems with the one you propose.
>-absolutely no advertising.
Why not? Alcohol and tobacco companies are allowed to, and you'd have more
fight than it's worth to make *them* stop.
>-only with a licence.
A license granted by whom, and for what? Right now, the DEA can issue you
a license to use Schedule I Controlled Substances which "have no medical
value" These include marijuana, an anti-emetic with no known lethal dose in
humans, MDMA, an entactogen of proven utility in psychotherapy, LSD, an agent
which has been used in the successful treatment of alcoholism, or heroin, a
painkiller.
They never do so for private citizens, and extremely rarely even for researchers
with good, competent science on their agenda.
>-no really bad drugs, i mean drugs with a major, permanent health-damage.
You must mean tobacco and ethyl alcohol. Or do you mean antihistamines, or
sugar?
The deadliest drugs are legal, and they'd still be the deadliest even if *all*
drugs, including strychnine (used at the turn of the century as a stimulant)
were legal.
>In almost any city you can have drugs if you want to, so legalizing
>drugs won't make a difference. With legal drugs you know what you get
The main differences will be in price, quality and reliability.
They will go down, up, and up respectively.
>and you know where the money goes (taxes mostly I think). With illegal
>drugs you don't know what poisen you get, and you do know that the
>money is going to some criminal organization.
Unless you've managed to manufacture your own, of course, from materials
you got legally. Some folks do manage to do this. Other folks quite
justifiably don't think it's worth the risk.
>When you legalise drugs most big criminals will be out of a job, that's
Unfortunately not. They'll have to look for other markets, and they
will find them. For awhile, though, they'll be a bit strapped for cash :)
>why those criminal organizations will pay millions to prevent this.
> (maybe they allready do...).
Doubtless they do, just as they did during the last Prohibition in this
country, but repealing this Prohibition will no more eliminate
organized crime than did repealing the last one :(
--
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> # <
> David Fetter # Zen Koans: <
> sha...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu # What is the sound of one hand clapping? <
> (414) 961-7293 (home) # What is the color of thunder? <
> 2602 E. Hampshire Ave. # What is the food of the <
> Milwaukee, WI 53211 # one eyed one horned flying purple <
> # people eater? <
> # <
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C.J. Corcoran
>radio's, cigarettes, recreational facilities, etc etc etc etc
>
>They get all these little stupid ass perks that make their lives easier while
>in prison... what the hell for?! All they deserve is food, an hour outside to
>get some fresh air, and a cell to rot in. Thats it... other than sanitary
>facilities prisons should have nothing else. It's outragious how much money
>is spent on prisons because people believe prisoners "have rights" and they
>are still citizens...
>How about some of those jerks who run those extensive credit card fraud rings?
>some of them do it *from prison* and how? by using a goddamn phone! Why the hell
>is a prisoner given access to a fucking phone?! Who is he going to need to call?
>I see absolutly no reason why a prisoner needs access to the outside world. Let
>them stew by them selves! Then when they get out... catching up to the years
>they missed is their problem not ours.
Can't you realize that these people will someday be released into
society. I would say that the prison system is far from perfect, but
pissing off the prisoner more than you have to is not a smart move. And
don't give me your shit that all prisoners should serve life sentences.
That's not economically viable, so it's not an issue.
-chris
--
Chris Corcoran "It is by will alone I set
cjc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu my mind in motion..."
Andrew Bailey
>Oh it isn't? you mean to tell me the repurcusions of what will happen when an
>entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs isn't the issue?
>NOW who is the moron butthead!? Also I'm obviously the only one between us with
>a fuctioning brain because if you use that empty drugged noggen of yours you'd
>relize that if you compare the number of drug users in a european country to
>the number of users in the US that the U.S. has a shitload more drug-idiots like
>your self! That means that urban junk yards like those in the New York area,
>Los Angeles, etc etc etc will be far worse off than some piece of shit park!
>Yes maybe they will be more wide-spread than the park... but that's even
>worse you stupid asshole!!! Stop smokeing crack and use your brain for once!
Is this a per capita coparison? Or even population density?
>Hell yes, anyone who is moronic enough to commit a crime is no longer a citizen
>IMHO let them roast for a while... then when they've become nice and crispy
>maybe they will have earned a second chance. but as far as drug users are
>conserned I say let them burn in hell.
OK how do you feel about decrinalization? Anyway I am sort of late to
this thread. And nowhere have you put a reasoned argument for the
criminalization of drugs in the first place. Note the massive drug
problem did not exist untill they where illegal. Before in the early
1900's when cocaine and laudanum were legal and freely available these
social problems seemed to not exist. The thing about drug use is that
unless the usage results in violent crime or theft a user is not harming
anyone apart from themselves, and you have already admited that you
don't give a toss about the lives of drug users, but the imprisonment
does. It costs money. The WoD costs a lot of money as the police have to
equip themselves to fight against the drug barons and they inturn
re-equip themselves. The police don't really get significant revenue
from the confiscation of property. Where else could this money be spent
h'mmm perhaps on healthcare or the american education system. Society
has declared drugs illegal, from what i have heard the reasons were not
entirly moral either, so perhaps it is wrong. maybe. But the fanatic
push to crush the drug trade only makes drug prices higher and promotes
more violent conflicts with police. Making prices higher means an
increase in voilent crime to support habits. Addiction can be viewed as
a sickness and there is alredy some data that supports alcholism as
being genetic can addiction be the same. You cannot hope to remove drugs
from society as where there is demand there will be supply, its what
capatalism is about. Drugs may not be a good thing but they are here to
stay and forcing usage and production underground creates lots and lots
of negative social problems. When a government spends a lot of money on
one thing it can't spend as much on others. Legalized drug use is part
of a philosophy about freedom, there right of a human to do anything as
long as it does not adversly affect that same right in others( yes it is
a broad staement and open to debate but what the heck). You say that
drug use is a crime and the law agrees with you but the law in other
coutries say that to express opions against the government is a crime is
this right. The law is not always right. Remember that.
>the United States of America, what about you jerk? Obviously you are not an
>american when you support some bullshit cause like legalizing drugs.
I am not an american.
This is a story I heard I dont know if it is true but it intrested me.
This guy takes some drugs where it is legal( in amsterdam I think) and
then one day he goes to the US and is arrested because its against the
law even though the offence did not occur in the US.
Hmmm.
The Acolyte
There is no democracy - Snog
Judy McMillin
>In article <CGACz...@sci.kun.nl> ja...@sci.kun.nl (Jaap Dijkma) writes:
>>in article <CGA5D...@onyx.indstate.edu>, mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu writes:
>>
>
>Doubtless they do, just as they did during the last Prohibition in this
>country, but repealing this Prohibition will no more eliminate
>organized crime than did repealing the last one :(
Many people correlate that to the almost simultaneous
passing of the Marijuana and Cocaine Tax Act (I'm not
sure that's the exact name, but it's close).
Bostick J M
>
>
>Hell I'm not that evil of a guy... I mean if someone is jailed for some minor
>illegal act... sure they should get fed and cleaned.. can't have them looking
>
do you consider smoking pot a 'minor illegal act' ?
>But the minor criminals arn't the point.. the problem with society today
>is we have too many bambi-loving morons who feel that their is some good in
>rehabilitation so they can serve our society. But your wrong. And one day you
your grammar is bad
your spelling is bad
your facts are bad
and your logic is bad
i just hope this whole thing is a joke and that our society
hasnt fallen this far
mark
Mike McNally
>bambi-loving morons
LOOK HERE, WIENER-BRAIN, without Bambi's love (and yes, it's REAL LOVE
DAMNIT), I'd be like NOWHERE today!!!
If I hear ONE MORE REMARK from you about Bambi I'll TRACK YOU DOWN AND
URINATE ON YOUR KNEES!
--
Mike McNally
Lamont Granquist
>My commiting an immoral act,
I don't consider recreational drug use, as an indicator of a curious
personality, to be immoral.
>a criminal has said in effect "I truely believe
>that it is right and proper to act this way",
Most criminals (paradoxically) agree that they should be punished
and that society should not tolerate their behavior.
>thus when society punishes a
>criminal, it is acting in a way that the criminal cannot possiblely say
>is immoral, provided there is the correct link between the crime and the
>punishment. In the case of recreational drug use, this means that society
>is within the moral system of the drug user when they "act irrationally"
>toward the drug user, which might include throwing them in jail.
There is nothing to support to contention that drug use is irrational.
On the one hand recreational use is indicative of a curious
personality and on the other hand abuse and addiction is
indicative of self-medication of an underlying psychological disorder.
I find nothing irrational about this.
Meanwhile the concept that the punishment must be "within the moral
system of the criminal" is silly.
>Not to
>mention that right of society to advance toward higher moral standards,
>which comes from the fact that it is in the interest of every member of
>society, including the criminal, that they live in a moral society.
*MY* system of morals states that heavy-handed approaches to
solving problems related to victimless crimes are "immoral" based on
their failure to solve any problems and their violation of privacy
rights.
And i do not see how criminalization is making any kind of
progress. Its a tactic which has been used for thousands of
years and has consistantly failed. A medical and psychotherapeutic
approach to prevention and treatment is something which actually
DOES promise to produce evolution. Evolution to a society which
doesn't *need* drugs to be criminal in order to control their
use.
>And while it might be better POLICY to adopt a 'corrective' rather than
>'punative' stance toward punishment, my arguement still stands.
...in much the same way that castle rests on clouds.
Lamont Granquist
>there are two good answers to this: one is, get them before they reproduce!
>if people die from stupidity without leaving progeny it increases the
>intelligence of the next generation by just that little bit.
Actually drug abuse is likely predicted by psychosocial stress and its likely
there will always be some fixed percentage of the population which undergoes
sufficient psychosocial stress to cause drug abuse.
hmmmm... I just realized that this might actually support your argument
since you were focusing on increased intelligence and not decreased
drug abuse as a result of natural selection. Just be careful with the
evolutionary argument -- it is not as simple as it might seem -- read
"The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins for further info.
Greg Smith
will-never-be-settled-here arguments.
Bottom line: You're either for or against drug use. I personnaly think tax
credits should be given to people who waste drug dealers.
Clinton wants to declare war on drugs. Well, let's do it and stop talking
about it!
Greg Smith
NCR Corporation
GPPG Services Development
Phone......(513)445-4098 FAX.......(513)445-7196
VOICEplus.......622-4098 E-mail... greg.n...@DaytonOH.ncr.com
Expressed opinions don't necessarily reflect those of AT&T/NCR.
dr white timothy rey
: And it's people like you who insist upon letting the prisoners have television
: radio's, cigarettes, recreational facilities, etc etc etc etc
: They get all these little stupid ass perks that make their lives easier while
: in prison... what the hell for?! All they deserve is food, an hour outside to
: get some fresh air, and a cell to rot in. Thats it... other than sanitary
: facilities prisons should have nothing else. It's outragious how much money
: is spent on prisons because people believe prisoners "have rights" and they
: are still citizens...
: How about some of those jerks who run those extensive credit card fraud rings?
: some of them do it *from prison* and how? by using a goddamn phone! Why the hell
: is a prisoner given access to a fucking phone?! Who is he going to need to call?
: I see absolutly no reason why a prisoner needs access to the outside world. Let
: them stew by them selves! Then when they get out... catching up to the years
: they missed is their problem not ours.
They are human beings and yes, they do have rights, thank God. I
sincerely doubt that the money spent on TVs, radios, etc. is a
significant one compared to, say, what the Defense Dept. spends on far
more ridiculous things, or even compared to other aspects of our penal
system. I'm not advocating treating prisoners like country club members
(as, say, certain Republican criminals were treated), but do we really
want to reinforce antisocial attitudes?
But, since this is a movie newsgroup, has any one read John Waters'
account of teaching film to prisoners? It's hilarious.
--
Dr. Timothy R. White
Dept. of English Lang & Lit, Natl Univ of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 0511
phone (65) 772-3936 fax (65) 773-2981 e-mail ell...@leonis.nus.sg
Brian L. Piltin
by Greg Sm...@daytonoh.ncr.
> will-never-be-settled-here arguments.
>
your bandwidth too, do you know what I mean?
> Bottom line: You're either for or against drug use. I personnaly think tax
> credits should be given to people who waste drug dealers.
>
(poetic license), or you seek, try to speak, and attempt to help the
meek.
I personally think tax credits should be given to people who in turn,
waste those that are so full of shit- they could be used to fertilize a
substantial part of the south west. (once hemp is legal, we can use that
too)
> Clinton wants to declare war on drugs. Well, let's do it and stop talking
> about it!
Dude, do you periodically assault your spice-rack with the hope of one
day eradicating your fear of bad breath, or are you being sarcastic?
C J Silverio
greg.n...@daytonoh.ncr.com (Greg Smith) writes:
|Bottom line: You're either for or against drug use. I personnaly think tax
|credits should be given to people who waste drug dealers.
Damn right! Coffee drinkers should be SHOT. No questions asked;
let god sort out the bodies. And those alcohol-using scum beer
drinkers should be beheaded, just like that LA police chief suggested.
Death to druggies! Die Pepsi-swigging Bud-swilling slime!
I notice a Diet Pepsi can sitting in your office, Smith.
That makes you a drug addict. Up against the wall! I
need my tax credit. And I get to keep 10% of the profits
when the feds seize your property from your widow & children.
What a great deal for me, this drug war you suggested!
---
C J Silverio ce...@netcom.com ce...@well.sf.ca.us
"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" magazine, Dec. 28, 1992, p 55
VAXBANDIT
Guess what Mike?
BOW HUNTING SEASON ON BAMBI STARTED SEVERAL WEEKS AGO HERE IN INDIANA!
BAHAAHAHAH
know what Mike?!
HUNTING SEASON WITH GUNS STARTS ON BAMBI TOMOROW!!
One last comment Mike...
I CAN'T WAIT TO BLOW SOME HOLES IN QUITE A FEW OF EM!!!
>
>
>--
>Mike McNally
Mike McNally
>In article <m5.753029806@vail>, m...@vail.uucp (Mike McNally) writes:
>BOW HUNTING SEASON ON BAMBI STARTED SEVERAL WEEKS AGO HERE IN INDIANA!
This says a lot about Indiana, or maybe just about the species of which
the Vax Bandito is a member. The state seems to have established a
portion of each year as a period during which Mr. Bandit and his friends
can stalk with bow and blunderbus a single small deer. Think about it:
"Daddy, are you going to get Bambi this year?"
"Well son, we'll give it our best."
"Daddy, tell me again about the time Grandpa saw Bambi the day he shot
his dick off."
--
Mike McNally
open cLoSeD minds
immoral.
Michael B Tierney
: I'm sorry Tom, did I miss something? Why is it "crap," did the politically
: correct thought police decide that we're all supposed to feel some great
: loss at the loss of a piece of trash like River Pheonix?
: Once again we see the ultra-left-leaning-bean-
: sprout-munching-animals-are-just-people-pro-abortion Hollywood types,
: the very ones who use their trash movies and tv shows to spread their
: politics and ideas, are the people who are least able to make proper
: and rational choices about their own lives.
: Good bye and good riddance River, " you can't even run your own life
: I'll be damned if youll run mine!"
Oh goodie. Just what the world needs, another Bob Roberts 'leftist'
reactionary. Let's take a closer look here:
> Login name: psg In real life: Paul S Galvanek
> Plan:
> Looking at the condition and politics of the public school system,
> universities
> and Hollywood in the 90's, it seems in retrospect that the only mistakes
> Joseph
> McCarthy made were; not uncovering the right people and not finishing the
> job. Communism is alive and well and its advocates work in the Clinton
> administration
What a pillar of rationality. Nothing I like better than a
paranoid, self-righteous idiot who thinks the world revolves around nothing
but his pithy little pocketbook. Cattle like this person let the country
fall asleep while our school systems went underfunded, while our country
went $4 trillion in to debt to fund the continuing failed prohibition
experiment. While people's life savings were being stolen by George Bush's
son and their political cronies, this loser helped blind people with
useless rhetoric about 'communists'.
I got news for this sycophant, and all others of his ilk: the
country you have made the United States into is not going to last. While
you follow your self-serving little path, the country goes deeper in to
debt, our industries bankrupt themselves by manufacturing crap in the name
of a higher profit margin, and the freedoms that our forefathers died for
are slowly being taken away one-by-one. I will laugh when the collapse
finally comes. What will be really amusing is watching these simpletons
try to blame it on the non-existent communists.
-me
--
Mike Tierney "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered by
mb...@pitt.edu considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more
mbt...@pitt.edu destructive of respect for the government and the law of
CIS:70604,1512 the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It
is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in
this country is closely connected with this."
-Albert Einstein (1921)
Greg Smith
>Subject: Re: RIVER PHOENIX IS DEAD!!!! - Enough already!
>From: ce...@netcom.com (C J Silverio)
>Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 22:31:18 GMT
>Damn right! Coffee drinkers should be SHOT. No questions asked;
>let god sort out the bodies. And those alcohol-using scum beer
>drinkers should be beheaded, just like that LA police chief suggested.
>Death to druggies! Die Pepsi-swigging Bud-swilling slime!
>I notice a Diet Pepsi can sitting in your office, Smith.
>That makes you a drug addict. Up against the wall! I
>need my tax credit. And I get to keep 10% of the profits
>when the feds seize your property from your widow & children.
>What a great deal for me, this drug war you suggested!
________________
I trust that you are just playing the Devil's advocate here and you weren't
really flaming me, but consider this:
I don't see drive-by shootings occuring as a result of Coffee or Diet Pepsi
addiction. I personally don't really care if a person wants to screw up their
life with drugs or whatever. That's their choice. I get your point, it is
hard to draw a line. Whose values do we use as the standard? I too am sick
of other people's values being turned into laws that dictate how I live my
life.
But I draw the line when drug-related activity spills over and touches
the lives of innocent people (i.e.: bystanders getting killed because they
were standing next to some gang dirtball, or people who become the random
target of a shooting because some kid wants so badly to become a member of the
local gang that he goes out to kill someone in their car.)
Here in Dayton, a local judge tried seven murder cases in one day. It was all
over the news. Finally the bureaucrats are coming to the realization that
it has to be stopped before it gets out of control (like it's in control
now). Problem is, crime & drugs is only a symptom of greater problems in our
society for which there are no clear solutions.
Criminals don't care. They take what they want and if they get caught, "no
big deal." Prison life is usually better than what they have now. That is,
if they even go to prison.
Maybe we need to bring back chain gangs and let the Marine Corps run our
prison system. If every hour of every day of a covict's life was complete
misery, maybe they wouldn't be so willing to risk going back. But no. We
pamper our convicts. They get TVs and telephones. If the prison gets too
crowded and the prisoners aren't comfortable, we let them go.
Where would you draw the line about how far YOU want this to go? How many of
your friends and neighbors are you willing to see hurt or killed to protect
the rights of those who respect the rights of nobody? Do you really think
criminals should have rights?
A recent ABC News poll says that 9 out of 10 Americans fear that they will be
the victim of violent crime within their lifetimes. That's sad. Until laws
are changed or interpreted to allow leniency on those who take the law into
their own hands, the gangs have won. The police can't handle the problem. I
(having been shot at) will have no trouble taking out someone if ever put in
that situation again. I don't make myself vulnerable. I don't look for
trouble. But I fear that someday our malfunctioning system is going to punish
me for protecting myself from a society they failed to fix.
Of course I was just blowing off steam with the tax credit thing. I hope you
didn't actually take that seriously.
If I did indeed really piss you off, flame me via E-mail. Too much bandwidth
has already been used on this no-win topic.
jsc...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
>Which I'd say is pretty obvious. Especially since drug use is in no way
>immoral.
Please, no, don't make me write it ALL over again.
I disagree with you, so there, and that's that.
I have posted why before, and with not to do it again.
jsc...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
>
>
>I don't see drive-by shootings occuring as a result of Coffee or Diet Pepsi
>addiction. I personally don't really care if a person wants to screw up their
>life with drugs or whatever. That's their choice. I get your point, it is
>hard to draw a line. Whose values do we use as the standard? I too am sick
>of other people's values being turned into laws that dictate how I live my
>life.
I do care if a person wants to screw up their life [...] because I don't
want everyone around me to live a screwed up life.
>
>But I draw the line when drug-related activity spills over and touches
>the lives of innocent people (i.e.: bystanders getting killed because they
>were standing next to some gang dirtball, or people who become the random
>target of a shooting because some kid wants so badly to become a member of the
>local gang that he goes out to kill someone in their car.)
I appriciate the sentiment you are expressing, but alas is it totally
irrelivant to whether _ought_ to be legal or not. If you judged every act
by it's concequences, then you would never know what you "ought" to do,
for you never really "know" what the concequeces of any particular action
will be.
>
>Here in Dayton, a local judge tried seven murder cases in one day. It was all
>over the news. Finally the bureaucrats are coming to the realization that
>it has to be stopped before it gets out of control (like it's in control
>now). Problem is, crime & drugs is only a symptom of greater problems in our
>society for which there are no clear solutions.
The problem is rampant immorality, due to the pop culture's insistance that
the utilitaran stance of "the most happyness for all" is the correct moral
stance. This is not only incorrect, but unusable in the large scale, because
all people value thier own happieness above other's happyness and will their-
for engage in immoral acts. That plus the the parrallel loss in the common
man's sense of 'duty'. It completely removes from the picture of "right" and
"wrong" the concepts of "right" and "responsibility".
>
>Criminals don't care. They take what they want and if they get caught, "no
>big deal." Prison life is usually better than what they have now. That is,
>if they even go to prison.
>
>Maybe we need to bring back chain gangs and let the Marine Corps run our
>prison system. If every hour of every day of a covict's life was complete
>misery, maybe they wouldn't be so willing to risk going back. But no. We
>pamper our convicts. They get TVs and telephones. If the prison gets too
>crowded and the prisoners aren't comfortable, we let them go.
>
>Where would you draw the line about how far YOU want this to go? How many of
>your friends and neighbors are you willing to see hurt or killed to protect
>the rights of those who respect the rights of nobody? Do you really think
>criminals should have rights?
When a criminal breaks the law, that law no longer applies to him, he has
already, by commiting a crime, taken that as him maxim.
>
>A recent ABC News poll says that 9 out of 10 Americans fear that they will be
>the victim of violent crime within their lifetimes. That's sad. Until laws
>are changed or interpreted to allow leniency on those who take the law into
>their own hands, the gangs have won. The police can't handle the problem. I
>(having been shot at) will have no trouble taking out someone if ever put in
>that situation again. I don't make myself vulnerable. I don't look for
>trouble. But I fear that someday our malfunctioning system is going to punish
>me for protecting myself from a society they failed to fix.
You commit a grave fallacy here, for it is the gang members themselves, out
of "the current injustice of society" that they see around them, take into
thier own hands to rectify the "injustice" of unequal wealth distibution.
Allowing leniency and "taking the law into <your> own hands" would only
confirm (to them) that what they are doing is right. Sir, the reason you
were shot at was because that person felt they had a "right" to treat you
however they wanted, because "you (as a successfull person in society) have
'historicly' wronged them in the past". Never mind that they are wrong,
it point is that _they_ are "taking the law into <thier> own hands", and if
you did the same, you would be no better. (IMHO)
Your right of self-defense is the only right you have to protect yourself, the
_only_ time is permissable to shot someone is when they are in the act of
attempting to shot you.
>
>Of course I was just blowing off steam with the tax credit thing. I hope you
>didn't actually take that seriously.
>
>If I did indeed really piss you off, flame me via E-mail. Too much bandwidth
>has already been used on this no-win topic.
>
Opps, darn, sorry, just had to respond.
But then you didn't "piss me off" so I guess it's ok then huh? ;)
Dave Ratcliffe
-
- May I interrupt this thread for just one moment...?
-
-
- Life is wonderful. Today was a great day to be alive!
-
-
- (I thought that this thread was in dire need of something uplifting!)
What this thread NEEDS is redirection to a single most appropriate
group, not the hodge-podge list it's currently screwing up:
rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.movies,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame,alt.drugs,alt.sex
few of which are appropriate. Get a clue people. Set the proper
followups.
--
vogon1!frackit!da...@cse.psu.edu | Dave Ratcliffe |
- or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave | <*> |
- or - dave.ra...@p777.f211.n270.z1.fidonet.org | Harrisburg, Pa. |
C J Silverio
Please please please keep followups in talk.politics.drugs.
I will read them there. Really.
greg.n...@daytonoh.ncr.com (Greg Smith) writes:
|In article <ceejCGC...@netcom.com> ce...@netcom.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>I notice a Diet Pepsi can sitting in your office, Smith.
|>That makes you a drug addict. Up against the wall! I
|>need my tax credit. And I get to keep 10% of the profits
|>when the feds seize your property from your widow & children.
|>What a great deal for me, this drug war you suggested!
|I trust that you are just playing the Devil's advocate here and you weren't
|really flaming me, but consider this:
I was riffing on what **actually happens to real people** in the
US today, because of the War on Some Drugs. Yes, Americans that
have not been convicted of ANY CRIME AT ALL have their property
seized by evil, corrupt law enforcement officers, just on suspicion
and sometimes for the personal gain of those officers. Sometimes
charges are NEVER brought against these people, who nonetheless
rarely (if ever) get their property back.
Are *you* willing to have this happen to *you*, just to wipe out
the "horror" of marijuana use? Do you think marijuana is *that*
bad, that you are willing to give up *your* rights?
I was also attempting to point out that YOU, yes, YOU! are probably
also a drug user. You just use drugs that our society perceives as
"soft" and "okay", even though they're more addictive than many
illegal drugs.
|I don't see drive-by shootings occuring as a result of Coffee or Diet Pepsi
|addiction. I personally don't really care if a person wants to screw up their
|life with drugs or whatever. That's their choice. I get your point, it is
|hard to draw a line. Whose values do we use as the standard? I too am sick
|of other people's values being turned into laws that dictate how I live my
|life.
When coffee is illegal, a black market for coffee forms. The usual
bad things happen. I've read that armed gangs are hijacking cigarette
shipments in Canada now, because taxes have pushed the price of tobacco
high enough that a black market is profitable. Do you see that
happening in the US? Is tobacco-related violence an inherent
property of the tobacco, or of the price of tobacco?
|But I draw the line when drug-related activity spills over and touches
|the lives of innocent people (i.e.: bystanders getting killed because they
|were standing next to some gang dirtball, or people who become the random
|target of a shooting because some kid wants so badly to become a member of the
|local gang that he goes out to kill someone in their car.)
You're complaining about black market violence. You have a right
to complain about black markets-- they have many economic & social
consequences, none of them good. I don't like black markets either.
Can you see how the illegal status of a set of highly-desired
substances might create a black market? Can you see how ending
drug prohibition would end the black market problem?
You're about to say that drugs are evil & their use is bad, and
that's why we can't make them legal. There are two things to
say about that: 1) Drugs aren't all the same, and the hysterical
propaganda about them can't be trusted. 2) THE SOCIAL COSTS OF
PROHIBITION ARE GREATER THAN THE SOCIAL COSTS OF LEGALIZATION.
I'm shouting in all caps because that's the key issue. Think
about that one.
[...]
|Where would you draw the line about how far YOU want this to go? How many of
|your friends and neighbors are you willing to see hurt or killed to protect
|the rights of those who respect the rights of nobody? Do you really think
|criminals should have rights?
Yes. Definitely. I believe that the US Constitution is a *good* thing.
I wish it were still respected & upheld in the US today. And so will
you, when the Drug Warriors conduct a no-knock raid on your home at 3am
because your grouchy neighbor called in an anonymous tip. Or because
they got the wrong address...
---
C J Silverio ce...@netcom.com ce...@well.sf.ca.us
"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging
to an individual than the use of the drug itself."
-- President Jimmy Carter (8/2/77)
Lamont Granquist
>the lives of innocent people (i.e.: bystanders getting killed because they
>were standing next to some gang dirtball, or people who become the random
>target of a shooting because some kid wants so badly to become a member of the
>local gang that he goes out to kill someone in their car.)
Right, but when i look at this i see two factors here -- the first is that
the bottom of our economy is falling out, and that as you increase
criminal pressure on the illegal market violence will increase.
>now). Problem is, crime & drugs is only a symptom of greater problems in our
>society for which there are no clear solutions.
Exactly.
>Maybe we need to bring back chain gangs and let the Marine Corps run our
>prison system. If every hour of every day of a covict's life was complete
>misery, maybe they wouldn't be so willing to risk going back. But no. We
>pamper our convicts. They get TVs and telephones. If the prison gets too
>crowded and the prisoners aren't comfortable, we let them go.
Someone from the CA prison system wrote in to the paper and claimed
studies showed that all boot camps did was turn out more hardened criminals.
I certainly find that result quite plausible.
>Where would you draw the line about how far YOU want this to go? How many of
>your friends and neighbors are you willing to see hurt or killed to protect
>the rights of those who respect the rights of nobody? Do you really think
>criminals should have rights?
My prediction is that as things get worse america collectively will fall
further into a sort of "selfish" logic. We'll continue with a sort of
"everyone for themselves" attitude and probably crucify the shit out of
whoever we pick as being the cause of all our problems. Then society
will collapse finishing off a job that started in the 30's and which got
interrupted when we all were forced to work together in WWII.
x91vi...@gw.wmich.edu
>
> I don't care how big an asshole someone is -- When they die somebody misses them,
> and somebodies world is not the same.
I couldn't agree with you more.
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Dale W. Visser email: x91vi...@wmich.edu ]
[ 313B Woodcreek Dr. #114 home: 708-759-4876 ]
[ Bolingbrook IL 60440-3323 work: 708-252- (voice: 4028, fax: 6210) ]
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]
C J Silverio
I think crossposting a totally naive comment about morality
to zillions of uninterested newsgroups is immoral. You
should be shot. And *my* morality is the one that counts,
here. If it's immoral in my value system, then it's
immoral universally. So you should feel obliged to
shoot yourself.
I'll hand you a gun if you need one.
I'm waiting....
---
C J Silverio ce...@netcom.com ce...@well.sf.ca.us
Sarcasm is too subtle for these idiots.
Brian L. Piltin
easily-improveable topic...you seem to be wasting most of it by missing
out on most of the argument and continuing to pursue an unreasonable
line.
[I removed some crosspostings anyway]
Excerpts from netnews.alt.drugs: 12-Nov-93 Re: RIVER PHOENIX IS DEAD!!..
by Greg Sm...@daytonoh.ncr.
> I trust that you are just playing the Devil's advocate here and you weren't
> really flaming me, but consider this:
>
> I don't see drive-by shootings occuring as a result of Coffee or Diet Pepsi
> addiction.
Drive by shootings are a result of an addiction to MONEY, not drugs. A
drive buy shooting is not neccassarily related to drugs and occurs when
a black market is existing for any illegal material or service for which
there is a market, removing the causal black market (either remove the
market itself (virtually impossible) or create a legal market). In the
case of MOST of the violence occuring today, it is caused by the
increasing market for drugs, and the decreasing availability of
legitimate jobs. *(probably also has something to do with violence
itself being seen as entertaining.)*
> I personally don't really care if a person wants to screw up their
> life with drugs or whatever. That's their choice. I get your point, it is
> hard to draw a line. Whose values do we use as the standard? I too am sick
> of other people's values being turned into laws that dictate how I live my
> life.
>
> But I draw the line when drug-related activity spills over and touches
> the lives of innocent people (i.e.: bystanders getting killed because they
> were standing next to some gang dirtball, or people who become the random
> target of a shooting because some kid wants so badly to become a
member of the
> local gang that he goes out to kill someone in their car.)
>
Again, gangs, drive bys and organized crime (not as organized as the old
italian mafia) are caused *only* by the illegal standing of drugs. The
"I want money for drugs crimes" (there are still better solutions for
dettering these types of crimes than Prohibition), are insignificant (I
have been a victim of this type with no physical harm) with respect to
the amount of crime caused by drug dealers (I have had friends killed by
this type). The addiction to MONEY is a much more appealing reason (for
criminals) to actually murder people than is the need for money for
drugs, but it seems the general public still fails to see this. I am not
saying that gangsters are excused for having a criminal *job*, but they
*will* not be controlled by force, and will probably wind up running the
country if things continue as they are.
> Here in Dayton, a local judge tried seven murder cases in one day. It
was all
> over the news. Finally the bureaucrats are coming to the realization that
> it has to be stopped before it gets out of control (like it's in control
> now). Problem is, crime & drugs is only a symptom of greater problems
in our
> society for which there are no clear solutions.
>
> Criminals don't care. They take what they want and if they get caught, "no
> big deal." Prison life is usually better than what they have now. That is,
> if they even go to prison.
>
I would like to go into full detail with respect to this but it has been
covered many times in the past few weeks, try reading some past posts.
> Maybe we need to bring back chain gangs and let the Marine Corps run our
> prison system. If every hour of every day of a covict's life was complete
> misery, maybe they wouldn't be so willing to risk going back. But no. We
> pamper our convicts. They get TVs and telephones. If the prison gets too
> crowded and the prisoners aren't comfortable, we let them go.
>
> Where would you draw the line about how far YOU want this to go? How
many of
> your friends and neighbors are you willing to see hurt or killed to protect
> the rights of those who respect the rights of nobody? Do you really think
> criminals should have rights?
>
You have the legalization argument inside your opinion, but it is a
matter of respecting the rights of those who are not criminals, while
both eliminating the majority of criminals by giving them less reason to
commit crime, and freeing up resources (executive services) in order to
remove the rights of those who still succeed in being criminals.
> A recent ABC News poll says that 9 out of 10 Americans fear that they
will be
> the victim of violent crime within their lifetimes. That's sad. Until laws
> are changed or interpreted to allow leniency on those who take the law into
> their own hands, the gangs have won. The police can't handle the
problem. I
> (having been shot at) will have no trouble taking out someone if ever put in
> that situation again. I don't make myself vulnerable. I don't look for
> trouble. But I fear that someday our malfunctioning system is going
to punish
> me for protecting myself from a society they failed to fix.
>
I'm sure most would find it entertaining to see a slew of Bernard
Goetz's (sp?) killing each other but it doesn't have to happen.
> Of course I was just blowing off steam with the tax credit thing. I
hope you
> didn't actually take that seriously.
>
I think you should start taking your own opinions seriously, and maybe
people won't take your steam so negatively.
> If I did indeed really piss you off, flame me via E-mail. Too much
bandwidth
> has already been used on this no-win topic.
>
I flamed you earlier, but I have a difficult time taking my emotion out
of it as well, and because you seem a bit more sincere, it is worth
intelligably discussing. (and actually effective) It is in fact both a
categorical (rights) as well as utilitarian (effect) argument, and
policy could change to hold both ideals at a greater consistency and
payoff.
I apologize to all of you who see this as being redundant, but I still
feel it is a reasonable use of bandwidth.
Lamont Granquist
>I do care if a person wants to screw up their life [...] because I don't
>want everyone around me to live a screwed up life.
We don't, however, have the resources to prevent everyone screwing
up their lives. I, personally, think its immoral for society to
take its limited resources and focus on drug use while letting
rapists and murderers out of jail.
>I appriciate the sentiment you are expressing, but alas is it totally
>irrelivant to whether _ought_ to be legal or not. If you judged every act
>by it's concequences, then you would never know what you "ought" to do,
>for you never really "know" what the concequeces of any particular action
>will be.
How else do you judge and 'act' except by its effects on the rest of
society? That is, essentially, the very argument that you are making
against drug use -- that it leads to the complications of substance
abuse disorder.
Paul Callahan
>In article <2c19e5$6...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> jsc...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>I do care if a person wants to screw up their life [...] because I don't
>>want everyone around me to live a screwed up life.
>We don't, however, have the resources to prevent everyone screwing
>up their lives.
Yeah, but more significantly, I don't believe society would have the
*right* to prevent people from screwing up their own lives, even if it
*had* the resources. Of course, *I* don't want people around me to
have a screwed up life. For that matter, I don't want them to listen
to Barry Manilow, or write "Thanx" when they mean "Thanks."
Nevertheless, I would be quite frightened to live under a government
that enforced these desires of mine by law.
I think many people are unclear on the concept of a free society.
It's true that it's not *quite* free. We have this thing called
government that limits our actions from time to time. I think of it
purely as a necessary evil, though I realize such a view is not
universal. The only time it has a right to step in is to prevent
people from screwing up *other* peoples' lives. And it has to be a
pretty clear-cut case too. So, for example, I can't say my life is
screwed up by the fact that I have to THINK about all those people out
there listening to Barry Manilow, and therefore the government has a
duty to stop them. Yet, half the time I hear people calling for
GOVERNMENT ACTION, the basic argument is analogous to this.
Government probably cannot be used to "perfect" society in the sense of
giving everyone a safe and secure life. But even if it could, I feel that it
*should* not, because free will is a fundamental good, even if it incurs
a tragic cost at times.
--
"I've dreamed magnificent, joyful things, but I've forgotten them all;
I only know it was wonderful." Hermann Hesse, _Knulp_
============== Paul Callahan ======== call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu ==============
David John Spencer
H.R. HALDEMANN IS DEAD! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!
REAGAN IS THE NEXT REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL TO GO!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
AND NIXON!!! HAHAHAHAAAAAA!!
AND THE CUNT FROM NEW JERSEY!!! REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL BITCH!! HAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!
--Chelsea Clinton
Enrique Chavez
Japanese family bathing time? What is it like and how is thier society
so open while ours is so shut??
please reply to ech...@as.arizona.edu & not to alt.sex
Barbara Abernathy
>In article <greg.n.smith...@daytonoh.ncr.com> greg.n...@daytonoh.ncr.com (Greg Smith) writes:
>
>>about it!
>
>
>
_ _
|_| |_|
| | | |
_| |_ _| |_
-| | | | _ _ | | | |-
| | | | |' | | `| | | | |
\ . / \ . . /
\ , / \ . /
| . |_ _ _ _ _ _| , |
| .| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| | . |
| , | . . . . | .|
| . | . . . . , |. |
___----_____| . |. , _______ . | , |---~_____
_---~ | | . /+++++++\ . | . | ~---_
|. | . |+++++++| . | . | ~-_
__ | . | , |+++++++|. . _|__ | ~-_
____--`~ '--~~__ . |++++ __|----~ ~`---, ___^~-__
-~--~ ~---__|,--~' ~~----_____-~' `~----~~
Barbara Abernathy
==============================================================================
THE OPINIONS ABOVE ARE WHOLLY MY OWN AND THOSE OF ANY SANE, INTELLIGENT
PERSON, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF PENN STATE UNIVERSITY,
NOR SHOULD THEY BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH.
==============================================================================
john baez
>Clinton wants to declare war on drugs. Well, let's do it and stop talking
>about it!
Better yet - let's not and say we did!
Andy - Patrizio
>Enough is enough. Stop wasting bandwidth with these
>will-never-be-settled-here arguments.
>Bottom line: You're either for or against drug use. I personnaly think tax
>credits should be given to people who waste drug dealers.
That would be amusing. WW III would break out in NYC, though. :-)
Far as River goes, I have no sympathy. He was diabetic, yet he had enough
drugs in him to kill Rasputin. He made the choice to use the stuff and
paid the price.
--
Andy Patrizio | Politicians are like diapers. Both should be changed
Stamford, CT | regularly because they get full of crap and start
a...@shell.portal.com | to stink.
Paul Callahan
>Far as River goes, I have no sympathy. He was diabetic, yet he had enough
>drugs in him to kill Rasputin. He made the choice to use the stuff and
>paid the price.
I haven't been paying much attention to this conversation, so it's
likely this question has been asked many times before. But is there
any good reason to think River Phoenix wasn't *trying* to kill
himself? Like, he wasn't a *total* idiot (objective facts: he was,
presumably, capable of reading and writing and memorizing lines from a
script, placing him well above the US average of intellectual
accomplishment). Given the quantity and variety of drugs in his
system, which he (I assume voluntarily) ingested, are we to believe
that he was ignorant enough to think he would not die (or at least
require medical attention)? The claim that it was not suicide seems
the extraordinary one in this case, demanding extraordinary proof.
Kevin W. McAuley
river is dead??? when'd this happen?
chevyn
[ is it live or is it chevyn? ]
mc auley
--
A large viper must be inserted up your rectum carefully.
bill nelson
:
: My commiting an immoral act, a criminal has said in effect "I truely believe
: that it is right and proper to act this way", thus when society punishes a
: criminal, it is acting in a way that the criminal cannot possiblely say
: is immoral, provided there is the correct link between the crime and the
: punishment. In the case of recreational drug use, this means that society
: is within the moral system of the drug user when they "act irrationally"
: toward the drug user, which might include throwing them in jail. Not to
: mention that right of society to advance toward higher moral standards,
: which comes from the fact that it is in the interest of every member of
: society, including the criminal, that they live in a moral society.
: And while it might be better POLICY to adopt a 'corrective' rather than
: 'punative' stance toward punishment, my arguement still stands.
Your argument is bull-shit. Substitute the words "Rabid Fundamentalist
Christian" for "moral", and you should then understand why.
Neither you or I have the right to force our own personal morality on
others. To me, that is just as bad as assaulting/raping them.
Bill
David A. Kaye
: likely this question has been asked many times before. But is there
: any good reason to think River Phoenix wasn't *trying* to kill
: himself?
You bring up something I was told the other day by a mutual friend. He
had been depressed lately in some part because he felt he was being
typecast as gay because of the role he had in "My Own Private Idaho" and
apparently had been offered several gay roles in other movies (which he
turned down). Then Gus van Sant came along and offered him yet another
gay role in "The Mayor of Castro Street" (the story about slain gay SF
official Harvey Milk). It was told to me that he had been very depressed
lately and that his being typecast may have played a part.
Barbara Abernathy
_ _
Barbara Abernathy
Sol Lightman
]Your argument is bull-shit. Substitute the words "Rabid Fundamentalist
]Christian" for "moral", and you should then understand why.
Hey! Please use "Braindead Dogma Slave" or some other more accurate term
because the value system you are referring to is really neither Christian
nor Fundamentalist Christian (it _is_ rabid, granted.) How about
X-stian, to indicate how it abbreviates the teacher's message.
Peace in Jesus Christ
Brian
--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,>
S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ {
415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu |____________ `--~ ;
\_,-__/
* To find out about our on-line library, mail a message with the
* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored
Barbara Abernathy
>Using an as yet undetermined appendage bill nelson (bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com) wrote:
>]Your argument is bull-shit. Substitute the words "Rabid Fundamentalist
>]Christian" for "moral", and you should then understand why.
>]Bill
>
>Hey! Please use "Braindead Dogma Slave" or some other more accurate term
>because the value system you are referring to is really neither Christian
>nor Fundamentalist Christian (it _is_ rabid, granted.) How about
>X-stian, to indicate how it abbreviates the teacher's message.
>
>Peace in Jesus Christ
>
>Brian
>
>--
>The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-.
>Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,>
>S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ {
>415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? )
>UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu |____________ `--~ ;
> \_,-__/
>* To find out about our on-line library, mail a message with the
>* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
>* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored
_ _
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <2c4oee$4...@cs.umb.edu> stu...@eris.cs.umb.edu (Kevin W. McAuley) writes:
Barbara, Kevin; Kevin, Barbara.
--Blair
"The CDC is waiting for the embryos."
Lamont Granquist
>Paul Callahan (call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
>: likely this question has been asked many times before. But is there
>: any good reason to think River Phoenix wasn't *trying* to kill
>: himself?
>
>lately and that his being typecast may have played a part.
That may have been the straw. He was in his 20's which is a kind of
rough time, and he was in the movie industry. I doubt he set out to
kill himself, though -- if anything he probably just 'unconsiously' did
it by pushing recklessness to the extreme.
Sameer Manek
> [ poof - it's gone.]
>
> river is dead??? when'd this happen?
>
> chevyn
> [ is it live or is it chevyn? ]
> mc auley
>
Hello! Welcome to 1993, and might I be the first to tell you
that 1993 is almost over and '94 is almost here. Try reading
the paper once in a while, its been in the news for the last
2-3 weeks straight.
You do know that communist and the Berlin wall fell a couple
of years back? The America elected a democratic president,
and no its not Carter.
--
Sameer Manek (bbs.s...@tsoft.net)
Kevin W. McAuley
you fuckin; cockaroach. do you *really* think i could miss that? there's
only been 2000 articles here about it.
chevyn
[ strangle hold on reality
, you have not. ]
mc auley
ps;
you're a simp.
Brian L. Piltin
by Barbara Abernathy@basic.
[strange, unintelligible form of communication deleted]
If you need a keyboard that has included on it- alphanumerics, I'm sure
someone has something to spare...while you're at it, you should try to
pick up a friend too (although this one may not be as easy).
Robert C.Haushalter
Yes indeed, watching that reactionary, low IQ, NRA fondling loser twist
in the wind before she even got into office was of the most heart
warming experiences of my adult life.
--
The opinions are mine..not my company's.
Actually, everything is more complicated
Beware of any endeavor requiring new clothes -H.D. Thoreau
And, as digestive a good, not smelling portion of open legs. -Michele
Doug Andersen
>If you make drugs legal, there's a right way doing it:
>-no really bad drugs, i mean drugs with a major, permanent health-damage.
You mean like, say, tobacco?
--
Doug Andersen
do...@eskimo.com
Myrddhin Emrys
>
> What? That's ridiculous, I don't have to worry about that kind'a shit because
> I.... *never break the law*. That's right folks... I'm one of the unique
> individuals who just don't break the law... Say what you will but you will no
> be able to soil the fact that while you guys fuck up from your parking
> violations, driving while intoxicated, your fake IDs (for you frat brats),
> and what not...
>
> Guys I'm going to be the guy sitting in the back of the court room laughing
> my ass off when you fuck-heads get convicted of tax fraud or DWI.
>
> the eletricity and gas coming into my home? or police my neighborhood?
>[...]
> So if anything else... just remember that your here for me.
>
>
Why do I get the unnerving impression that this is Chevyn in
disguise?
em...@cellar.org
What I carry in my heart
Brings us so close or so far apart
Only love can make love...
V Headshape
Lamont Granquist <lam...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <2c4s6n$8...@crl.crl.com> d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>>Paul Callahan (call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
>>: likely this question has been asked many times before. But is there
>>: any good reason to think River Phoenix wasn't *trying* to kill
>>: himself?
If you were going to kill yourself with drugs, you wouldn't do it with cocaine.
--
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
VAXBANDIT
If this guy is a democrat then we most definatly need a THIRD PARTY!
(and I don't mean "United We (are) Screwed" either)
>
>
>
>--Chelsea Clinton
Mike McNally
>The America elected a democratic president, and no its not Carter.
Oh yeah? Then why does he *sound* like Carter, Mr. Smarty Pants?
--
Mike McNally
Greg Smith
thread into oblivion.
Look, the drug/violence/socioeconomic problems that we will face are going to
be tough. There are no "solutions," only intelligent choices (I think that
was an ad in the 70's for somebody) No matter what is done to curb these
problems, it's going to infringe on the rights of someone.
The simple truth is, there will always be people who abuse freedom. Unless
society as a whole stops and says "we've had enough of this crap and we're
going to squash anyone who crosses the line." the problem will persist.
So where do you draw the line? And who draws it?
I have managed to piss off about thirty thousand people judging by the amount
of hate E-mail I've received.
Have half of you called or written your congressmen and put forth half the
effort you put into flaming me?
I have received E-mail, pro & con, on everything from gun control to birth
control from this post. What was the original point?
Maybe we should make comments via E-mail and post those that are pertinent for
others to enjoy. Cross posting has grown this thread out of control.
Let's give it a rest.
Greg Smith
NCR Corporation
GPPG Services Development
Phone......(513)445-4098 FAX.......(513)445-7196
VOICEplus.......622-4098 E-mail... greg.n...@DaytonOH.ncr.com
Expressed opinions don't necessarily reflect those of AT&T/NCR.
Lamont Granquist
>In article <1993Nov14.1...@beaver.cs.washington.edu>,
>Lamont Granquist <lam...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2c4s6n$8...@crl.crl.com> d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>>>Paul Callahan (call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
>>>: likely this question has been asked many times before. But is there
>>>: any good reason to think River Phoenix wasn't *trying* to kill
>>>: himself?
>
>If you were going to kill yourself with drugs, you wouldn't do it with cocaine.
I have a much broader definition of suicide than you do, apparently. It is
possible to be suicidal and then get reckless enough that you wind up killing
yourself even though you never consciously decided to do it. Since the choice
to kill yourself is "unconscious" it can take an unusual form.
Paul Callahan
>I have a much broader definition of suicide than you do, apparently. It is
>possible to be suicidal and then get reckless enough that you wind up killing
>yourself even though you never consciously decided to do it. Since the choice
>to kill yourself is "unconscious" it can take an unusual form.
I prefer to narrow the definition of suicide to cases of behavior in
which the desired outcome is death. There is, however, a more general
sort of self-destructive behavior in which you don't care particularly
either way or else just get a thrill out of cheating death. I think
that unless River Phoenix were truly misinformed about the properties
of drugs he took, then his action clearly falls into this category.
Ed Falk
>addiction.
You would if they were illegal. You did when alcohol was illegal.
You never hear of a dope-smoker getting stoned and having an
uncontrollable urge to kill a rival dope-smoker. It's the money
that causes the violence, not the drugs.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, fa...@sun.com
card-carrying ACLU member.
A Hideously Aggressive BFG
>
>Yes indeed, watching that reactionary, low IQ, NRA fondling loser twist
>in the wind before she even got into office was of the most heart
>warming experiences of my adult life.
Heart? Adult? Life?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(tm) SSM Productions, Inc.
Paul Hermsen
>From: jsc...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu ()
>Subject: Re: HAHAHAHA RIVER PHOENIX IS DEAD!!!!
>Date: 12 Nov 1993 22:54:25 GMT
>In article <2c0jvt$9...@samba.oit.unc.edu> ian...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (open cLoSeD
>minds) writes:
>>Which I'd say is pretty obvious. Especially since drug use is in no way
>>immoral.
>Please, no, don't make me write it ALL over again.
>I disagree with you, so there, and that's that.
>I have posted why before, and with not to do it again.
Yes, but the problem is that you are wrong.
And while you continiue to rave about your "morals and moral law" in this
forum, and express views which attempt to lower my quality of life, you'd
better keep trying to back it up, otherwise FUCK OFF.
Get out of my life, and I'll keep out of yours.
The nice thing about this thread, is that every time you have to attempt to
rejustify yourself, your arguments get more pathetic, and the flaws become
more evident to those observing.
Love,
Paul.
BACA1
The Masked Jackal
P. C. Kilinskas
>Then let's ban money!!!! Let's face it, what causes them to need money? Their addiction to drugs. Actually if you think about it drugs compliment money and money compliments drugs. So in reality you have to make sure morons who are using drugs, for whatever reason, see alt.drugs, have to be stopped. At all cost.
It's interesting how all the drug "addicts" on alt.drugs manage to afford a
college education.
Makes you think, doesn't it? (Oh sorry, forgot who I was talking to.)
Phil
____________________________________________________________________________
p...@acsu.buffalo.edu / "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT. You feel sleepy. Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The opinions
stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Sol Lightman
] Drug dealing is a cottage industry. There are a lot of folks out there
]in the slums and the ghettos who have no hope in life, and no possibility
]of ever making enough money to better themselves. Drug dealing lets them
]do this. We are talking about people who really don't care about the risk,
]and who don't care about dying, because they know that it's worth it for
]what is probably the only possibility of their ever getting out of grinding
]poverty.
] If you make drugs legal, and make them easily available, many of these
]people will no longer be able to make drug profits. The drug profits will
]be diverted from the hungry and the needy, into the already-deep pockets
]of rich bankers. Keep open the one ray of hope in the lives of many
]of the impoverished, and keep drugs illegal.
While I agree with some of what you wrote, and empathize deeply with the
plight of urban poor nowadays, I would have to say you are quite wrong.
Drug dealing does not work out for the vast majority of those who get
involved. I'm not saying I think drug dealing is wrong, but I do
not think the poor are actually better off dealing drugs in the current
environment than they would be in a post-legalization America.
The legal risks of drug dealing today are not comparable to those during
prohibition. The federal government's campaign against drugs has allowed
unprecedented police power and immunity to human rights law. It is
much more dangerous to deal now than it was back during alcohol prohibition,
and the powers that be have more leeway in damaging the lives of those
who it brings to ``justice'' -- this damage gets passed on to what there
is left of inner city community.
Reguardless of this risk, the poor are likely to deal anyway, and to keep
dealing as long as it takes them to find a steady lifestyle in some
other area. I can't blame them for this -- the conditions they live
under are inhumane. The black market drug business is not infinitely
sustainable, though. Especially with current Drug War policies adding
expense and waste on the public's tax bill, drug dealing is a dead-end
prospect. In today's world, the Drug War sucks funds from public education,
community development, and other important services. In fact I would go
so far as to say that the drain of Drug War dollars is putting such a strain
on the already flimsy middle-class economy, that their just may come a day
when there will be nothing left but poor people trying to sell drugs to
each other.
As long as prohibition continues the situation gets worse -- for
everybody but the politicians and seizure-happy police. Legalize drugs.
Brian
--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,>
S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ {
415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu |____________ `--~ ;
\_,-__/
Richard Liblanc
>In article <meg0m...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> fa...@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>>In article <greg.n.smith...@daytonoh.ncr.com> greg.n...@daytonoh.ncr.com (Greg Smith) writes:
>>>
>>>I don't see drive-by shootings occuring as a result of Coffee or Diet Pepsi
>>>addiction.
>>
>>You would if they were illegal. You did when alcohol was illegal.
>
>My grandfather used to make wine during prohibition, and had ramped up to
>about 20,000 gallons in 1925, or so he claims. What little money my family
>has came originally from his illicit activities, and without them, I probably
>would not have the education which serves me in good stead. I think that
>with this background, I can talk a little bit about the illicit drug industry
>today, which is almost identical to the alcohol industry during prohibition.
>
> Drug dealing is a cottage industry. There are a lot of folks out there
>in the slums and the ghettos who have no hope in life, and no possibility
>of ever making enough money to better themselves. Drug dealing lets them
>do this. We are talking about people who really don't care about the risk,
>and who don't care about dying, because they know that it's worth it for
>what is probably the only possibility of their ever getting out of grinding
>poverty.
Until they try their stuff, get addicted, spend their money buying more than
end up mugging old ladies for 30 $ and a lipstick.
[Ok..ok..that's a very cliche and simplistic story but heh..]
>
> If you make drugs legal, and make them easily available, many of these
>people will no longer be able to make drug profits. The drug profits will
>be diverted from the hungry and the needy, into the already-deep pockets
>of rich bankers. Keep open the one ray of hope in the lives of many
>of the impoverished, and keep drugs illegal.
>--scott
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Ah, well, at least rich-bankers pay their taxes.. (almost :) )...
--
..........Richard Liblanc (lib...@info.polymtl.ca )...............
"There's a sucker born every minute."
"...And they die about that fast too..."
-Grimtooth