The Drug Test on the Other Foot
Nancy Lebovitz
urine testing) for all students who take part in extra-curricular
activities at school is constitutional because the tests are "not
intrusive" and because, even if there's no evidence of a serious
drug problem among the students to be tested, drugs are an important
hazard.
I wonder how they'd feel about it if they were to be tested. After
all, they've ruled (ok, 5 of them agreed) that the tests aren't
intrusive. While we don't have evidence that any of the judges
use illegal drugs, the seriousness of the national drug problem
should override that consideration.
In a previous case, Ginsberg (who didn't support this ruling) wrote
that testing student athletes was acceptable because they might
be dangerous while participating in a sport. Surely, a Supreme Court
Judge whose mental focus is compromised can cause a great deal
more damage than a high school football player can, especially
considering the number of 5/4 decisions.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com 100 new slogans
I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory.
Michael R Weholt
news:wGZS8.905$mp2.5...@newshog.newsread.com:
> The Supreme Court has recently ruled that drug testing (in
> particular, urine testing) for all students who take part in
> extra-curricular activities at school is constitutional because
> the tests are "not intrusive" and because, even if there's no
> evidence of a serious drug problem among the students to be
> tested, drugs are an important hazard.
>
> I wonder how they'd feel about it if they were to be tested. After
> all, they've ruled (ok, 5 of them agreed) that the tests aren't
> intrusive. While we don't have evidence that any of the judges
> use illegal drugs, the seriousness of the national drug problem
> should override that consideration.
>
> In a previous case, Ginsberg (who didn't support this ruling)
> wrote that testing student athletes was acceptable because they
> might be dangerous while participating in a sport. Surely, a
> Supreme Court Judge whose mental focus is compromised can cause a
> great deal more damage than a high school football player can,
> especially considering the number of 5/4 decisions.
I had thoughts along this line as well, but I believe the response
would be that the after-school activities are "opt-in". That is,
since they are activities you are not required to participate in
(never mind that, or so they say, many colleges look at your record
of extra-curricular activities when deciding whether to admit you),
you are, essentially, opting in to the drug testing if you opt in to
the e-c activity.
Having said that, I believe this particular case is just a step
along the road to permitting drug-testing of all students, any time,
anywhere. We really are moving toward the moment when students are
openly acknowledged to be the parental/societal chattel that they
are now only secretly seen as. I wish that wasn't the case, but
having said *that*, and at the risk of being accused of wishing for
the worst case so the dialectics of history will come crashing down
on our heads and thereby save the day, it seems to me the bright
side is that the more of this sort of crap they dump on Kids Today,
the closer we come to the time when the student activism of the 60s
is reborn. With a vengence. I'd love to see Kids Today finally get
so fed up that they, you know, rise up and take back the streets.
The other thing is... I'd like to see the hipper parents of the
nation join together and form local, completely private afterschool
organizations for kids to participate in... drama clubs, choirs,
chess clubs, etc., to not just supplement but actually replace the
e-c organizations sponsored by the schools. Organizations that
actually treat kids like human beings. It would be a struggle, but
I'd rather enjoy seeing the local high schools emptying out at
3:00pm everyday while the kids head for a place, off-campus, where
they would be treated with some sort of respect.
--
mrw
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
> The Supreme Court has recently ruled that drug testing (in particular,
> urine testing) for all students who take part in extra-curricular
> activities at school is constitutional because the tests are "not
> intrusive" and because, even if there's no evidence of a serious
> drug problem among the students to be tested, drugs are an important
> hazard.
There are kids in the USA who think jails and prisons are a lot more
relaxed and laid back than the schools they attend. The USA has no
obvious mechanism for protecting human rights. In fact human rights are
not really part of the official vocabulary. I say test politicians on a
regular basis. Starting with you know who.
Gregory
Nancy Lebovitz
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>na...@unix1.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in
>news:wGZS8.905$mp2.5...@newshog.newsread.com:
>
>> The Supreme Court has recently ruled that drug testing (in
>> particular, urine testing) for all students who take part in
>> extra-curricular activities at school is constitutional because
>> the tests are "not intrusive" and because, even if there's no
>> evidence of a serious drug problem among the students to be
>> tested, drugs are an important hazard.
>>
>> I wonder how they'd feel about it if they were to be tested. After
>> all, they've ruled (ok, 5 of them agreed) that the tests aren't
>> intrusive. While we don't have evidence that any of the judges
>> use illegal drugs, the seriousness of the national drug problem
>> should override that consideration.
>>
>> In a previous case, Ginsberg (who didn't support this ruling)
>> wrote that testing student athletes was acceptable because they
>> might be dangerous while participating in a sport. Surely, a
>> Supreme Court Judge whose mental focus is compromised can cause a
>> great deal more damage than a high school football player can,
>> especially considering the number of 5/4 decisions.
More generally, I find it interesting that, even though high-
status people get a lot of authority (and frequently a lot of
money as well) because they are making Very Important Decisions,
no one seems to be pushing for drug tests for them.
>
>I had thoughts along this line as well, but I believe the response
>would be that the after-school activities are "opt-in". That is,
The Supreme Court is "opt-in".
>since they are activities you are not required to participate in
>(never mind that, or so they say, many colleges look at your record
>of extra-curricular activities when deciding whether to admit you),
>you are, essentially, opting in to the drug testing if you opt in to
>the e-c activity.
>
>Having said that, I believe this particular case is just a step
>along the road to permitting drug-testing of all students, any time,
>anywhere. We really are moving toward the moment when students are
>openly acknowledged to be the parental/societal chattel that they
>are now only secretly seen as. I wish that wasn't the case, but
I wouldn't say that it's very secret.
>having said *that*, and at the risk of being accused of wishing for
>the worst case so the dialectics of history will come crashing down
>on our heads and thereby save the day, it seems to me the bright
>side is that the more of this sort of crap they dump on Kids Today,
>the closer we come to the time when the student activism of the 60s
>is reborn. With a vengence. I'd love to see Kids Today finally get
Damfino.
>so fed up that they, you know, rise up and take back the streets.
>
The interesting thing is that being a minor is being in a defined
low-status group that one will almost certainly get out of.
>The other thing is... I'd like to see the hipper parents of the
>nation join together and form local, completely private afterschool
>organizations for kids to participate in... drama clubs, choirs,
>chess clubs, etc., to not just supplement but actually replace the
>e-c organizations sponsored by the schools. Organizations that
>actually treat kids like human beings. It would be a struggle, but
>I'd rather enjoy seeing the local high schools emptying out at
>3:00pm everyday while the kids head for a place, off-campus, where
>they would be treated with some sort of respect.
Would that need a voucher program?
Michael R Weholt
> In article <Xns923B6856B88...@166.84.1.70>,
> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>na...@unix1.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in
>>news:wGZS8.905$mp2.5...@newshog.newsread.com:
>> [...]
>>> I wonder how [the Supremes]'d feel about it if they were to be
>>> tested. After all, they've ruled (ok, 5 of them agreed) that the
>>> tests aren't intrusive. While we don't have evidence that any of
>>> the judges use illegal drugs, the seriousness of the national
>>> drug problem should override that consideration.
> [...]
> More generally, I find it interesting that, even though high-
> status people get a lot of authority (and frequently a lot of
> money as well) because they are making Very Important Decisions,
> no one seems to be pushing for drug tests for them.
>>
>>I had thoughts along this line as well, but I believe the response
>>would be that the after-school activities are "opt-in". That is,
>
> The Supreme Court is "opt-in".
Right, but I wasn't giving the Real Answer; I was opining what the
response would be.
The Real Answer is that "We have power and you don't."
[...]
>>The other thing is... I'd like to see the hipper parents of the
>>nation join together and form local, completely private
>>afterschool organizations for kids to participate in... drama
>>clubs, choirs, chess clubs, etc., to not just supplement but
>>actually replace the e-c organizations sponsored by the schools.
>>Organizations that actually treat kids like human beings. It would
>>be a struggle, but I'd rather enjoy seeing the local high schools
>>emptying out at 3:00pm everyday while the kids head for a place,
>>off-campus, where they would be treated with some sort of respect.
>
> Would that need a voucher program?
I think it would fail the qualifying test. I think you have to be a
state sponsored Sunday School with some biology and math thrown in.
Here's the thing I can't figure out. If the children of poor parents
ought to have the same access the children of rich parents have to
private schools, how come the children of poor parents shouldn't
have the same access the children of rich parents have to high
quality medical care?
--
mrw
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Here's the thing I can't figure out. If the children of poor parents
> ought to have the same access the children of rich parents have to
> private schools, how come the children of poor parents shouldn't
> have the same access the children of rich parents have to high
> quality medical care?
Because there is no enormous pool of public health care
money the corporations and churches can highjack for their
own gain, like the pool of public school funds. "Follow the
money."
--
Michael J. Lowrey
in Milwaukee, home of vouchers and public school cutbacks
Priscilla H. Ballou
> nation join together and form local, completely private afterschool
> organizations for kids to participate in... drama clubs, choirs,
> chess clubs, etc., to not just supplement but actually replace the
> e-c organizations sponsored by the schools. Organizations that
> actually treat kids like human beings. It would be a struggle, but
> I'd rather enjoy seeing the local high schools emptying out at
> 3:00pm everyday while the kids head for a place, off-campus, where
> they would be treated with some sort of respect.
They'd have to be the "hipper rich parents."
Priscilla
--
"Love is not something wonderful that you feel; it is something
difficult that you do." -- Elizabeth Goudge
David G. Bell
dangerous drugs, but not for the presence of dangerous teaching.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
David G. Bell
<Xns923B6856B88...@166.84.1.70>
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" wrote:
[drug-testing element snipped, funny-once line in another article]
> The other thing is... I'd like to see the hipper parents of the
> nation join together and form local, completely private afterschool
> organizations for kids to participate in... drama clubs, choirs,
> chess clubs, etc., to not just supplement but actually replace the
> e-c organizations sponsored by the schools. Organizations that
> actually treat kids like human beings. It would be a struggle, but
> I'd rather enjoy seeing the local high schools emptying out at
> 3:00pm everyday while the kids head for a place, off-campus, where
> they would be treated with some sort of respect.
OK, I'm not in the USA, but this can't be a universal solution. In
rural areas, getting the kids to and from these activities is a non-
trivial problem. But I would suggest that the oppressive organising
ability of a school does at least allow kids doing different activities
to finish in the same place and time, and share travel home.
Whether a school is that clued in is another issue.
Neil Belsky
"Nancy Lebovitz" <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:wGZS8.905$mp2.5...@newshog.newsread.com...
> The Supreme Court has recently ruled that drug testing (in particular,
> urine testing) for all students who take part in extra-curricular
> activities at school is constitutional because the tests are "not
> intrusive" and because, even if there's no evidence of a serious
> drug problem among the students to be tested, drugs are an important
> hazard.
> Nancy Lebovitz
the same mentality that takes the doors off the stalls of lavatories.
Neil
--
"Dear Anna,
I miss you very much.
I wish I had,
Some of your blood"
Theodore Sturgeon
O Deus
> The Supreme Court has recently ruled that drug testing (in particular,
> urine testing) for all students who take part in extra-curricular
> activities at school is constitutional because the tests are "not
> intrusive" and because, even if there's no evidence of a serious
> drug problem among the students to be tested, drugs are an important
> hazard.
>
> I wonder how they'd feel about it if they were to be tested. After
> all, they've ruled (ok, 5 of them agreed) that the tests aren't
> intrusive. While we don't have evidence that any of the judges
> use illegal drugs, the seriousness of the national drug problem
> should override that consideration.
It would be constitutional. There's just no compelling statistical
data on drug use among supreme court justices that makes such a policy
necesarry, as there is with high school students.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
Lebovitz) wrote:
>The Supreme Court has recently ruled that drug testing (in particular,
>urine testing) for all students who take part in extra-curricular
>activities at school is constitutional because the tests are "not
>intrusive" and because, even if there's no evidence of a serious
>drug problem among the students to be tested, drugs are an important
>hazard.
Extra-curricular activities are near-mandatory for those who want to
go on to college because of the demand for "well-roundedness."
(Consider a perfectly spherical student with interests equally spaced
in all directions.)
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Arthur D. Hlavaty
<oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>Michael R Weholt wrote:
>>
>> Here's the thing I can't figure out. If the children of poor parents
>> ought to have the same access the children of rich parents have to
>> private schools, how come the children of poor parents shouldn't
>> have the same access the children of rich parents have to high
>> quality medical care?
>
>Because there is no enormous pool of public health care
>money the corporations and churches can highjack for their
>own gain, like the pool of public school funds. "Follow the
>money."
And yet what most decisively turned me against vouchers was the idea
that education would be in the hands of the sort of people who run
insurance companies.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>It's strange that they're willing to test the kids for the presence of
>dangerous drugs, but not for the presence of dangerous teaching.
If they could, they would, though if it's like the drug tests, one's
effluent would test positive for Marxism after one had seen _A Night
at the Opera_.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
Lebovitz) wrote:
>The Supreme Court has recently ruled that drug testing (in particular,
>urine testing) for all students who take part in extra-curricular
>activities at school is constitutional because the tests are "not
>intrusive" and because, even if there's no evidence of a serious
>drug problem among the students to be tested, drugs are an important
>hazard.
>
>I wonder how they'd feel about it if they were to be tested. After
>all, they've ruled (ok, 5 of them agreed) that the tests aren't
>intrusive. While we don't have evidence that any of the judges
>use illegal drugs, the seriousness of the national drug problem
>should override that consideration.
>
>In a previous case, Ginsberg (who didn't support this ruling) wrote
>that testing student athletes was acceptable because they might
>be dangerous while participating in a sport. Surely, a Supreme Court
>Judge whose mental focus is compromised can cause a great deal
>more damage than a high school football player can, especially
>considering the number of 5/4 decisions.
A while back, Justice Rehnquist had a prescribed-drugs habit so bad
that he was mumbling incoherently on the bench. He eventually detoxed.
In the sort of crude symbolism that only the Great Black Humorist in
the Sky can get away with, the first decision he wrote after his
return affirmed a long long prison sentence for selling marijuana.
At around that time, Rep. Gary Ackerman won a place in my heart by
asking a government official testifying to the need to run drug tests
on government officials of lower rank to go to the men's room with a
sergeant at arms and take a piss test then and there. The official
declined.
Randolph Fritz
> Michael R Weholt wrote:
>>
>> Here's the thing I can't figure out. If the children of poor parents
>> ought to have the same access the children of rich parents have to
>> private schools, how come the children of poor parents shouldn't
>> have the same access the children of rich parents have to high
>> quality medical care?
>
> Because there is no enormous pool of public health care
> money the corporations and churches can highjack for their
> own gain, like the pool of public school funds. "Follow the
> money."
>
Nah, they already did it. (Consider the privatiazation of hospitals.)
Randolph
Keith F. Lynch
> I wonder how they'd feel about it if they were to be tested.
> After all, they've ruled (ok, 5 of them agreed) that the tests
> aren't intrusive.
That's about as likely as the Meese commission asking to be locked
up for the public's protection.
Remember them? They were the group who extensively studied lots of
pornography, and finally concluded that people who view a lot of it
are likely to be a danger to society. So why didn't they volunteer
to be locked up? Weren't they a danger to society?
> Surely, a Supreme Court Judge whose mental focus is compromised can
> cause a great deal more damage than a high school football player
> can, especially considering the number of 5/4 decisions.
I'd tell you how I felt, except that "contempt of court" is a serious
crime. So I'll take the fifth amendment.
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
> I had thoughts along this line as well, but I believe the response
> would be that the after-school activities are "opt-in".
The same argument is made about the intrusiveness of obligations put
on motorists. (Licensing, having to carry papers, being subject to
warrantless searches, etc.) "Driving is a privilege, not a right."
Which is one reason I've opted out of being a motorist.
> Having said that, I believe this particular case is just a step
> along the road to permitting drug-testing of all students, any time,
> anywhere.
And not just students.
They already have warrantless sobriety checkpoints for motorists.
In a few years, genetic engineering will make it possible to produce
almost any drug in almost any plant or animal. Then the government's
only alternative to giving up the drug war would be to test everyone.
Remember, you heard it here first. (Unless you didn't.)
Too bad such tests have false positives.
Does it really make sense to give drug test with 1% false positive
rate to a population of whom one in ten thousand uses illegal drugs?
99% of the positives will be false. 99% of the people locked up as
drug users will be completely innocent.
> ... at the risk of being accused of wishing for the worst case so
> the dialectics of history will come crashing down on our heads and
> thereby save the day,
I've wondered how many of the really over-the-top government policies
were engineered by opponents of such policies hoping to engender some
kind of revolt.
But what kind could work? A march on Washington with deer rifles and
shotguns? That won't work. An election? Of which party? Both major
parties favor continuing and escalating the drug war. And no third
party can win, since hardly anyone votes for them, lest they "waste"
their vote. (As if a vote for someone terrible is not wasted if they
win.)
I wish we could at least get politicians who still believe in the drug
war to name some kind of timetable. They think it's winnable? Fine.
Let them name a year they're certain it will have been won by. Let
them agree that they will "surrender" and try freedom for a change if
the drug war hasn't been "won" by then.
It's not winnable. Drugs are widely available in prison. To win the
drug war, they'd have to make the whole of the US more draconian and
locked down than a maximum security penitentiary. Even if that were
possible, is amputation really an appropriate treatment for a hangail?
> it seems to me the bright side is that the more of this sort of crap
> they dump on Kids Today, the closer we come to the time when the
> student activism of the 60s is reborn. With a vengence.
I don't know what causes activism. It's not just draconian
conditions, or there would have been a lot more activism in *really*
horrible societies, like Stalin's Russia.
> I'd love to see Kids Today finally get so fed up that they, you
> know, rise up and take back the streets.
These are the kids who have had Socialist inSecurity numbers since
birth, and who are wearing school uniforms, and often attending
sex-segregated schools?
> I'd like to see the hipper parents of the nation join together and
> form local, completely private afterschool organizations for kids
> to participate in...
You know what happens to adults who hang around with children. The
law does not treat them kindly. Neither do their fellow prisoners.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Jo Walton
>In article <Xns923B6856B88...@166.84.1.70>,
> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> The other thing is... I'd like to see the hipper parents of the
>> nation join together and form local, completely private afterschool
>> organizations for kids to participate in... drama clubs, choirs,
>> chess clubs, etc., to not just supplement but actually replace the
>> e-c organizations sponsored by the schools. Organizations that
>> actually treat kids like human beings. It would be a struggle, but
>> I'd rather enjoy seeing the local high schools emptying out at
>> 3:00pm everyday while the kids head for a place, off-campus, where
>> they would be treated with some sort of respect.
>
>They'd have to be the "hipper rich parents."
And non-working, to organise something at 15h00.
And good at getting other parents to believe they weren't pedophiles.
And able to fulfil lots of petty regulations for their venue, you can't
just run that stuff in your barn.
Having said that I am 100% in favour of what Michael's saying, I just
think about doing it and the practical difficulties hit me like a rake
I just stepped on.
--
Jo I kissed a kif at Kefk blu...@vif.com
*THE KING'S NAME* out now, *THE KING'S PEACE* paperback out in August,
*THE PRIZE IN THE GAME* due out in November, all from Tor.
Poetry, map, etc. at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk (new web page soon)
David G. Bell
<amtphukfa85c0d8t7...@4ax.com>
hla...@panix.com "Arthur D. Hlavaty" wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:41:38 +0100 (BST), db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk
> ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
> >It's strange that they're willing to test the kids for the presence of
> >dangerous drugs, but not for the presence of dangerous teaching.
>
> If they could, they would, though if it's like the drug tests, one's
> effluent would test positive for Marxism after one had seen _A Night
> at the Opera_.
RASFF Award with spectacles, fake nose, and moustache.
Nancy Lebovitz
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>kind of revolt.
>
>But what kind could work? A march on Washington with deer rifles and
>shotguns? That won't work. An election? Of which party? Both major
>parties favor continuing and escalating the drug war. And no third
>party can win, since hardly anyone votes for them, lest they "waste"
>their vote. (As if a vote for someone terrible is not wasted if they
>win.)
Perhaps a big letter-writing and demonstration campaign to convince
mainstream politicians that they wouldn't be committing political
suicide if they moderated the drug laws?
Unfortunately, at this point I think the majority is still in favor
of keeping many drugs illegal, but it would be relatively easy
to put together a campaign in favor of medical marijuana and at least
conceivable to push of legalization of owning small amounts of
marijuana. [1]
I was disgusted with Harry Browne (past libertarian candidate for
president) for framing his drug plank around "of course, none of
the people listening to me would ever take an illegal drug, but...".
Imho, you could get some interesting political results with a
"get your relatives out of jail" platform.
[1] I find the anti-commerce premise of "ok, people can own small
amounts, but dealing is evil" profoundly irritating, but I don't
think the world agrees with me.
Steve Smith
> It would be constitutional. There's just no compelling statistical
> data on drug use among supreme court justices that makes such a policy
> necesarry, as there is with high school students.
Egg, meet chicken. Chicken, meet egg. Neither's breathing hard, let
alone coming first.
No data because nobody's looked for it. For all we know, the plumbing
in the SuprememCourt has to be gimmicked to keep it from exploding.
--
Steve Smith s...@aginc.net
Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Del Cotter
Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> said:
>db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>It's strange that they're willing to test the kids for the presence of
>>dangerous drugs, but not for the presence of dangerous teaching.
>
>If they could, they would, though if it's like the drug tests, one's
>effluent would test positive for Marxism after one had seen _A Night
>at the Opera_.
*snrk*
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:e:TerryPratchettTheTruth:JeromeKJeromeThreeMenInABoat:WilliamGo
ldmanThePrincessBride:AlastairReynoldsRevelationSpace:GregEganQuarantine
ToRead:KimStanleyRobinsonTheYearsOfRice&Salt:BenJeapesHisMajesty'sStarsh
Keith F. Lynch
> Unfortunately, at this point I think the majority is still in favor
> of keeping many drugs illegal, but it would be relatively easy to
In DC they're currently trying to get enough signatures to get medical
marijuana on the ballot. They have only until July 7th, which is next
weekend. See http://www.mpp.org/dcinitiative/
> I was disgusted with Harry Browne (past libertarian candidate for
> president) for framing his drug plank around "of course, none of
> the people listening to me would ever take an illegal drug, but...".
I suppose it's marginally better than the common assumption that
anyone who wants to legalize marijuana is a pothead.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>> it seems to me the bright side is that the more of this sort of crap
>> they dump on Kids Today, the closer we come to the time when the
>> student activism of the 60s is reborn. With a vengence.
>
>I don't know what causes activism. It's not just draconian
>conditions, or there would have been a lot more activism in *really*
>horrible societies, like Stalin's Russia.
There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
"When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
them bad, they revolt."
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Steve Smith
> More generally, I find it interesting that, even though high-
> status people get a lot of authority (and frequently a lot of
> money as well) because they are making Very Important Decisions,
> no one seems to be pushing for drug tests for them.
Hmm. Look at top business and Government types. They all think they're
little tin gods, able to get away with just about anything. They assume
that nobody will notice, because they're so much smarter than everybody
else. In reality, their "policies" are crude patches on last quarter's
patches; eventually the whole thing collapses of its own weight. Along
with this, they have a severe paranoia; anybody who disagrees with them
is assumed to be Evil; Evil is just around the corner anyway.
Looks like cocaine abuse to me. Test 'em.
--
Steve Smith s...@aginc.net
Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net
"Drop your zipper for the Gipper." -- Abbie Hoffman, on Reagan's
drug testing program for government workers.
Steve Smith
> [1] I find the anti-commerce premise of "ok, people can own small
> amounts, but dealing is evil" profoundly irritating, but I don't
> think the world agrees with me.
Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it wouldn't
work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first time somebody
freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug dealer is going to get
sued right out of business.
I suppose a "don't be an idiot" clause in a drug legalization law isn't
a possibility -- too many repercussions in other areas.
--
Steve Smith s...@aginc.net
Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
> "When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
> them bad, they revolt."
Machiavelli said something like that. Only in Italian, of course.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Nancy Lebovitz
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> More generally, I find it interesting that, even though high-
>> status people get a lot of authority (and frequently a lot of
>> money as well) because they are making Very Important Decisions,
>> no one seems to be pushing for drug tests for them.
>
>Hmm. Look at top business and Government types. They all think they're
>little tin gods, able to get away with just about anything. They assume
>that nobody will notice, because they're so much smarter than everybody
>else. In reality, their "policies" are crude patches on last quarter's
>patches; eventually the whole thing collapses of its own weight. Along
>with this, they have a severe paranoia; anybody who disagrees with them
>is assumed to be Evil; Evil is just around the corner anyway.
>
>Looks like cocaine abuse to me. Test 'em.
Enron might plausibly be considered cocaine-flavored megalomania,
especially considering how high-energy it all was.
I get the impression that most high-level malfeasance is more based
in the fairly rational belief that people like oneself aren't likely
to get punished. On the the other hand, there might be a smug
sloppiness about it all that suggests alcoholism.
On the other hand, people who push for drug testing ought to be
tested as a simple matter of justice. They don't wait for evidence,
and neither should we.
Nancy Lebovitz
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> [1] I find the anti-commerce premise of "ok, people can own small
>> amounts, but dealing is evil" profoundly irritating, but I don't
>> think the world agrees with me.
>
>Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it wouldn't
>work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first time somebody
>freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug dealer is going to get
>sued right out of business.
Possibly, though people have managed to find ways to sell moderately
dangerous things, even in the US.
>I suppose a "don't be an idiot" clause in a drug legalization law isn't
>a possibility -- too many repercussions in other areas.
Oh well, we can look at it as encouraging individual initiative
and creativity. Look what Probihition did for home brewing.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> [1] I find the anti-commerce premise of "ok, people can own small
>> amounts, but dealing is evil" profoundly irritating, but I don't
>> think the world agrees with me.
>
>Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it wouldn't
>work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first time somebody
>freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug dealer is going to get
>sued right out of business.
The way Anheuser-Busch and Jack Daniels have been sued right
out of business?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Mary Kay
> Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, at this point I think the majority is still in favor
> > of keeping many drugs illegal, but it would be relatively easy to
> > put together a campaign in favor of medical marijuana ...
>
> In DC they're currently trying to get enough signatures to get medical
> marijuana on the ballot. They have only until July 7th, which is next
> weekend. See http://www.mpp.org/dcinitiative/
>
Won't do'em much good. California passed a medical marijuana law and
the Feds just keep busting them.
MKK
Steven desJardins
It'll do us less good than that. DC passed a medical marijuana bill a
few years ago, and Congress passed a law saying we weren't allowed to
count the votes. Eventually, that got overturned, but they simply
stopped the law from taking effect. There's a reason our license
plates say "Taxation Without Representation".
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
snip
>Having said that, I believe this particular case is just a step
>along the road to permitting drug-testing of all students, any time,
>anywhere. We really are moving toward the moment when students are
>openly acknowledged to be the parental/societal chattel that they
>are now only secretly seen as.
Agreed. It's appalling. I'm glad my own Offspring is 3 years away
from being 18.
>I wish that wasn't the case, but
>having said *that*, and at the risk of being accused of wishing for
>the worst case so the dialectics of history will come crashing down
>on our heads and thereby save the day, it seems to me the bright
>side is that the more of this sort of crap they dump on Kids Today,
>the closer we come to the time when the student activism of the 60s
>is reborn. With a vengence. I'd love to see Kids Today finally get
>so fed up that they, you know, rise up and take back the streets.
It's happening.
I work with some kids who are in danger of having the program that
many of them have dedicated many hours to (and building significant
extracurricular leadership histories in) yanked out from under them
because the county has cut the funding for it. It's 4-H, btw, and
these are kids in Multnomah County. Mostly urban, many kids are in
science-related or small animals projects. The county cut Extension
and 4-H out of the budget this year.
The kids who actually attended the budget hearing are riled.
Especially when they had another group of special-interest kids mock
them (fortunately, our kids didn't rise to that, though morbid jokes
were being made about "Hey, I need to testify that I was going to
shoot heroin, but then I realized my 4-H leader wouldn't let me!").
Especially when they heard testimony on agencies complaining because
they had to take cuts in their programs.
It's not just that these kids are losing 4-H. It's also that these
same kids are seeing all the extracurricular programs they're
interested in--not the athletic programs but the arts and music and
extra science--getting cut at their schools. The parks budget is
getting cut.
Meanwhile, more money is getting spent on jails and prisons. There's
less interest in programs which *prevent* problems; only more interest
in control and punishment.
I'm about ready to volunteer as an adult willing to teach the kids the
ropes of political involvement.
>The other thing is... I'd like to see the hipper parents of the
>nation join together and form local, completely private afterschool
>organizations for kids to participate in... drama clubs, choirs,
>chess clubs, etc., to not just supplement but actually replace the
>e-c organizations sponsored by the schools. Organizations that
>actually treat kids like human beings. It would be a struggle, but
>I'd rather enjoy seeing the local high schools emptying out at
>3:00pm everyday while the kids head for a place, off-campus, where
>they would be treated with some sort of respect.
Those types of programs--like 4-H--do exist, if you know where to
look.
But they're getting cut.
Teaches the little geeks to be leaders, y'know? And, let's face it,
as a former 4-Her and parent and leader to current 4-Hers, 4-H is
heavy on geeks. Some of them may be rural, but those kids showing
beeves on the hooves and bringing home purple ribbons are probably of
the geekish sort. It was that way 30 years ago and it's that way now.
Shudder. 30 years ago...I'm getting old.
jrw
Nancy Lebovitz
This kind of fight isn't necessarily won on the first try.
I do find the government's opposition to medical marijuana puzzling--
I can see why they want severe drug laws since there's money in building
and staffing prisons, but permitting medical marijuana would be extra
bureaucracy.
Randolph Fritz
>
> These folks are trying to maintain a social system which is now actively
> harmful at current tech levels; it was pretty decent once, but they're
> doing their damndest to maintain a constancy of oppression. The more
> material progress there is or might be, the more oppression they're
> going to produce in response until decisively defeated.
>
"The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to
further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on
the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by
which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters,
they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the
existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society
are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does
the bourgeoisie get over these crises? One the one hand, by enforced
destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the
conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the
old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and
more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises
are prevented."--yoknowwhat, youknowwho, 1848
O Deus
> O Deus wrote:
>
> > It would be constitutional. There's just no compelling statistical
> > data on drug use among supreme court justices that makes such a policy
> > necesarry, as there is with high school students.
>
> Egg, meet chicken. Chicken, meet egg. Neither's breathing hard, let
> alone coming first.
> No data because nobody's looked for it. For all we know, the plumbing
> in the SuprememCourt has to be gimmicked to keep it from exploding.
Possibly but so far there is no existing public health crisis or crime
wave that screams for an investigation. e.g. we have a shortage of
SCOTUS justices engaging in drive by shootings or dying of drug
overdoses. The same cannot be said for high school students.
Of course we could indeed begin gathering data perhaps by sending out
an anonymous confidential questionare to current and past Justicies.
Perhaps we could broaden the base by sending it to all Federal Judges,
rather than just Supremers. It could include question such as...
1. Have you been late to work at least once a week due to recreational
drug abuse?
2. Do other people tell you that you are abusing recreational drugs?
3. Do you feel that your drug use has caused you problems in your
social relationships and job performance?
4. Have there been one or more days when you were unable to remember
whether you had written the minority or majority report?...and so
on...
Once there's a statistical baseline produced by these questionares, a
commission can be formed to evaluate the results and determine when
they require further intervention and prevention and what form,
possibly drug tests, it should take.
O Deus
> Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, at this point I think the majority is still in favor
> > of keeping many drugs illegal, but it would be relatively easy to
> > put together a campaign in favor of medical marijuana ...
>
> In DC they're currently trying to get enough signatures to get medical
> marijuana on the ballot. They have only until July 7th, which is next
> weekend. See http://www.mpp.org/dcinitiative/
-------Insert Marion Barry joke here--------
> > I was disgusted with Harry Browne (past libertarian candidate for
> > president) for framing his drug plank around "of course, none of
> > the people listening to me would ever take an illegal drug, but...".
>
> I suppose it's marginally better than the common assumption that
> anyone who wants to legalize marijuana is a pothead.
Or a former Cheers star...
O Deus
> It's strange that they're willing to test the kids for the presence of
> dangerous drugs, but not for the presence of dangerous teaching.
Dogma has a much lower addiction rate than most drugs.
O Deus
> And yet what most decisively turned me against vouchers was the idea
> that education would be in the hands of the sort of people who run
> insurance companies.
As opposed to now when it's the hands of the same sort of people who run the DMV.
O. Deus
>In article <1fejyuj.10u7l7u1p4s1ycN%mar...@kare.ws>,
>>Won't do'em much good. California passed a medical marijuana law and
>>the Feds just keep busting them.
>I do find the government's opposition to medical marijuana puzzling--
>I can see why they want severe drug laws since there's money in building
>and staffing prisons, but permitting medical marijuana would be extra
>bureaucracy.
Because there is no such thing as medical marijuana. It's a ploy to legalize
one drug, which is naturally seen as a foot in the door for legalizing more
drugs. And once pot is legal, the essential anti-drug argument will be out
the window, along with any remaining moral high ground on the subject. And
that would turn us into Amsterdam.
O. Deus
>I get the impression that most high-level malfeasance is more based
>in the fairly rational belief that people like oneself aren't likely
>to get punished. On the the other hand, there might be a smug
>sloppiness about it all that suggests alcoholism.
Actually it would more accurately be "All malfeasance" regardless of whether
it's a billionaire or a carjacker. The base criminal mentality is the same.
As is the contempt for authority and for their victims.
David G. Bell
<1fekaoi.5ij3qt14h6vtuN%ada...@despammed.com>
ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>
> > There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
> > "When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
> > them bad, they revolt."
>
> Machiavelli said something like that. Only in Italian, of course.
Better to be feared than hated is one of Machiavelli's, isn't it.
O Deus
> Here's the thing I can't figure out. If the children of poor parents
> ought to have the same access the children of rich parents have to
> private schools, how come the children of poor parents shouldn't
> have the same access the children of rich parents have to high
> quality medical care?
Because religion hospitals have far less trouble getting government
funding than religious schools do. Apparently seperation of church and
state is a less compelling issue when people are dying than when
children are being denied a decent education./
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
>Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it wouldn't
>work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first time somebody
>freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug dealer is going to get
>sued right out of business.
So why don't the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks get sued out of
business?
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> On Saturday, in article
> <1fekaoi.5ij3qt14h6vtuN%ada...@despammed.com>
> ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
>
> > Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
> >
> > > There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
> > > "When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
> > > them bad, they revolt."
> >
> > Machiavelli said something like that. Only in Italian, of course.
>
> Better to be feared than hated is one of Machiavelli's, isn't it.
I think as a motto it predates him. He would explain _why_, of course.
But he also explained how it's even better to get somebody else hated in
your place.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Those types of programs--like 4-H--do exist, if you know where to
> look.
Allright, I give up. What is 4-H?
David Langford
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>On Saturday, in article
> <1fekaoi.5ij3qt14h6vtuN%ada...@despammed.com>
> ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
>
>> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>>
>> > There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
>> > "When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
>> > them bad, they revolt."
>>
>> Machiavelli said something like that. Only in Italian, of course.
>
>Better to be feared than hated is one of Machiavelli's, isn't it.
Predates him by a long way. I'm sure I looked this one up and posted
something when it last came around ... let's see ... yes, September 2001:
>It was the Roman poet/playwright Lucius Accius (170-c90 BC), in his
>=Atreus=: "Oderint, dum metuant" -- let them hate [me], so long as they
>fear [me]. Cicero admired the line and Caligula really loved it.
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.co.uk/
Del Cotter
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> said:
>ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
>> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>> > There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
>> > "When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
>> > them bad, they revolt."
>>
>> Machiavelli said something like that. Only in Italian, of course.
>
>Better to be feared than hated is one of Machiavelli's, isn't it.
No, "oderint, dum metuant" is much older than that.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:e:TerryPratchettTheTruth:JeromeKJeromeThreeMenInABoat:WilliamGo
ldmanThePrincessBride:AlastairReynoldsRevelationSpace:GregEganQuarantine
ToRead:KimStanleyRobinsonTheYearsOfRice&Salt:BenJeapesHisMajesty'sStarsh
Arthur D. Hlavaty
Perhaps, but there are some awful overdose problems. Maybe we can tie
this to the liability part of the thread: "These people killed Matthew
Shepard because you sold them some off-brand Christianity that made
them hate gays."
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Arthur D. Hlavaty
I didn't say "good"; I just said "better."
David G. Bell
<1fel9k9.l37rzt164x4aiN%ada...@despammed.com>
ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
> "David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, in article
> > <1fekaoi.5ij3qt14h6vtuN%ada...@despammed.com>
> > ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
> >
> > > Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
> > > > "When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
> > > > them bad, they revolt."
> > >
> > > Machiavelli said something like that. Only in Italian, of course.
> >
> > Better to be feared than hated is one of Machiavelli's, isn't it.
>
> I think as a motto it predates him. He would explain _why_, of course.
> But he also explained how it's even better to get somebody else hated in
> your place.
Either somebody in the Bush gang has read Machiavelli, and suggested
Ashcroft, or they all think Machiavelli sold ice-cream in Glasgow.
David G. Bell
<tnithu0mqtl4nrt8j...@4ax.com>
ans...@cix.co.uk "David Langford" wrote:
Yes, but that's not quite the same thing. Machiavelli is pretty
definite that being _hated_ is a bad thing for a Prince. I don't recall
if he mentions Caligula, but any educated man of Machiavelli's time
would probably recognise that Emperor as an example of the sort of
behaviour that Machiavelli was warning against.
Anyway, see The Prince, XVII, Cruelty and Compassion.
Kip Williams
>
>
>>Those types of programs--like 4-H--do exist, if you know where to
>>look.
>
>
> Allright, I give up. What is 4-H?
Sort of a "Future Ranchers of America" organization where school
kids participate in farm activities. Raising animals and exhibiting
them at the county fair, that sort of thing.
The logo is a four-leaf clover with an H in each leaf. From when my
sisters were in the group, I recall dimly they stood for something
like "Health, Hearth, Heart and Home."
In the 70s, it seemed less likely that I'd be beaten up for having
long hair by a 4-H'er than I would from an FFA (Future Farmers of
America) member. FFA guys had big embroidered jackets -- gang
jackets, we used to call them -- and many were gifted with severe
attitude problems. (Their ornate jackets were apparently popular
with some segments of the gay community, who alleged that the first
F stood for "fist" and the second one for another well-known F word.)
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Well, it looks as though my time is up. The old clock on the wall
has melted." --Hugh "Wavy Gravy" Romney
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
snip
>Allright, I give up. What is 4-H?
Government-sponsored youth development program. Started out as a
means for improving agricultural education and integrating science and
scientific methods into both home economics and farming. Based in
competitive practice of real-life techniques. Branched out big time
and now includes natural science programs (forestry, geology,
entemology among others as well as traditional animal and small animal
programs), technology (everything from tractors to robots), leadership
development, record keeping, arts, etc.
Founded in excellent step/ability-based curricula which gets used a
lot by educators.
Basic concept is experiential learning by doing. Kids learn forestry
and geology by collecting specimens and writing observations.
Veternary science curriculum is based on observations of the kid's own
animal in a natural state (at least in book 1; my 4-Hers aren't into
book 2 yet, which covers disease). After the concepts have been
learned, then the kids need to express what they've learned--either
through handling and fitting competitions (livestock, horses, small
animals and dogs), exhibits of work done, educational posters, oral
presentations, etc.
That's just the traditional 4-H project curricula. Non-traditional
programs have short-term science projects in the schools, primarily in
the younger grades. There are also long-term wildlife steward
classes. And science education. And Hispanic outreach (importing not
just the project educational stuff but the youth leadership programs
as well). That's just what we have here in Oregon.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
snip
>Sort of a "Future Ranchers of America" organization where school
>kids participate in farm activities. Raising animals and exhibiting
>them at the county fair, that sort of thing.
Um, more to it that that, Kip.
I'm an urban 4-H leader...the biggest critter in my club is a rabbit.
Oops, I forgot the cats (but their owners won't show them).
Also do a lot of natural science and technology stuff with forestry,
aerospace, electrical energy and geology.
snip
>In the 70s, it seemed less likely that I'd be beaten up for having
>long hair by a 4-H'er than I would from an FFA (Future Farmers of
>America) member. FFA guys had big embroidered jackets -- gang
>jackets, we used to call them -- and many were gifted with severe
>attitude problems. (Their ornate jackets were apparently popular
>with some segments of the gay community, who alleged that the first
>F stood for "fist" and the second one for another well-known F word.)
Yep. While there was some crossover between the two groups, basically
(at least in my part of the country), 4-Hers were more of the geeks
and nerds while FFA was more the jockish crowd.
Not sure but I think at least part of it was 4-H's tighter code of
conduct stuff as well as methodology differences in how things were
taught.
FFA also tended to be centered in school ag classes while 4-Hers
weren't. Different track of kids.
jrw
Kip Williams
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 16:06:29 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>>Sort of a "Future Ranchers of America" organization where school
>>kids participate in farm activities. Raising animals and exhibiting
>>them at the county fair, that sort of thing.
>
>
> Um, more to it that that, Kip.
Yes, today's 4-H'ers are a pretty diverse breed.
Pardon the simplistic explanation. I was guessing a brief
recollection would do it.
Steve Smith
> I'm about ready to volunteer as an adult willing to teach the kids the
> ropes of political involvement.
A worthy aim by itself.
There seems to be a profound ignorance about how politics (especially
local politics) *really* works. If folks think of it at all, it usually
comes down to waving signs and yelling, or posting long semiliterate
screeds on the Net.
--
Steve Smith s...@aginc.net
Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Rachael Lininger
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:08:25 -0400, Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>
> >Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it wouldn't
> >work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first time somebody
> >freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug dealer is going to get
> >sued right out of business.
>
> So why don't the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks get sued out of
> business?
Didn't you read the EULA?
Rachael
--
Rachael From the Dilbert Newsletter:
Lininger "You should talk to her.
rachael@ She is a minefield of information."
daedala.net
Steve Smith
Does it now?
Try carrying an Israeli flag through you- know- where.
Steve Smith
> On the other hand, people who push for drug testing ought to be
> tested as a simple matter of justice. They don't wait for evidence,
> and neither should we.
Don't forget to put out a tray of nice poppyseed hamentashen a few hours
before the tests ....
The people support the tests assume that the tests are never wrong, and
since they never use drugs, they have nothing to worry about. Say
"false positive" to them, and you'll get nothing but a blank stare.
Steve Smith
> I do find the government's opposition to medical marijuana puzzling--
> I can see why they want severe drug laws since there's money in building
> and staffing prisons, but permitting medical marijuana would be extra
> bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, the Drug War mentality has evolved into a full- scale
"war" against anything that produces an altered state of consciousness.
Note that this isn't just chemicals -- it includes ecstatic religious
practices involving nothing more chemical than dancing and heavy
breathing.
Problem with medical marijuana is that people can get high on it. Ditto
medical heroin. Can't have that!
Steve Smith
> Oh well, we can look at it as encouraging individual initiative
> and creativity. Look what Probihition did for home brewing.
Bleah!
Recipe for "bathtub gin":
Put water in bathtub. Add 10-15 lbs of sugar. Add yeast. Let sit for
a few days. Drink.
Some people will do *anything* to get high.
Keith F. Lynch
> There seems to be a profound ignorance about how politics
> (especially local politics) *really* works. If folks think of it at
> all, it usually comes down to waving signs and yelling, or posting
> long semiliterate screeds on the Net.
Hey, it works for me!
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Steve Smith
>
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:08:25 -0400, Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>
> >Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it wouldn't
> >work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first time somebody
> >freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug dealer is going to get
> >sued right out of business.
>
> So why don't the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks get sued out of
> business?
Tradition. There are an awful lot of things around the house that
couldn't possibly get approved for sale if they were invented today.
Aspirin. Coffee. Drain cleaner. Paint thinner.
It's amusing to speculate what would happen nowadays if somebody tried
to get tobacco approved as an over- the- counter product. Bob Newhart
had a comedy routine about Sir Walter Raleigh trying to introduce
tobacco to England. ("You do *what* with it???")
Robert Sneddon
writes
>
>Tradition. There are an awful lot of things around the house that
>couldn't possibly get approved for sale if they were invented today.
>Aspirin. Coffee. Drain cleaner. Paint thinner.
And jobs, like coal miner or deep-sea fishermen. If the Health and
Safety regs weren't jiggered to grandfather in these forms of killing
people, there's no way anyone would ever get a licence to start them
today.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Keith F. Lynch
> Unfortunately, the Drug War mentality has evolved into a full- scale
> "war" against anything that produces an altered state of consciousness.
Also against drugs that don't alter the state of consciousness. It's
no wonder that so many people with high blood pressure, for instance,
aren't taking medication for it when getting that medication requires
a permission slip from a doctor. A permission slip which has to be
renewed at least once a year, which usually requires taking a day
off work to sit in a waiting room all day and pay a hundred dollars.
As if healthy people were likely to go out and overdose themselves
on Cozaar just for kicks. And it's worth condemning thousands of
patients with a low tolerance for BS to death to prevent this.
> Note that this isn't just chemicals -- it includes ecstatic
> religious practices involving nothing more chemical than dancing
> and heavy breathing.
I hadn't heard about that. Please tell me more.
Lucy Kemnitzer
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>On Sunday, in article
> <1fel9k9.l37rzt164x4aiN%ada...@despammed.com>
> ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
>
>> "David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, in article
>> > <1fekaoi.5ij3qt14h6vtuN%ada...@despammed.com>
>> > ada...@despammed.com "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > There was this Hungarian saying from sometime in the Russian era:
>> > > > "When you screw people good, people are quiet. Only when you screw
>> > > > them bad, they revolt."
>> > >
>> > > Machiavelli said something like that. Only in Italian, of course.
>> >
>> > Better to be feared than hated is one of Machiavelli's, isn't it.
>>
>> I think as a motto it predates him. He would explain _why_, of course.
>> But he also explained how it's even better to get somebody else hated in
>> your place.
>
>Either somebody in the Bush gang has read Machiavelli, and suggested
>Ashcroft, or they all think Machiavelli sold ice-cream in Glasgow.
>
>
I doubt they know about Italian ice-cream sellers in Glasgow. That
would mean they would have watched "Comfort and Joy" and that's a
_foreign_ movie: they're surely not going to just _know_ something
about a _foreign_ city. Hell, they don't know anything about who
sells ice cream in USian cities (Filipinos and guys from Michoacan).
I can't tell you how much the stupidity, criminality, arrogance,
bloodthirstiness, and selfishness of this administration haunts me.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Arthur D. Hlavaty
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> I do find the government's opposition to medical marijuana puzzling--
>> I can see why they want severe drug laws since there's money in building
>> and staffing prisons, but permitting medical marijuana would be extra
>> bureaucracy.
>
>Unfortunately, the Drug War mentality has evolved into a full- scale
>"war" against anything that produces an altered state of consciousness.
>Note that this isn't just chemicals -- it includes ecstatic religious
>practices involving nothing more chemical than dancing and heavy
>breathing.
>
>Problem with medical marijuana is that people can get high on it. Ditto
>medical heroin. Can't have that!
There is medical cocaine. There is no medical heroin, but I am told
that Demerol is to heroin as filet mignon is to mystery meat. The
jihad against medical marijuana is largely based on promoting a clear
and obvious difference between Good Drugs for Sick People and Bad
Drugs for Dope Fiends which makes no pharmaceutical sense.
Kip Williams
Keith F. Lynch
> Possibly but so far there is no existing public health crisis
> or crime wave that screams for an investigation. e.g. we have a
> shortage of SCOTUS justices engaging in drive by shootings or dying
> of drug overdoses. The same cannot be said for high school students.
The percentage of high school students who engage in drive by
shootings or die of drug overdoses is minuscule. There are so few
Supreme Court justices that it's impossible to tell whether their
rate is higher or lower than that of high school students.
The fact that they've upheld the drug war is highly suggestive of the
possibility that they're being bribed or blackmailed by drug dealers.
Since nobody else benefits from the current situation. Except the
drug warriors. And the drug warriors aren't paid enough to be able
to afford to bribe anyone. Unless they're getting some money on the
side, too, which is quite possible.
Keith F. Lynch
> And yet what most decisively turned me against vouchers was the idea
> that education would be in the hands of the sort of people who run
> insurance companies.
O Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> As opposed to now when it's the hands of the same sort of people who
> run the DMV.
And who run the prisons, jails, and prosecutors offices.
Which is why in twelve years of public school, they won't spend twelve
minutes giving useful advice about what to do if you're falsely accused
of a crime.
Private schools aren't perfect. But at least they're diverse.
Keith F. Lynch
> Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it
> wouldn't work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first
> time somebody freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug
> dealer is going to get sued right out of business.
They can borrow the disclaimer that's on all Microsoft products. The
one that disclaims all responsibility even if the product explodes for
no reason and kills your whole family and your neighbors.
Nancy Lebovitz
Graydon <gra...@dsl.ca> wrote:
>In <GtvT8.1063$mp2.7...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> onsendan:
>>
>> I do find the government's opposition to medical marijuana puzzling--
>> I can see why they want severe drug laws since there's money in building
>> and staffing prisons, but permitting medical marijuana would be extra
>> bureaucracy.
>
>
>These folks are trying to maintain a social system which is now actively
>harmful at current tech levels; it was pretty decent once, but they're
>doing their damndest to maintain a constancy of oppression. The more
>material progress there is or might be, the more oppression they're
>going to produce in response until decisively defeated.
I think you're on to something. Certainly all that "give the wrong
message" stuff suggests that the real point is that they feel they
can't afford to admit they were wrong.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com 100 new slogans
I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory.
Nancy Lebovitz
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>The fact that they've upheld the drug war is highly suggestive of the
>possibility that they're being bribed or blackmailed by drug dealers.
>Since nobody else benefits from the current situation. Except the
There's a substantial prison-industrial complex these days, and
the drug companies get some slight advantage from the war on drugs.
>drug warriors. And the drug warriors aren't paid enough to be able
>to afford to bribe anyone. Unless they're getting some money on the
>side, too, which is quite possible.
--
Colette Reap
>On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:11:02 -0400, Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>>Problem with medical marijuana is that people can get high on it. Ditto
>>medical heroin. Can't have that!
>
>There is medical cocaine. There is no medical heroin [...]
Disagreeing (to be polite), I am led to believe that dimorphine is
medical heroin.
--
Colette
* "2002: A Discworld Odyssey" * http://www.dwcon.org/ *
* August 16th-19th, 2002 * Email: in...@dwcon.org *
Andrew Plotkin
> O Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Possibly but so far there is no existing public health crisis
>> or crime wave that screams for an investigation. e.g. we have a
>> shortage of SCOTUS justices engaging in drive by shootings or dying
>> of drug overdoses. The same cannot be said for high school students.
> The percentage of high school students who engage in drive by
> shootings or die of drug overdoses is minuscule. There are so few
> Supreme Court justices that it's impossible to tell whether their
> rate is higher or lower than that of high school students.
> The fact that they've upheld the drug war is highly suggestive of the
> possibility that they're being bribed or blackmailed by drug
> dealers.
That's rather too far out for me to believe (and I'm generally willing
to believe that government officials are pulling shit).
> Since nobody else benefits from the current situation. Except the
> drug warriors. And the drug warriors aren't paid enough to be able
> to afford to bribe anyone. Unless they're getting some money on the
> side, too, which is quite possible.
Who else benefits?
Nearly all elected politicians benefit, since they can get behind a
policy which is guaranteed to be a gold star on their political
resume, and haul down piles of votes. (I know this doesn't make sense.
It's still *true*. I also know that it's become an arms-race situation
of "neither side can drop out without being attacked and losing piles
of votes". Sucks, doesn't it? Besides, you can always try to be *more*
hard-core anti-drug than your opponent, so the stakes keep going up.)
Police and other law-enforcement groups benefit, because they have
more work to do and can therefore gather more resources to do it. (A
bureacracy measures its own success by the size of its budget -- not
by efficiency, money saved, money unwasted, tasks accomplished,
success rate, or any other sane measure.)
Any voter who wants someone to blame benefits. (Someone to blame for
anything -- poverty, crappy education, violence, unemployment. If you
can show that someone did drugs, you are relieved from all charitable
obligation (either personal or societally agreed on). Because hey --
they'd just buy more drugs. Besides, they're morally inferior to you.)
Anyone who's ever supported the drug war in the past benefits, because
if we just plain stopped, they'd have to admit they were wrong.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Pete McCutchen
Lebovitz) wrote:
>[1] I find the anti-commerce premise of "ok, people can own small
>amounts, but dealing is evil" profoundly irritating, but I don't
>think the world agrees with me.
Well, I agree with you, if that makes you feel better. (It might make
you feel worse, of course, and, if so, I apologize in advance.)
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<hla...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 29 Jun 2002 23:30:29 -0700, od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote:
>
>>db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote in message news:<20020628.16...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
>>> It's strange that they're willing to test the kids for the presence of
>>> dangerous drugs, but not for the presence of dangerous teaching.
>>
>>Dogma has a much lower addiction rate than most drugs.
>
>Perhaps, but there are some awful overdose problems. Maybe we can tie
>this to the liability part of the thread: "These people killed Matthew
>Shepard because you sold them some off-brand Christianity that made
>them hate gays."
Didn't they also rob him?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<hla...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Because there is no enormous pool of public health care
>>money the corporations and churches can highjack for their
>>own gain, like the pool of public school funds. "Follow the
>>money."
>
>And yet what most decisively turned me against vouchers was the idea
>that education would be in the hands of the sort of people who run
>insurance companies.
Why "insurance companies" in particular? As opposed to restaurants or
semiconductor manufacturers or some other reasonably efficient private
sector industry?
By the way, while I probably do support vouchers, my reservations
about them spring from the opposite concern: I'm worried that vouchers
might end up making private schools more like government schools.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:08:25 -0400, Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>
>>Problem with legalizing any kind of "drug dealing" is that it wouldn't
>>work. THere's this little problem with liability -- first time somebody
>>freaks out/ODs/runs a car into somebody, the drug dealer is going to get
>>sued right out of business.
>
>So why don't the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks get sued out of
>business?
Because the tort-lawyer industry hadn't really gotten going when
Prohibition was repealed.
--
Pete McCutchen
David Dyer-Bennet
> Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the Drug War mentality has evolved into a full- scale
> > "war" against anything that produces an altered state of consciousness.
>
> Also against drugs that don't alter the state of consciousness. It's
> no wonder that so many people with high blood pressure, for instance,
> aren't taking medication for it when getting that medication requires
> a permission slip from a doctor. A permission slip which has to be
> renewed at least once a year, which usually requires taking a day
> off work to sit in a waiting room all day and pay a hundred dollars.
>
> As if healthy people were likely to go out and overdose themselves
> on Cozaar just for kicks. And it's worth condemning thousands of
> patients with a low tolerance for BS to death to prevent this.
"Low tolerance" seems to be standing in for "obsessive hatred for"
here -- for life-and-death issues, one can normally overcome ones
moderate distastes.
Patient compliance has always been a problem, and some sources
(i.e. Patrick O'Brien) say that patients used to increase their
dosages a lot, thinking that if some is good, more is better.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Pete McCutchen
Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <afnro1$i8q$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>The fact that they've upheld the drug war is highly suggestive of the
>>possibility that they're being bribed or blackmailed by drug dealers.
>>Since nobody else benefits from the current situation. Except the
>
>There's a substantial prison-industrial complex these days, and
>the drug companies get some slight advantage from the war on drugs.
While the phrase "prison-industrial complex" has a certain resonance
to it, I suspect that the explanation is much simpler: most people
continue to believe that drugs ought to be illegal.
--
Pete McCutchen
Lucy Kemnitzer
<hla...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 29 Jun 2002 23:30:29 -0700, od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote:
>
>>db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote in message news:<20020628.16...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
>>> It's strange that they're willing to test the kids for the presence of
>>> dangerous drugs, but not for the presence of dangerous teaching.
>>
>>Dogma has a much lower addiction rate than most drugs.
>
>Perhaps, but there are some awful overdose problems. Maybe we can tie
>this to the liability part of the thread: "These people killed Matthew
>Shepard because you sold them some off-brand Christianity that made
>them hate gays."
But, you know, that isn't why. It was part of a premeditated plan to
trick him and rob him, and they were crazy drunk, and they got into
the bloodlust from there. It wasn't a deepseated prejudice against
gay people, or fear, or anything. It was greed and meanness (not that
Matthew Shepard had any great amount of money on him, but nobody
around there did).
My nephew's high school was the first outside group to stage "The
Laramie Project," and they did a great job of it.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Kris Hasson-Jones
the following for all the world to see:
>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
>> I'm about ready to volunteer as an adult willing to teach the kids the
>> ropes of political involvement.
Teach me. I'm right here in town.
>A worthy aim by itself.
>
>There seems to be a profound ignorance about how politics (especially
>local politics) *really* works. If folks think of it at all, it usually
>comes down to waving signs and yelling, or posting long semiliterate
>screeds on the Net.
Well, I did type and fax letters to both my legislators during this
special session. I've had a mailed response from one of them. Sounds
like boilerplate paragraphs; only the initial sentence of two of them
has any reference to my letter.
--
Kris Hasson Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>These are the kids who have had Socialist inSecurity numbers since
>birth, and who are wearing school uniforms, and often attending
>sex-segregated schools?
I don't think I got my Social Security number until I was at least 16,
but I've worn a school uniform (in a private school) and I've been to
a (private) sex-segregated school.
But of course, I've never questioned a government's right to do
anything.
--
Avedon www.sideshow.idps.co.uk
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Avedon Carol
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message ...
>>In article <1fejyuj.10u7l7u1p4s1ycN%mar...@kare.ws>,
>
>>>Won't do'em much good. California passed a medical marijuana law and
>>>the Feds just keep busting them.
>
>>I do find the government's opposition to medical marijuana puzzling--
>>I can see why they want severe drug laws since there's money in building
>>and staffing prisons, but permitting medical marijuana would be extra
>>bureaucracy.
>
>Because there is no such thing as medical marijuana. It's a ploy to legalize
>one drug, which is naturally seen as a foot in the door for legalizing more
>drugs. And once pot is legal, the essential anti-drug argument will be out
>the window, along with any remaining moral high ground on the subject. And
>that would turn us into Amsterdam.
That would be the same Amsterdam that has lower addiction rates than
the US, right?
Yes, that would be bad.
Avedon Carol
>Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote in message news:<3D1DDA70...@aginc.net>...
>> O Deus wrote:
>>
>> > It would be constitutional. There's just no compelling statistical
>> > data on drug use among supreme court justices that makes such a policy
>> > necesarry, as there is with high school students.
>>
>> Egg, meet chicken. Chicken, meet egg. Neither's breathing hard, let
>> alone coming first.
>> No data because nobody's looked for it. For all we know, the plumbing
>> in the SuprememCourt has to be gimmicked to keep it from exploding.
>
>Possibly but so far there is no existing public health crisis or crime
>wave that screams for an investigation. e.g. we have a shortage of
>SCOTUS justices engaging in drive by shootings or dying of drug
>overdoses. The same cannot be said for high school students.
>
>Of course we could indeed begin gathering data perhaps by sending out
>an anonymous confidential questionare to current and past Justicies.
>Perhaps we could broaden the base by sending it to all Federal Judges,
>rather than just Supremers. It could include question such as...
People don't just get arrested for committing other criminal or
violent acts while on drugs, they get arrested for sitting in their
own homes smoking some weed.
>1. Have you been late to work at least once a week due to recreational
>drug abuse?
Have you failed to recuse yourself from a case where your wife works
for the plaintiff?
>2. Do other people tell you that you are abusing recreational drugs?
Do hundreds of law professors compare your decisions unfavorably with
Plessy v. Fergeson?
>3. Do you feel that your drug use has caused you problems in your
>social relationships and job performance?
Are thousands of people calling for your impeachment?
>4. Have there been one or more days when you were unable to remember
>whether you had written the minority or majority report?...and so
>on...
Did you explain that a judgement that went against all precedent _and_
against your own stated beliefs was a one-time exception that could be
applied to no other case?
>Once there's a statistical baseline produced by these questionares, a
>commission can be formed to evaluate the results and determine when
>they require further intervention and prevention and what form,
>possibly drug tests, it should take.
More than half of Supreme Court Justices are behaving in a manner that
indicates inebriation or some other form of mental impairment. The
statistics support testing them.
Christopher K Davis
> Vlatko Juric-Kokic wrote:
>> So why don't the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks get sued out of
>> business?
> Tradition. There are an awful lot of things around the house that
> couldn't possibly get approved for sale if they were invented today.
> Aspirin. Coffee. Drain cleaner. Paint thinner.
Not just around the house. "You want to start running trains through
tunnels, with open platforms overlooking high voltage rails?"
Though I note that the Tube's Jubilee Line extension and the Paris
Metro's METEOR (Line 14) both have platform walls and doors.
--
Christopher Davis * <ckd...@ckdhr.com> * <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/>
Put location information in your DNS! <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/dns-loc/>
Bill, n. 2. A writing binding the signer [...] to pay [...]
Gates, n. 4. The places which command the entrances or access [...]
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the Drug War mentality has evolved into a full- scale
>> "war" against anything that produces an altered state of consciousness.
>
>Also against drugs that don't alter the state of consciousness. It's
>no wonder that so many people with high blood pressure, for instance,
>aren't taking medication for it when getting that medication requires
>a permission slip from a doctor. A permission slip which has to be
>renewed at least once a year, which usually requires taking a day
>off work to sit in a waiting room all day and pay a hundred dollars.
Blood pressure drugs have to be administered carefully to individuals.
It's not possible to make them OTC without having lots and lots of
deaths. I take small amounts of three different BP drugs because more
than that small amount of any of them makes me fall over.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Hell, they don't know anything about who
>sells ice cream in USian cities (Filipinos and guys from Michoacan).
The three ice cream places in our city (okay, one is just outside the
city limits) are all run by middle-aged white guys.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 13:43:12 -0400, Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> posted
>the following for all the world to see:
>>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>>> I'm about ready to volunteer as an adult willing to teach the kids the
>>> ropes of political involvement.
>Teach me. I'm right here in town.
I'll let you know when I get the "Know Your Local Government"
group going. Will be a lot of 4-H kids, but bring your offspring as
well.
snip
>Well, I did type and fax letters to both my legislators during this
>special session. I've had a mailed response from one of them. Sounds
>like boilerplate paragraphs; only the initial sentence of two of them
>has any reference to my letter.
Yep. At this juncture, e-mail and phone calls work best. Cornering
them at those local meetings many of them hold is a good thing.
What's even better is to be perceived as part of a group of people
working together with a coherent strategy, including the possibility
of getting involved in future elections.
Grin. I *have* been threatening to sponsor a club of Young Democrats.
They think *I* was a mad dog, just wait until they talk to my
son....;->
jrw
Steve Smith
> There is medical cocaine.
?? I thought cocaine was retired a long time ago. I think that one of
the standard light- duty anesthetics (Lidocaine?) is essentially
synthetic cocaine, however.
> There is no medical heroin, but I am told
> that Demerol is to heroin as filet mignon is to mystery meat.
I thought that in Britain, the standard painkiller for shingles was
heroin. And no, the folks who get heroin for shingles do *not*
immediately turn into ravening dope fiends.
> The
> jihad against medical marijuana is largely based on promoting a clear
> and obvious difference between Good Drugs for Sick People and Bad
> Drugs for Dope Fiends which makes no pharmaceutical sense.
Good point.
--
Steve Smith s...@aginc.net
Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Marilee J. Layman
Reynolds-Ward) wrote:
>Those types of programs--like 4-H--do exist, if you know where to
>look.
An article in the WashPost about a 4-H trip yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64288-2002Jun28.html
Steve Smith
>
> Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> wrote:
> > And yet what most decisively turned me against vouchers was the idea
> > that education would be in the hands of the sort of people who run
> > insurance companies.
>
> O Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > As opposed to now when it's the hands of the same sort of people who
> > run the DMV.
>
> And who run the prisons, jails, and prosecutors offices.
>
> Which is why in twelve years of public school, they won't spend twelve
> minutes giving useful advice about what to do if you're falsely accused
> of a crime.
Can't do that -- might imply that the Establishment isn't perfect.
They also can't be bothered with such trifles as practical government
(same argument as above), or first aid (FOAF lost a hand because some
Boy Scout insisted on a tourniquet). After all, that kind of stuff is
*practical* -- we want to train our kids to be "professionals", who will
never have to cook a meal, fix a lamp, or change a tire.
> Private schools aren't perfect. But at least they're diverse.
Yup.
Mary Kay
> Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the Drug War mentality has evolved into a full- scale
> > "war" against anything that produces an altered state of consciousness.
>
> Also against drugs that don't alter the state of consciousness. It's
> no wonder that so many people with high blood pressure, for instance,
> aren't taking medication for it when getting that medication requires
> a permission slip from a doctor. A permission slip which has to be
> renewed at least once a year, which usually requires taking a day
> off work to sit in a waiting room all day and pay a hundred dollars.
Actually all mine (I take 3 drugs for chronic conditions have to be
renewed 2/year. This did not used to be the case. When I first started
taking throid supplement in 1974, the prescription was infinitely
renewable. As was my birth control prescription which I started in
1972. Haven't had an open ended renewal in sometime though. And it
took me several years to convince the psychiatrist to make the ssri
prescription for 6 months instead of 3.
>
> As if healthy people were likely to go out and overdose themselves
> on Cozaar just for kicks. And it's worth condemning thousands of
> patients with a low tolerance for BS to death to prevent this.
>
MKK
Mary Kay
> Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
> > Oh well, we can look at it as encouraging individual initiative
> > and creativity. Look what Probihition did for home brewing.
>
> Bleah!
>
> Recipe for "bathtub gin":
>
> Put water in bathtub. Add 10-15 lbs of sugar. Add yeast. Let sit for
> a few days. Drink.
>
> Some people will do *anything* to get high.
Actually that's roughly true of the human race (and I don't want to hear
any whines from you people about not being human--I said roughly).
Fermented beverages are among the earliest 'cooking' humans developed.
And I think most cultures have them.
MKK
Mary Kay
> I can't tell you how much the stupidity, criminality, arrogance,
> bloodthirstiness, and selfishness of this administration haunts me.
>
I grind my teeth every time I see that jackass's smirking face. I read
the news and want to fling it from me shrieking in horror. And all too
often I shove my head under the pillow and try to ignore it.
MKK
Nancy Lebovitz
Graydon <gra...@dsl.ca> wrote:
>In <naLT8.298$d34.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
> Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> onsendan:
>>>These folks are trying to maintain a social system which is now actively
>>>harmful at current tech levels; it was pretty decent once, but they're
>>>doing their damndest to maintain a constancy of oppression. The more
>>>material progress there is or might be, the more oppression they're
>>>going to produce in response until decisively defeated.
>>
>> I think you're on to something. Certainly all that "give the wrong
>> message" stuff suggests that the real point is that they feel they
>> can't afford to admit they were wrong.
>
>Can't afford to admit that the world has changed in meaningful ways, is
>I think a bit closer; they're in a head space where it isn't *possible*
I can't see a way that the world changing has much to do with forbidding
medical marijuana--there was never any reason to think med. mari. was
a bad idea.
>to be wrong, and everything is constant, and there is no such thing as
>meaningful change. Admitting they were wrong would be, in a sense, step
>two.
Nancy Lebovitz
to be illegal (though that's eroding in re medical marijuana and
small amounts of marijuana), but there's also a lot of money in
building and staffing prisons.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:11:02 -0400, Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>
> >>Problem with medical marijuana is that people can get high on it. Ditto
> >>medical heroin. Can't have that!
> >
> >There is medical cocaine. There is no medical heroin [...]
>
> Disagreeing (to be polite), I am led to believe that dimorphine is
> medical heroin.
Correcting (to be polite), I believe it's "diamorphine", and google
agrees by 3000 to 15, plus offering the spelling correction.