Legalizing Drugs
Bill Baldwin
some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it would
work.
1. Would the drugs become *completely* legal. I.e. anyone can manufacture
them and anyone can sell them?
2. Would we continue the war in any form? E.g. anti-drug campaigns in
schools and Public Service Announcements.
3. If their manufacture would be government regulated (by the FDA), how
would that take place? Many of these drugs are inherently dangerous. Would
the FDA slap a label on it saying, "This drug is inherently dangerous, but
we've made it as safe as an addictive, unhealthy tachycardia inducer can
be"?
4. Would *all* drugs then become legal without a prescription? This, I
think, is the key question for the libertarians of the group. Do you really
want to suggest that people can walk in off the street and buy substances
that a doctor could have told them were unsafe because of their other
medical conditions or other drugs they're taking or a thousand other
reasons? But if you say no, then aren't you making an artificial
distinction? You're saying we should legalize those dangerous substances
that people most commonly abuse, but continue to make illegal the purchase
of other dangerous substances. And what do you do about morphine?
I go up to the counter and say, "Give me some morphine."
Pharmacist says, "I can't dispense that without a prescription."
I say, "You don't understand; I'm a drug abuser. I just want to get wasted."
Pharmacist says, "In that case it's legal. Here you go."
5. For all of this, what is your predicted effect, and why?
6. Would you continue to advocate this if the effect turned out to be worse
than our current situation? If it's not (merely) pragmatism that drives
this, what does and why?
--
Bill Baldwin
Robert M. Drimmie
> I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs." I have
> some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it would
> work.
>
> 1. Would the drugs become *completely* legal. I.e. anyone can manufacture
> them and anyone can sell them?
Probably, with the appropriate license. I've been sitting here for 5
minutes, playing with the spelling, and it just isn't looking right.
If you think there's a sin tax on alcohol and tobacco, think about
the marijuana taxes people would be willing to pay.
> 2. Would we continue the war in any form? E.g. anti-drug campaigns in
> schools and Public Service Announcements.
Not necessarily full-out anti-drug, but drug education ones, sure.
In school I was taught about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco, add
drugs in there too.
> 3. If their manufacture would be government regulated (by the FDA), how
> would that take place? Many of these drugs are inherently dangerous. Would
> the FDA slap a label on it saying, "This drug is inherently dangerous, but
> we've made it as safe as an addictive, unhealthy tachycardia inducer can
> be"?
It also depends on the range of drugs being legalized. You're not
going to find too many people who think that crack should be legal, but
ask people about marijuana or hash or 'shrooms, and you won't find many
objections.
> 4. Would *all* drugs then become legal without a prescription? This, I
<big paragraph shnippity shnipped>
Presumably, if you're going for the blanket drug legalisation, then
presumably and drugs would then become legal for mass consumption.
> I go up to the counter and say, "Give me some morphine."
I tried that once. The guy blinked, and looked me up and down (6'3",
220lbs and I think my hair was green at that point) and he just asked
me, rather nicely too, to leave his store.
> 5. For all of this, what is your predicted effect, and why?
Full-out legalisation (that another word I'm not liking today. Ah
well, keep the bad spelling consistent, that's what I always say) would
hook a lot of people on drugs I think. But drug use would be frowned
upon just as much as alcohol use at work, right? No matter how legal
the substance you're wasted on, if you're not able to work than there's
something wrong.
People, in the most part, would attempt to keep drug use to a
minimum, just like alcohol. Granted, heroin and cocaine are a lot more
adictive than alcohol, but I know that, so no matter what laws I'm not
breaking, I'm not going to try them.
About two or three years after the blanket legalisation, things would
be looking pretty grim. Two or three years after that, people will have
smartened up and will regulate their drug use responsibly.
Soft drug legalisation (marijuana, hash, 'shrooms, arguably LSD)
would probably mean a couple of weeks of pretty silly behaviour, then a
realisation of it, and a return to a normal, if possibly mellower, state
of existance.
> 6. Would you continue to advocate this if the effect turned out to be worse
> than our current situation? If it's not (merely) pragmatism that drives
> this, what does and why?
No. That would be silly. If a situation is worse after a new rule
is implemented, there's something wrong with that rule.
To take a slightly mundane analogy, lets say that every friday an
office decides to have a big company lunch. Free food, a couple of kegs
in the cafeteria, that sort of thing. It's been known to work for a
number of companies. If the workers go overboard, and are wasted all
afternoon, the management will have to put some kind of a limit on
things, or end up dealing with a useless day.
Does that make sense? Some annoying guy I work with started talking
with me while I was typing, so my attention was distracted, and I forgot
what I wanted to say. <sigh> Being stupid wouldn't be so difficult if
I wasn't so aware of it. :-)
Bob Roberds
>
> I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs." I have
> some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it would
> work.
>
> 1. Would the drugs become *completely* legal. I.e. anyone can manufacture
> them and anyone can sell them?
<More interesting questions snipped>
I'd also add a question to those who advocate drug legalization:
What about tobacco? Would we continue the current anti-tobacco
campaign? Seems it would be hypocritical to keep bashing
tobacco while at the same time making it easier to obtain other
drugs.
--
Bob Roberds____________| Read "Soap On A Rope" -
brob...@ix.netcom.com | http://www.soaprope.com
_______________________| As seen in "The Web" magazine, Feb. 1998!
Rice, Glenn P.
>
> I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs." I have
> some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it would
> work.
>
> 1. Would the drugs become *completely* legal. I.e. anyone can manufacture
> them and anyone can sell them?
I'm assuming you are referring to the US only.
One big problem with the notion of "legalization" is that many people
think that equates to what you're calling "complete legalization". Booze
is legal, but you can't set up a still in your backyard and start
selling moonshine. There are many (most?) things that are legal that are
subject to regulation
> 3. If their manufacture would be government regulated (by the FDA), how
> would that take place? Many of these drugs are inherently dangerous. Would
> the FDA slap a label on it saying, "This drug is inherently dangerous, but
> we've made it as safe as an addictive, unhealthy tachycardia inducer can
> be"?
Why not? There are warning labels on alcohol and tobacco products, and
restrictions on selling to minors, etc.
>
> 4. Would *all* drugs then become legal without a prescription? This, I
> think, is the key question for the libertarians of the group. Do you really
> want to suggest that people can walk in off the street and buy substances
> that a doctor could have told them were unsafe because of their other
> medical conditions or other drugs they're taking or a thousand other
> reasons? But if you say no, then aren't you making an artificial
> distinction? You're saying we should legalize those dangerous substances
> that people most commonly abuse, but continue to make illegal the purchase
> of other dangerous substances. And what do you do about morphine?
The artificial distinction has already been made, and tested by
Prohibition and its repeal. I don't see the problem with "moving the
line", as it were. The lawbooks are full of artificial distinctions.
Speaking of distinctions, you are NOT making what I think is an
important one: not all use of a dangerous substance is necessarily
"abuse". Enjoying a glass or 2 or 3 of wine or beer is not what I'd call
"abuse". When did "abuse" come to include using simply for pleasure or
gratification? Is that some Puritan atavism, if it feels good it should
be illegal?
>
> 5. For all of this, what is your predicted effect, and why?
>
Prison overcrowding would be relieved as those convicted of committing
minor drug offenses are released. Police could focus more
energy/resources on crimes with victims. Most citizens would be
unaffected by the difference. There would be more casualties, of course,
if your "blanket legalization" were enacted. However, I think a
carefully considered partial legalization would certainly work. The
legislators need to look at factors including addictive potential;
popularity of use; physical risks; whether a user is likely to hurt
others, commit crimes or become a burden to society; production &
distribution aspects; medical or other "practical" uses. Also, they
should consider precedents and relative risks and benefits compared to
other substances.
Judging by addictive potential, physical risks, likelihood of hurting
others, and burden-on-society, alcohol is a big loser. However, it's
very popular and has been used throughout recorded history, and is easy
to make. Marijuana rates lower than alcohol in most of the negative
categories, and (as hemp) rates high in the "practical uses" category.
Why is it illegal while alcohol is not? Crack cocaine has very high
addictive potential and physical risk, as well as burden-on-society in
the form of crack babies, habit-feeding crimes, etc. Since crack has no
other uses, the cost to society is too high. LSD, mushrooms etc. rank
low in all categories, both negative and positive. Why not make it
legal? Where's the harm? It's already been done with peyote, used in the
Native American church.
My point is, the issue of "legalization" is complex enough that it
deserves much more than simple "drugs are evil" rhetoric.
--
/| Glenn Rice [zone 5] |\
< | extg...@showme.missouri.edu | >
\| Epiphyllum: www.missouri.edu/~extgrice/nbc |/
Tim Robinson
>When in doubt, I tend towards freedom.
>
>Pragmatism is my major point though, here. My answer here would depend
>a lot of what "worse" turned out to be.
A century ago, drugs WERE legalized. That includes the worst of the
drugs people talk of, that is, heroin and cocaine. I really don't
believe the country fell into a drugged stupor back then. So, as
someone else pointed out, a return to legalization would get us numerous
parties and a some excesses... for a little while. Then for the most
part, people would quite the excesses as they realize just why an
attempt at regulation was made in the first place: abuse is
self-destructive.
The freedom position is that the freedom to be wise pre-supposes a
freedom to be foolish.
OTOH, an interesting point not brought up by most drug-legalization
types (of which I consider myself one) is that our current government is
an "enabler." Part of the consequences of true drug abuse (not merely
use) is a deterioration of what allows us to work productively. As long
as the government acts as a sugar-daddy, people will gladly take our tax
money and use that to stay stoned. I'm not real keen on THAT either.
The full Libertarian position is not to rob Peter to pay Paul and not
let Peter tell Paul what drug of choice he may take. I'd guess the
"partial" position would be to legalize and then require drug tests if
you wish to sign up for a welfare program. Don't want the drug tests?
Then don't sign up for the free $$$. (Someone is going to fuss: what
about the children of these drug abusers who won't stay clean? How will
they be fed? My response: can you say "unfit parent?" I think you can
fill in the rest of the argument.)
| Tim Robinson | Lonely Web page. Please visit. |
| timt...@ionet.net | http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by |
| men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." L. Brandeis |
Fake e-mail used for spam fighting. Please use the one in the sig.
jmg
>I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs." I have
>some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it would
>work.
For each response you'll get a different answer as to how it might work. I think
this is one of the reasons we've not moved more quickly towards legalization.
>1. Would the drugs become *completely* legal. I.e. anyone can manufacture
>them and anyone can sell them?
If we're talking about 'recreational' drugs then market forces would need to
determine that. I would think it would be similar to the way that alcohol is
manufactured and distributed.
>2. Would we continue the war in any form? E.g. anti-drug campaigns in
>schools and Public Service Announcements.
Hopefully we'd stop the "war" part and concentrate instead on creating a society
in which art and music and education weren't at the mercy of the christian
coalition. Where we could have freedom FROM religion.
I have a feeling fewer people would seek the need to escape...
>3. If their manufacture would be government regulated (by the FDA), how
>would that take place? Many of these drugs are inherently dangerous. Would
I disagree about the "inherently dangerous" part of your statement.
The "warning" labels mandated by the government for liquor and cigarettes
packages are routinely ignored but if it would make people feel better to have a
warning label on the product then it's okay with me. Silly, but Okay.
>4. Would *all* drugs then become legal without a prescription? This, I
Hmmm.... Well, we're talking about Schedule I drugs here and if we stick to that
I see no reasons to pick and choose.
>I say, "You don't understand; I'm a drug abuser. I just want to get wasted."
>Pharmacist says, "In that case it's legal. Here you go."
Hmmm... "abuser"? Can you qualify that? If I come home and grab a couple of
beers am I an "abuser"? How about just one? If I do the same with a joint do I
qualify as an abuser? What about the thousands and thousands of people who are
addicted to LEGALLY prescribed drugs and the doctors who keep them there?
Just where does use become abuse?
>5. For all of this, what is your predicted effect, and why?
A more relaxed and less hateful society. (see above and below and everything
I've ever written)
>6. Would you continue to advocate this if the effect turned out to be worse
>than our current situation? If it's not (merely) pragmatism that drives
>this, what does and why?
I cannot, not even in my worst nightmares, imagine a situation worse than the
one that exists in the USA right now.
Billions of dollars in money spent for nothing more than a jobs program for law
enforcement officials - 1000 more cops on the streets? How about teachers? How
about doctors and hospitals and museums and dance centers? Where are the funds
for community programs and after school programs and job (re)training?
Oh well.... Maybe this nightmare will end after all.
Did someone just say on CNN that Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms were
caught smoking dope and having sex in a Holiday Inn room together?
Jeff
--
Shadow boxing in the dark. [www.bongoboy.com]
Paul Drye
>
>I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs." I
>have some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it
>would work.
I think the basic idea is *decriminalizing* drugs, not legalizing them.
They would remain controlled substances, but there would no longer be
criminal penalties for owning or using them. Making and/or distributing
them would probably remain under some sort of control.
A good example would be alcohol here in the province of Ontario.
Broadly-speaking, the provincial government has a near-monopoly on the sale
of it. Hard liquor is sold through LCBO stores. Beer is sold through the
aptly-named "The Beer Store". Manufacturers can open their own stores on
the premises, while grocery stores can carry their own store-brands, but
that's about it for exceptions (that I can think of anyway).
By increasing the supply, the price drops through the floor, and the
previous, um, proprietors no longer find it economic to keep going (because
you *are* still trying to keep drugs that aren't in the "legal path" out).
You can also control the quality of the merchandise and prevent accidental
overdoses, while also getting an idea of who should be urged to enter into
drug addiction programs.
Cheers,
Paul Drye
--
------------------------------------------------------------
My apologies, but to reply to me by e-mail you'll have to
remove the spam-cruncher "boguspart" from my address.
------------------------------------------------------------
deepstblu
>
> I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs."
"Today there are 50% fewer Americans using drugs than just 15 years
ago"? [Source: James Lileks, Newhouse News Service.]
On the other hand, how much of that reduction can really be credited to
government programs as opposed to, say, the shock value of hearing about
Len Bias (or the guy down the street) dropping dead?
US drug policy seems to spring from a mixture of a) a sincere desire to
keep kids from screwing up their lives, b) a desire to reduce
drug-fueled crime, c) the traditional American Puritan antipathy to
pleasures not derived from hard work, and d) bureaucratic empire
building. I think all of those, especially "d", will ensure that we will
have "wars on drugs" for a long time, whether they do any good or not.
Bill Baldwin
>Bill Baldwin wrote:
>>3. If their manufacture would be government regulated (by the FDA), how
>>would that take place? Many of these drugs are inherently dangerous. Would
>
>I disagree about the "inherently dangerous" part of your statement.
Crack? PCP? (Is that the same as "angel dust"?) Methamphetamimes? What are
the physiological effects of these drugs? I've always been under the
impression they're dangerous.
>>I say, "You don't understand; I'm a drug abuser. I just want to get
wasted."
>>Pharmacist says, "In that case it's legal. Here you go."
>
>Hmmm... "abuser"? Can you qualify that? If I come home and grab a couple of
>beers am I an "abuser"?
You and Glenn Rice both made this observation. I'm not sure what might
constituted a non-abusive recreational use of morphine, but then I've never
tried. Point taken. But it still doesn't answer my question. Should *all*
prescription drugs become available without a prescription?
>What about the thousands and thousands of people who are
>addicted to LEGALLY prescribed drugs and the doctors who keep them there?
Indeed. But when doctors feed addictions unnecessarily, they can be
prosecuted (in theory anyway), can't they? (I'm a real ball of ignorance
here so don't everyone assume I have some agenda just because I ask the
wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
naive. In that case, I don't *want* to be able to purchase morphine legally.
I want the substance to be illegal and the doctor to force me to withdraw by
refusing to prescribe.
--
Bill Baldwin
Hoyt
Bill Baldwin wrote in message <6om2s6$go8$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
Should *all*
>prescription drugs become available without a prescription?
>
Doesn't it work this way in Mexico? How do they handle it?
73,
Hoyt
Bill Baldwin
>
>Bill Baldwin wrote:
> Should *all*
>>prescription drugs become available without a prescription?
>>
>Doesn't it work this way in Mexico? How do they handle it?
I think you're right. You read about people traveling to Mexico to fill
their prescriptions cheaply; I think it's implied that no one checks their
prescription except to point to the right box on the shelf.
Don't know how they handle it, but "That's what they do in Mexico" is not
usually a compelling argument unless you're making tacos. "Nothing works in
Mexico" is practically a law of sociology.*
--
Bill Baldwin
*However, as everyone knows, the 4 basic laws of sociology are as follows:
1) Some do. Some don't.
2) It's different in the South.
3) Hill people make trouble.
4) Nothing works in India.
Sorry, Mexico. You were only the runner up. We have some lovely parting
gifts....
Roland Latour
Bill Baldwin wrote:
>
> I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs." I have
> some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it would
> work.
>
> 1. Would the drugs become *completely* legal. I.e. anyone can manufacture
> them and anyone can sell them?
No, some drugs would be over-the-counter and some would be by
prescription,
just like now. The FDA can decide which is which, without help from the
DEA.
Hint: the FDA actually has MDs in its employ, it's not generally
considered
a police group.
> 2. Would we continue the war in any form? E.g. anti-drug campaigns in
> schools and Public Service Announcements.
Who's we? The government? You want them to continue to waste tax dollars
with the kinds of propaganda they're using these days? Private groups
could continue to proselytize any way they please (thank you 1st
Amendment)
> 3. If their manufacture would be government regulated (by the FDA), how
> would that take place? Many of these drugs are inherently dangerous. Would
> the FDA slap a label on it saying, "This drug is inherently dangerous, but
> we've made it as safe as an addictive, unhealthy tachycardia inducer can
> be"?
By prescription. You should check out some of the prescription drugs on
the
market these days, it's amazing the number of deaths they are causing.
Note
that the FDA cannot regulate home-grown anything. Gardening would no
longer
be a crime.
> 4. Would *all* drugs then become legal without a prescription? This, I
> think, is the key question for the libertarians of the group. Do you really
> want to suggest that people can walk in off the street and buy substances
> that a doctor could have told them were unsafe because of their other
> medical conditions or other drugs they're taking or a thousand other
> reasons? But if you say no, then aren't you making an artificial
> distinction? You're saying we should legalize those dangerous substances
> that people most commonly abuse, but continue to make illegal the purchase
> of other dangerous substances. And what do you do about morphine?
Hardly. Thalidomide, for example, would still be prescription-only, not
for
pregnant women.
Doctors would decide what's dangerous, not the DEA. Heroin could be
made available via prescription for diagnosed junkies, at market
(read cheap$), as is done today in Britain. Many junkies over there have
led productive lives, raised families, paid taxes, etc. for many years
under that program. Not something the DEA wants you to know about.
The DEA has demonstrated it's not capable of judging the nature of
drugs, or
any other medical question. It *has* demonstrated its ability to use
propa-
ganda to continue/enlarge its own budget. And it has demonstrated its
ability/
willingness to threaten doctors who look out for their patients.
> I go up to the counter and say, "Give me some morphine."
> Pharmacist says, "I can't dispense that without a prescription."
> I say, "You don't understand; I'm a drug abuser. I just want to get wasted."
> Pharmacist says, "In that case it's legal. Here you go."
Hardly. See above. The real problem with the dangerous stuff is that
some
people want it (or acquire a taste for it) because there's nothing
milder.
Example: Russians have/had the highest vodka consumption rate in the
world.
Not because they like it, but because their government decreed that
grain
was too precious to use for beer. The DEA has ignored the *economics* of
the drug trade.
> 5. For all of this, what is your predicted effect, and why?
A drop in the crime rate. A drop in the imprisonment rate. A drop in the
number of police needed. Possibly, an eventual drop in your taxes. My
basis
for these predictions: Economics 101.
> 6. Would you continue to advocate this if the effect turned out to be worse
> than our current situation? If it's not (merely) pragmatism that drives
> this, what does and why?
No, I would not. I am an avowed pragmatist, with a distaste for idealism
as it is generally practiced today. But I do have ideals: the US
Constitution,
for starters. I hate to see the DEA trample it.
--
Roland Latour rol...@cdsnet.net http://home.cdsnet.net/~rolandl
Retired/burned-out Tech Support Engineer Linux Slackware3.4 & PPP
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are
men
who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean
without
the roar of its many waters." -- Frederick Douglass
(Jose Diaz)(JRDelirious)
wrote:
>I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs." I have
>some sympathy with the view, but I've got some questions about how it would
>work.
>
>1. Would the drugs become *completely* legal. I.e. anyone can manufacture
>them and anyone can sell them?
From the various proposals that I get to see presented to the
Legislature I work for:
Most likely, no. Would probably be subject to same regulations as
are placed on brewers/distillers. In the US I could see some States
deciding to run State Dopestores, sort of like Pennsylvania does with
liquor; and some Counties going "dry". And let's not start on whether
we should have a national incentive to make states fix the legal
tripping age at 21 rather than 18.
>
>2. Would we continue the war in any form? E.g. anti-drug campaigns in
>schools and Public Service Announcements.
Yes, very likely, as is done about the evils of smoking and underage
drinking.
>
>3. If their manufacture would be government regulated (by the FDA), how
>would that take place? Many of these drugs are inherently dangerous. Would
>the FDA slap a label on it saying, "This drug is inherently dangerous, but
>we've made it as safe as an addictive, unhealthy tachycardia inducer can
>be"?
There's a Surgeon General's warning on ciggies, which have no
redeeming medical value, and on booze; and there are safety warnings
on all OTC medication.
The makers/wholesalers would probably be branches of some major
big-money corporation (why am I thinking RJR?), bonded,
trade-organized and in close association with the regulating agencies,
and the legal raw-material growers would likely be the pillars of
agribusiness (I can just imagine David Brinkley reading an ad about
all the great goodies ADM has derived from hemp.) Look for
enforcement against "moonshine" hemp/opiates/etc to remain just as
severe, only now with the enthusiastic backing of those making a
lawful profit.
>
>4. Would *all* drugs then become legal without a prescription? This, I
>think, is the key question for the libertarians of the group.
What is most often proposed is more a "decriminalization":
a: Put the "soft" Schedule-I recreational drugs (marijuana, hash, mild
psychedelics) and "soft" downers/uppers on an equal footing with
liquor -- sold thru licensed, bonded, regulated outlets only to
identified adults, health warnings, severe penalties for giving it to
minors, driving under the influence, etc..
b: The "harder" pharmaceuticals (morphine & derivatives, cocaine
hydrochloride, amphetamine derivatives, etc) would be "medicalized",
i.e. a standardized-dosage version would be made for recreational
consumption that would be available under strict controls and
professional advice. That way we all can go like Elvis did. Needles
and syringes would be OTC.
c: Dangerous non-useful shit like angel dust & crack would remain
outlawed for human consumption on *safety* grounds. Hope that
availability of safe, legal, tested stuff lowers attraction to these.
Traffic in the stuff would become punishable under hazardous
substance statutes.
d: Treatment for weaning off the stuff if you do become hooked will
be provided, but otherwise any harm coming to you from abusing what is
allowed, for example, Pryoring yourself while freebasing your "legal"
coke HCl to make crack, society will *not* pick up the expense.
e: In ANY case, punitive enforcement of any illegal practice would
only go to the supply/distribution side and no criminal penalty
whatsoever would apply to the end user.
f: Tax, tax and tax till you pay off national debt; then sell out to
newly powerful Big Dope lobby.
To hear them say it, under their scheme, well-regulated Opium Dens
become the brew pubs of the next generation, Colombian cocaine
futures are traded in the Chicago commodities market, bong night
brings fans into the stadium, Pillsbury hash brownie mix is advertised
on TV, hemp saves the family farm, it's Morning in America again . . .
. . . I've got my doubts.
( And the almost certain BATF-DEA merger would be one unholy mess...)
>
>6. Would you continue to advocate this if the effect turned out to be worse
>than our current situation?
I certainly am all for discontinuing any remedy that is worse than the
disease, but I'd give it a good 10+ years to see what happens.
>
>Bill Baldwin
>
>
JRD
jmg
>>I disagree about the "inherently dangerous" part of your statement.
>
>Crack? PCP? (Is that the same as "angel dust"?) Methamphetamimes? What are
>the physiological effects of these drugs? I've always been under the
>impression they're dangerous.
I see your point. You've mixed a group of unrelated drugs into one batch, apples
and oranges, as the govvies have done by putting them all into Schedule I. I
have a feeling that if all were legal there'd be a lot less use of those on the
edge like PCP. Crack only came about because of the high cost of regular
cocaine, thanks to the prohibition. And I'll tell you, methamphetamines have
been part of college finals since, well, since the 60's.
But we have a problem when it comes to deciding which substances should and
should not be classified as one thing or another. There are many drugs in the
repertoire that are, in my opinion, not dangerous at all yet the "partnership
for full police employment", er, the government has decided they are bad.
MDMA is a classic example as is 2CB and mushrooms. All of these have significant
therapeutic value either as part of regular psychological counseling or for
harmless short term (about 4 hour) recreation.
>tried. Point taken. But it still doesn't answer my question. Should *all*
>prescription drugs become available without a prescription?
I didn't answer your question the first time and I'm resisting now since I
really don't have one.
>wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
>naive. In that case, I don't *want* to be able to purchase morphine legally.
>I want the substance to be illegal and the doctor to force me to withdraw by
>refusing to prescribe.
Once you make a substance illegal because YOU do not have the willpower to
resist you trample on my choices. This is where we are today, I think. By this
thinking Entenmanns chocolate filled layer cake, Susie Q's and Turkey Hill ice
creams should all be illegal!
But there is something that MUST be addressed through this debate and the is the
"children" thing. The Anti's (for lack of a better name) always keep saying that
we need to "protect our children from the scourges of drugs and abuse!". Well,
okay - i'll agree with that. But just what are those "scourges" and horrors? Are
they real or perceived?
I saw one of those new govvie commercials with about heroin - it was complete
and utter bullshit - an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. So when the
govvies want to know why no one trusts them or believes them they blame everyone
but themselves.
If we really wanted to keep kids off of recreational drugs during their
developmental years we'd offer them something else to do - some hope - rather
than tiddly-winks and repressive christianity. We'd be best served by stopping
the fighting amongst ourselves, strike down the constraining theocracy that has
become our government and offer a future free from the internal "wars" that have
ravaged our nation since Vietnam. Maybe when all those old guys die and everyone
stops hyphenating their names.
jmg
>> I've seen a lot of suggestions that we end the "failed war on drugs."
>How "failed" is it when Clinton says in one of his radio addresses,
>"Today there are 50% fewer Americans using drugs than just 15 years
>ago"? [Source: James Lileks, Newhouse News Service.]
Failed, because with 700,000 in prison today for USING marijuana (can you
imagine what the bill is for that?), schools scraping for funds that have gone
into hiring more cops, and some 20 BILLION dollars a year on 'enforcement' there
are just as many Americans today using Schedule I substances as before. Did I
mention that the police are free to search you, your home, or your possessions
without warrant?
>On the other hand, how much of that reduction can really be credited to
>government programs as opposed to, say, the shock value of hearing about
>Len Bias (or the guy down the street) dropping dead?
Not too many people "drop dead" from using drugs. None have ever died from
marijuana, and what really galls me is that the police lump people killed in
turf warfare (usually over the market) along with those who have died from
ingestion of a substance. However, the numbers are tiny when compared to other,
legal, issues.
>a) a sincere desire to keep kids from screwing up their lives,
The let's stop arguing about what they can read in school and let them read what
interests them - let's stop arguing about the "right" to pray in school and let
kids be kids in school - let's stop expecting kids to be adults and let them BE
kids for a while.
>b) a desire to reduce drug-fueled crime,
Drug fueled crimes are overwhelmingly those related to crimes committed NOT TO
OBTAIN drugs but to protect the market. Legalization would resolve that
overnight.
>c) the traditional American Puritan antipathy to pleasures not derived from hard work,
Bingo! Give that man a prize! This is really where it all falls into place...
>d) bureaucratic empire building. I think all of those, especially "d", will ensure that >we will have "wars on drugs" for a long time, whether they do any good or not.
I am deeply afraid that you may be right.
Tim Robinson
>>2. Would we continue the war in any form? E.g. anti-drug campaigns in
>>schools and Public Service Announcements.
>
> society
>in which art and music and education weren't at the mercy of the christian
>coalition. Where we could have freedom FROM religion.
>
>I have a feeling fewer people would seek the need to escape...
Hmm... two posts on drugs and you manage to squeeze in two flames
against Christianity. Your chip is as unbecoming as the CC itself.
I've personally only known one coke/crack/crank addict. He credits the
help of Christians to getting him off drugs.
>I cannot, not even in my worst nightmares, imagine a situation worse than the
>one that exists in the USA right now.
>
>Billions of dollars in money spent for nothing more than a jobs program for law
>enforcement officials - 1000 more cops on the streets? How about teachers? How
>about doctors and hospitals and museums and dance centers? Where are the funds
>for community programs and after school programs and job (re)training?
Agreed.
>Oh well.... Maybe this nightmare will end after all.
Not as long as there is a profit to be made by the war by the warriors
and we're willing to let them make that profit. Sometime ask your
friendly neighborhood cop about seizures and constitutional limits
thereof.
Rajat Datta
>Hopefully we'd stop the "war" part and concentrate instead on creating a society
>in which art and music and education weren't at the mercy of the christian
>coalition. Where we could have freedom FROM religion.
While I don't have much sympathy for the aims of the Christian coalition,
I have to point out that art and music and education aren't at their
mercy. However, anything that is federally funded is at the mercy of the
dominant "politically correct" ideology, and that has been true while the
"liberal" ideology was dominant. No fair crying unfair now. We gave the
government the power to suppress Freedom of Speech and Freedom of
Religion if government money is involved, confident of course, that the
liberal dominance would never be shaken.
So, want to make a piece of art that offends the Christian Coalition?
Just don't take goverment money. Want to run a school run on Christian
values? Don't take government money. Sounds fair.
rajat
Tim Robinson
Quite true, Rajat.
I think somthing jmg missed (as do many others) is that when you accept
government money, you accept government orders on how you use that
money. [1] Further, if you get tax dollars taken from you, you have a
right to influence the government in how that money is used. ("Taxation
without representation is tyranny." Anybody remember the reason this
country exists?) As long as a dollar is transferred from those who
number themselves in the Christian Coalition to the recipients of
government art endowments, the latter will be subject to the former. [2]
The problem (if you want to call it one) with assorted right-wing
art-control groups is there exist no counter groups. You could say the
artists are the counter group, but that's not correct. The artists are
the ones getting their support money at gunpoint (that's what taxation
is, remember?). They are not on the supply side, but on the demand
side. And frankly, I don't realistically expect to see any groups pop
up insisting on more blasphemy and sexuality in the arts.
Though I don't share the views of the right-wing art reformers, I'll
do them one better. I don't think the government has any business as an
art patron. Great American artists produced great art for damn near two
centuries of history without the NEA and the like. Why anyone but some
greedy fucks with an eye on the public treasury thought government arts
support was as good idea, I'll never know.
[1] This is why Hillsdale college will not accept students who receive
government grants. They found that their autonomy in deciding policy
was removed by doing so.
[2] Hmm... did I get that "latter/former" shit correct this time?
Bill Baldwin
>Though I don't share the views of the right-wing art reformers, I'll
>do them one better. I don't think the government has any business as an
>art patron.
Don't know if I can find it, but there's a wonderful quote from a man who
agrees with you on this point. John F. Kennedy. Yep. Specifically, he
declared himself opposed to a national orchestra. Said the U.S. had no
business funding an orchestra except, perhaps, for a limited time in a
cultural exchange program.
At the risk of offending all of you who don't give a rip whether you step on
my political or religious toes, I offer the following thought: Now *there's*
a Democrat I can live with.
--
Bill Baldwin
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
>naive. In that case, I don't *want* to be able to purchase morphine legally.
>I want the substance to be illegal and the doctor to force me to withdraw by
>refusing to prescribe.
You have no need for worry. All experience shows that it is not difficult
to cure addiction. If you have well educated therapeuts and a well
motivated addict, the initial cure will succeed. However, then the addict
returns to his everyday life. If that life included drug abuse, then he
might well relapse. In your case, where your life prior to the disease
did not include drug abuse, there is little risk of relapse.
This is what experience shows today. It is not as if morphine products
are hard to get hold of now. They are very expensive, yes, but if you
really want "just one more time", that is not a big obstacle. Yet people
in the situation you describe do not go out and buy.
Klaus O K
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>Drug fueled crimes are overwhelmingly those related to crimes committed NOT TO
>OBTAIN drugs but to protect the market. Legalization would resolve that
>overnight.
Why? Crimes have been comitted to protect market shares in garbage removal.
Klaus O K
Tim Robinson
That's due to another economic crime: government creation of monopolies.
Tim Robinson
What we needed was someone with Kennedy's economic concepts and Nixon's
sexual fidelity, but I think we got the other way around. 8-)
Bill Baldwin
>But I *DO* pay for their religion. It's on my money. It's on my friggin
passport
Huh? That's costing you? I suppose there's the matter of the extra ink....
>and when December rolls around it's on my street lights and on my town
square.
Sorry, but that contradicts your earlier statement. If there's one aspect of
the Christian cultural heritage that has remained in this country, it's the
celebration of Christmas.* And you've already said the government has the
right to tread on your cultural sensibilities in the interest of
representing the majority culture. (Of course at the time you were thinking
of government supported blasphemy even if the *Christians* didn't like it;
but that principle sort of turned around and bit you.)
I disagree with you though and would like to see your rights protected. I
oppose government supported religious displays, including nativity scenes.
>Quite honestly I'm a little sick and tired of supporting religion in the
United
>States. It pays no taxes and yet benefits from billions of free dollars in
>services every year and they still want more.
What exactly does religion receive apart from constitutional protection of
its free exercise? What exactly "more" do you suppose it wants?
>Can an American be free FROM religion? I don't think it is possible.
No more than an American can be free from irreligion. The purpose of the
government is to allow both to exist side by side without tearing each
other's throats out. I am a Christian who understands Biblical principle
enough not to *want* the government to enforce my religion. The government
has no authority in the church. And the elders of the church have no
authority outside it. Paul made that clear in 1 Corinthians 5.
I don't want a theocracy. But I don't want an anti-Christian government
either. Therefore I am opposed to government funding for crosses. With or
without urine.
--
Bill Baldwin
*In one of the churches I grew up in, we used to refer to the BACs, the
Bi-Annual Christians. (By "bi" we meant "semi" but that's another rant.)
They showed up at church for Christmas and Easter. There are millions of
them in the U.S.
jmg
>I think somthing jmg missed (as do many others) is that when you accept
>government money, you accept government orders on how you use that
Tim, it is not something I miss, rather it is something I reject.
The government can be confident enough in itself and the society we create by
not censoring the types of art it supports. Otherwise you get bologna and
mayonnaise sandwiches on Wonder Bread which is what the christian "right" would
like to see.
If there are people who are upset about a picture of a cross in a glass of urine
then those offended must understand that there are also people upset about their
church. There will never be art that makes everyone happy - it's not supposed to
do that - it is supposed to make you think.
I feel a true gauge of a multi-cultural, multi-everything society is what it
allows and tolerates. Our society does nothing less than censor at every
opportunity. It's a sad commentary.
>number themselves in the Christian Coalition to the recipients of
>government art endowments, the latter will be subject to the former. [2]
Wait - my income is taxed and given to religious institutions all across
America, none of which I believe in. What recourse do I have? Is it fair for me
to tell them how to behave, what to write or how to act in public? If so i've
got a list a mile long.
J
Tim Robinson
>>number themselves in the Christian Coalition to the recipients of
>>government art endowments, the latter will be subject to the former. [2]
>
>Wait - my income is taxed and given to religious institutions all across
>America, none of which I believe in. What recourse do I have? Is it fair for me
>to tell them how to behave, what to write or how to act in public? If so i've
>got a list a mile long.
Um, yup. But the "establishment of religion" clause eliminated church
subsidies years ago. If you want to fuss that churches don't pay taxes,
neither do any other non-profit organization. There is a big difference
between subsidy (getting someone else's money) and no taxation (keeping
your own money).
I think the double standard exists where you're not looking. Because
public schools accept tax money, they can't teach religion in them while
quite often in the past, that was normal. Atheistic/agnostic taxpayers
fussed and got the results they wanted. But what's good for the goose
is good for the gander, so taxpaying Christians fussed that their
tax money was beings spent on sex and blasphemy and they are right in
expecting that to be stopped.
Heheh, on that last point, for my money they will be about 5-10%
complete with the job. I don't want ANY tax money spent on the arts
unless equal portions are spent on, say, Rock or Country Western
concerts. "Ah," you may say, "those things don't need art funding." To
which I ask, why not? "Because people are already willing to pay what
it takes to put on those concerts." To which I respond, are you saying
that people aren't willing to pay for abstract art and classical music?
If not WHY THE HELL FORCE THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR IT, PAY FOR IT YOUR
OWN DAMN SELF!!!
Sorry. Lost my head for a sec. Someone will probably say I'm biased
against classical, so my opinion doesn't count. Sorry, but I'm a
violist and I love classical music. But, again, I don't think someone
else should be forced via taxation to pay for what I like. And it has
absolutely zilch to do with religion.
Look, jmg, nobody is saying that the stuff that the Christian Coalition
(and others like them) doesn't like can't be legally produced. I really
doubt that THEY are saying that. But it's just as presumptious to say
that the CC should pay for "offensive art" as it is to expect YOU to pay
for their religion. For the moment, until you demonstrate otherwise,
I'll put it that the social pendulum has actually swung your way and not
theirs.
jmg
>complete with the job. I don't want ANY tax money spent on the arts
>unless equal portions are spent on, say, Rock or Country Western
If rock and country artists applied for federal funding along with christian
groups they'd need to compete with everyone else which would be fair. But they
don't. Christians just whine about it and expect to create a theocracy in which
one or another denominations controls the rest. It'll be a bloody battle I
suppose.
>If not WHY THE HELL FORCE THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR IT, PAY FOR IT YOUR
>OWN DAMN SELF!!!
Because like I said in my earlier post:
>I feel a true gauge of a multi-cultural, multi-everything society is what it
>allows and tolerates.
And let me add, supports.
>else should be forced via taxation to pay for what I like. And it has
>absolutely zilch to do with religion.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree here then. I think a government
has a direct role in support of it's culture. Even a culture is may not agree
with.
America is not a christian nation - we tried that once and it was a disaster.
Based in christian roots? Yes, for it's all they knew at the time. But the times
have changed and things are different now.
>that the CC should pay for "offensive art" as it is to expect YOU to pay
>for their religion. For the moment, until you demonstrate otherwise,
But I *DO* pay for their religion. It's on my money. It's on my friggin passport
and when December rolls around it's on my street lights and on my town square.
Quite honestly I'm a little sick and tired of supporting religion in the United
States. It pays no taxes and yet benefits from billions of free dollars in
services every year and they still want more. While at the same time organized
religion would tear down the constitution and replace it with their ten
commandments. They are a scary bunch.
Can an American be free FROM religion? I don't think it is possible.
>I'll put it that the social pendulum has actually swung your way and not
>theirs.
I can only hope you are right.
Jeff
Tim Robinson
>has a direct role in support of it's culture.
One must ask why. And also where it gets the right to do so by force
(taxation=force) which is something you've already come out against.
>America is not a christian nation - we tried that once and it was a disaster.
Um... when was that? The treaty with the Dey of Algiers signed by
Jefferson said we weren't... ever.
>>that the CC should pay for "offensive art" as it is to expect YOU to pay
>>for their religion. For the moment, until you demonstrate otherwise,
>
>But I *DO* pay for their religion. It's on my money. It's on my friggin
> passport
>and when December rolls around it's on my street lights and on my town square.
Those things don't cost you, they merely offend you.[1] Kinda like
Playboy does to Christians.
>Quite honestly I'm a little sick and tired of supporting religion in the United
>States. It pays no taxes and yet benefits from billions of free dollars in
>services every year and they still want more.
Kinda like the United Way and Planned Parenthood?
>While at the same time organized
>religion would tear down the constitution and replace it with their ten
>commandments. They are a scary bunch.
Wow... news to me. Some like that on TV I suppose, but I don't watch
TV. It's kind of a fantasyland if you ask me. In real life, I don't
know anything like that. The Christians I know have even ceased taking
offense at my pro-legalization stance.
>Can an American be free FROM religion? I don't think it is possible.
I think Bill replied to that better than I could.
[1] Once upon a time creches were paid for by local government (and
aren't particularly pricy). These days, they are erected privately.
Besides, Scrooge (yes, said with a smile), just what WOULD you like
people to do on December 25th now that pretty much the vast majority of
people have little clue just what triggered the holiday. For 90% of
kids, Christmas is Santa, not Christ. Just one reason I say the
pendulum has swung your way.
Rajat Datta
>We're just going to have to agree to disagree here then. I think a government
>with.
>
>have changed and things are different now.
If a single student accepts a government guaranteed student loan, then
all the government preferences about culture, etc. applies to that school.
Even if it is a private school. I don't see how that can be justified to
satisfy one set of preferences and not another. If majority preferences
go along with government money, then it has to be applied across the
board.
If the government should support a culture it doesn't agree with, what
about religious culture? Why can't the government be for freedom of
religion and still support a Christmas pageant?
What's really going on is one group of people who want government money
to support their own ideology, while using government money to suppress
a different ideology. One of the basic features of oppression, I
believe.
rajat
Tim Robinson
>What's really going on is one group of people who want government money
>to support their own ideology, while using government money to suppress
>a different ideology. One of the basic features of oppression, I
>believe.
I believe you're right.
jmg
>Huh? That's costing you? I suppose there's the matter of the extra ink....
It costs me by the fact that I do not believe in your god. Why do I need to have
it pasted on official government documents?
>celebration of Christmas.* And you've already said the government has the
>right to tread on your cultural sensibilities in the interest of
>representing the majority culture. (Of course at the time you were thinking
Um, I don't think I ever mentioned "majority culture". I *do* think I mentioned
that the government should support, in the interest of art and music, ideas it
found abhorrent becuase we are confident enough in ourselves to allow dissent
(sadly though we are not).
>I disagree with you though and would like to see your rights protected. I
>oppose government supported religious displays, including nativity scenes.
As do I.
>What exactly does religion receive apart from constitutional protection of
>its free exercise? What exactly "more" do you suppose it wants?
Well, drug laws - sodomy laws - marriage laws - Sunday blue laws - alcohol
control - the word "god" on everything... I wouln't mind much if this were 1650
and everyone living in the colony was a Puritan. But even then there was
dissension in the ranks and people felt a need to be a little freer than the
constraints the church put on every day life.
>>Can an American be free FROM religion? I don't think it is possible.
>
>No more than an American can be free from irreligion. The purpose of the
>government is to allow both to exist side by side without tearing each
>other's throats out. I am a Christian who understands Biblical principle
Then it is not unfair to say that as of late I feel my throat being torn out by
christians in this country.
>I don't want a theocracy. But I don't want an anti-Christian government
>either. Therefore I am opposed to government funding for crosses. With or
How about a government that leaves you alone. How about a governemnt that does
not legilsate what a man or woman can do with their own bodies, that allows
individuals to make decisions based on what they feel is right for them rather
than what is felt is right with the bible?
Religion belongs in your heart, your home and your church. Not on my money, on
my streets or on my laws.
jmg
>One must ask why. And also where it gets the right to do so by force
>(taxation=force) which is something you've already come out against.
That is not true - I don't believe I equated taxation with force. I *do* believe
I clearly stated that I felt taxation was appropriate and is not force.
>Those things don't cost you, they merely offend you.[1] Kinda like
>Playboy does to Christians.
No, that is not true. There is a cost of providing goods and services (roads,
street lights, ambulances, loss of taxes on income, police and fire protection
and the like to the myriad churches and synagogues and mosques, etc,. There is a
definite and most likely measurable cost here.
>>Quite honestly I'm a little sick and tired of supporting religion in the United
>>States. It pays no taxes and yet benefits from billions of free dollars in
>>services every year and they still want more.
>
>Kinda like the United Way and Planned Parenthood?
Exactly. There is one difference though : neither UNited Way nor Planned
Parenthood made judgements about how you lived your life, at least not the last
time I looked.
>Wow... news to me. Some like that on TV I suppose, but I don't watch
>TV. It's kind of a fantasyland if you ask me. In real life, I don't
>know anything like that. The Christians I know have even ceased taking
>offense at my pro-legalization stance.
Once in awhile I'll drop in on the TV to see what the dominant culture is up to.
It's scary and uncomfortable. Ever hear Trent Lott or Jesse Helms speak? Pat
Buchanan or Jerry Falwell? Scary shit indeed.
In haste...
Tim Robinson
>bogus@@see.sig.for.for.reply (Tim Robinson) wrote:
>
>>One must ask why. And also where it gets the right to do so by force
>>(taxation=force) which is something you've already come out against.
>
>That is not true - I don't believe I equated taxation with force. I *do*
> believe
>I clearly stated that I felt taxation was appropriate and is not force.
It's not force? You mean, I don't have to pay taxes and nothing will
happen to me?
>>Those things don't cost you, they merely offend you.[1] Kinda like
>>Playboy does to Christians.
>
>No, that is not true. There is a cost of providing goods and services (roads,
>street lights, ambulances, loss of taxes on income, police and fire protection
>and the like to the myriad churches and synagogues and mosques, etc,. There is
> a
>definite and most likely measurable cost here.
Well, if you're going to bring that up, those services you mention are
not quite so much provided to the organizations as to the people in the
organizations.... who DO pay taxes.
>>Kinda like the United Way and Planned Parenthood?
>
>Exactly. There is one difference though : neither UNited Way nor Planned
>Parenthood made judgements about how you lived your life, at least not the last
>time I looked.
That rather depends on whether you like the antics of the United Way or
Planned Parenthood or not And it's irrelevant if they, like churches,
have political opininons (both do). All are non-profit organizations
and get to keep their donations tax-free.
Please forgive me, but I'm going to level the charge of a
double-standard against you. There are things you want the government
to do and not do. That's fine. But it seems you want the good things
done to atheistic/agnostic people and organizations, and the bad ones to
Christians and their organizations. You gripe about tax-free status for
churches, but you needed me to mention secular institutions in the same
position. Below, you dislike conservatives running peoples lives, but
not liberals doing the same thing. You want government money for the
arts and for all arts equally... but you don't want money spent on
Christians for Christian purposes... let's say Creches and lights at
Christmas. That's not particularly equal.
>>Wow... news to me. Some like that on TV I suppose, but I don't watch
>>TV. It's kind of a fantasyland if you ask me. In real life, I don't
>>know anything like that. The Christians I know have even ceased taking
>>offense at my pro-legalization stance.
>
>Once in awhile I'll drop in on the TV to see what the dominant culture is up
> to.
>It's scary and uncomfortable. Ever hear Trent Lott or Jesse Helms speak? Pat
>Buchanan or Jerry Falwell? Scary shit indeed.
A-yup. Helms, Buchannon and Falwell, as well as Clinton, Reno, Dworkin
and Kennedy are all statists: believers that somehow a well financed and
centralized government can run all our lives just fine... as long as
THEY get to pull the strings. Then they all do battle with each other
do decide what strings to pull. I don't like the whole lot of them.
SJF 1959
>Hopefully we'd stop the "war" part and concentrate instead on creating a
society in which art and music and education weren't at the mercy of the
christian coalition. Where we could have freedom FROM religion. <
>
>I have a feeling fewer people would seek the need to escape...
Wait! Are you saying that political activism motivated by religous convictions
influences people to use drugs recreationally?
Regards from Deborah
FAQ file: http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Mailing list: http://www.listbot.com/subscribe/sjf1959.aol.com
Yiddishkeit code:
S- Fa1,c=0 Ng M- K- H tI SYrc/A Te!a P FO/s/m/sL/co D Tz+ E++ L Aw Ha hc--
SJF 1959
>drug-fueled crime, c) the traditional American Puritan antipathy to
>pleasures not derived from hard work, and d) bureaucratic empire
As you know, I don't come from Puritan stock myself, but I do have to object to
the general tendency to blame any anhedonism in American culture on them.
Moreover, it's only fair to point out that the American Puritans were *heavy*
beer drinkers.
SJF 1959
>wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
You don't have to take my word for it, but the conventional wisdom in drug
abuse rehabilitation is that willpower has nothing to do with abstention from
addictive substances.
Regards from Deborah "used to work in substance abuse prevention" Finn
Tim Robinson
>"Bill Baldwin" <rev...@gte.net> writes:
>
>>wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
>>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
>>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
>>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
>
>You don't have to take my word for it, but the conventional wisdom in drug
>abuse rehabilitation is that willpower has nothing to do with abstention from
>addictive substances.
What does?
Robert William Vesterman
>"Bill Baldwin" <rev...@gte.net> writes:
>
>>wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
>>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
>>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
>>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
>
>You don't have to take my word for it, but the conventional wisdom in drug
>abuse rehabilitation is that willpower has nothing to do with abstention from
>addictive substances.
I don't get it. I'd buy "the vast majority of people don't have
enough willpower to abstain from addictive substances". But this
"conventional wisdom" seems to be saying it's flat-out impossible to
say "I will not drink another drink" and make it stick. Or if you did
say so, and it did stick, it was sheer coincidence, and had nothing to
do with the fact that you resolved to quit.
Bob Vesterman.
--
This is the coolest of all sig files.
Rajat Datta
>It's scary and uncomfortable. Ever hear Trent Lott or Jesse Helms speak? Pat
>Buchanan or Jerry Falwell? Scary shit indeed.
Oh yes indeed. Frightening stuff. But then, when I hear Gore, Mfume,
Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, I get scared too.
Basically, there's a bunch of people who want to use government power
to tell you how you should live, what you should believe, how you should
think, what you should read, etc. Those people are scary. It's just
that you seem to feel that only some of them are scary, probably because
you support the ideological stance of the others.
Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Buchanan and Falwell are simply using the powers
of government oppression that the liberals have been using for the last
few decades.
rajat
SJF 1959
William Vesterman) writes:
>>You don't have to take my word for it, but the conventional wisdom in drug
>>abuse rehabilitation is that willpower has nothing to do with abstention
>from
>>addictive substances.
>
>I don't get it. I'd buy "the vast majority of people don't have
>enough willpower to abstain from addictive substances". But this
>"conventional wisdom" seems to be saying it's flat-out impossible to
>say "I will not drink another drink" and make it stick. Or if you did
>say so, and it did stick, it was sheer coincidence, and had nothing to
>do with the fact that you resolved to quit.
Well, I know I have some A.A. literature around here.* I can quote from it -
would you consider this to be a fairly good representation of conventional
wisdom? I realize that A.A. reflects the experience of recovering alcoholics
rather than morphine addicts (which would be more to the point in the
hypothetical situation that Bill mentioned), but A.A.'s literature has been
treated as a sort of template for many of the drug rehab programs that acheive
any kind of success.
(A pause while I scramble through the Finn collection, which is organized
according to the traditional scheme of "Stuff in Piles Falling over onto Other
Stuff in Other Piles.")
Ok, I found it. This is from their how-to book, "Twelve Steps and Twelve
Traditions."
"We are certain that our intelligence, backed by willpower, can rightly
control our inner lives and guarentee us success....This brave philosophy,
wherein each man** plays God, sounds good in the speaking, but it still has to
meet the acid test: how well does it actually work? One good look in the
mirror ought to be answer enough for any alcoholic....
"....Each of us has had his own near-fatal encounter with the juggernaut
of self-will, and has suffered enough under its weight to be willing to look
for something better. So it is by circumstance rather than by any virtue that
we have been driven to A.A., have admitted defeat, have acquired the rudiments
of faith, and now want to make a decision to turn our will and our lives over
to a Higher Power."
* I'm not a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, so please don't assume I'm
speaking on behalf of the organization.
** Not reponsible for sexist language. That's what it says in the book. -DEF
Regards from Deborah
Rajat Datta
>Ok, I found it. This is from their how-to book, "Twelve Steps and Twelve
>Traditions."
>
> "We are certain that our intelligence, backed by willpower, can rightly
>control our inner lives and guarentee us success....This brave philosophy,
>wherein each man** plays God, sounds good in the speaking, but it still has to
>meet the acid test: how well does it actually work? One good look in the
>mirror ought to be answer enough for any alcoholic....
>
> "....Each of us has had his own near-fatal encounter with the juggernaut
>of self-will, and has suffered enough under its weight to be willing to look
>for something better. So it is by circumstance rather than by any virtue that
>we have been driven to A.A., have admitted defeat, have acquired the rudiments
>of faith, and now want to make a decision to turn our will and our lives over
>to a Higher Power."
>
Maybe I don't get it, but it just sounds like a different technique for
marshalling your own willpower.
Willpower isn't just something you're born with. It's cultivated with
discipline. Sounds to me like the AA is using religion to instill the
discipline necessary for willpower.
rajat
SJF 1959
>I disagree with you though and would like to see your rights protected. I
>oppose government supported religious displays, including nativity scenes.
Can I just mention one of my pet peeves..
It's that giant menorah the put up on Boston Common during Hanukah. As if that
somehow cancelled out the nativity scene.
By the way, i'm convinced that those guys who are kneeling in front of the
latter are maccabees playing wih dreidels.
Bill Baldwin
>I just want the church to leave me the f*** alone. Can they do that?
I have deliberately bowdlerized your quote and I do not apologize for that.
You say things over and over that are offensive to me, my beliefs, my
religion. And then you want *me* -- i.e. my kind of people as you perceive
them -- to leave *you* alone.
You ask if the church can leave you alone, yet you haven't cited anything
that the church does to invade your life. Apparently the existence of the
church and the stance it takes on certain moral issues constitute an offense
to you that is at odds with leaving you alone. You are in essence asking
that the church cease to exist. Can it do that? No. Not even for you.
I just want you to leave the church alone. Can you do that?
--
Bill Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
>Can I just mention one of my pet peeves..
>
>It's that giant menorah the put up on Boston Common during Hanukah. As if
that
>somehow cancelled out the nativity scene.
In a way, it does. In essence they are saying they don't take anyone's
religion seriously; they're just putting up cultural icons.
I wonder how you would feel if I made the same point:
Can I just mention one of my pet peeves..
It's that giant nativity scene they put up on Boston Common during
Christmas. As if that somehow cancelled out the menorah.
--
Bill Baldwin
Roland Latour
>
> Having grown weary of my old caption, I merely quote the expurgated ramblings of sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) as follows:
> >
> >>wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
> >>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
> >>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
> >>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
> >
> >abuse rehabilitation is that willpower has nothing to do with abstention from
> >addictive substances.
>
Common wisdom is that if you use "addictive" drugs, you will get
addicted.
Common wisdom is wrong. Many people use alcohol wisely with no tendency
to
become alcoholics. There is evidence that tendency to addiction has a
genetic component. In any event, addiction is not a simple process. For
example, Larry Flynt used prescription painkillers (for pain, under
doctor's
orders) for years, then one day decided to quit. No problem. His wife
used
the same painkillers (who knows why, not under doctor's orders) and
became
addicted.
--
Roland Latour rol...@cdsnet.net http://home.cdsnet.net/~rolandl
Retired/burned-out Tech Support Engineer Linux Slackware3.4 & PPP
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are
men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean
without the roar of its many waters." -- Frederick Douglass
jmg
>arts and for all arts equally... but you don't want money spent on
>Christians for Christian purposes... let's say Creches and lights at
>Christmas. That's not particularly equal.
If the double standard arises from chastising the church for trying to legislate
morality yet I allowing the government more leeway then I stand guilty as
charged. It's just that the government is more tolerant than the church.
I just want the church to leave me the fuck alone. Can they do that?
jmg
>Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Buchanan and Falwell are simply using the powers
>of government oppression that the liberals have been using for the last
>few decades.
Rajat,
Can you describe for me your qualification for "liberal"? It's a term too
loosely defined and often changed at the whim of the user. So, can you tell me
your definition so I can see how those names of people fit in?
Adam Tyner
>Can you describe for me your qualification for "liberal"? It's a term too
>loosely defined and often changed at the whim of the user. So, can you tell me
>your definition so I can see how those names of people fit in?
This isn't necessarily how I define it, but the impression I get from
most people is that if you strongly oppose something, just slap the
'liberal' tag on it and pretty much everyone will join you. ;-)
-Adam
Rajat Datta
>ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) wrote:
>
>>Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Buchanan and Falwell are simply using the powers
>>of government oppression that the liberals have been using for the last
>>few decades.
>
>Rajat,
>
>loosely defined and often changed at the whim of the user. So, can you tell me
>your definition so I can see how those names of people fit in?
We've got liberals and the conservatives; two sides of the same coin.
Basically anyone who wants to use the power of government to make
things better, by their definition. Proposals slide easily from moral
suasion into state-sponsored coercion. To the liberals, using the
government to coerce private schools and organizations to push their
agenda using the excuse of government funds trumping First Amendment
rights is simply good citizenship. To the conservatives, using the
government to coerce artists to produce decent art using the excuse of
government funds trumping First Amendment rights is simply saving the
country. And, of course, neither side sees how similar they are to
the other.
The two differences are a) which ideology they are using government
coercion to shove down our throats and b) the liberals have been in
power for the last few decades and are about to be challenged by the
social conservatives. We've heard the howlings from the conservatives
about Satan being summoned by the liberals in charge; if the
political experts are right about the next election, we're going to
start hearing howlings from the liberals about the rise of the KKK
and Scrooge.
rajat
jmg
>to you that is at odds with leaving you alone. You are in essence asking
>that the church cease to exist. Can it do that? No. Not even for you.
>
>I just want you to leave the church alone. Can you do that?
Well Bill, some 20 something states still have sodomy laws on their books - some
states still have Sunday "blue laws", others do not allow the purchase of
alcohol on Sundays - there is the whole abortion issue and the drug issue and
the prostitution issue and a whole lot of other things that I find, and that
history finds to be brought about by the church attempting to legislate
behavior.
In an honest secular society we would not be interested in those things: you
would be allowed to go to your church on Sunday and I would be allowed to buy
beer while you were in there. You would be allowed to witness christ and I would
be allowed to sleep with whom I wanted. You would be allowed to sing Christmas
carols on TV and I would be allowed to sing Marilyn Manson on TV. YOu would be
allowed to transform your mind with the holy spirit and I'd no longer have to
hide to transform mine.
The funny thing is that I feel that both can survive quite well side by side and
that one need not interfere with the other. But the whole "judeo/christian"
thing we try to make law simply interferes with MY freedoms (and alleged rights)
while furthering your agenda.
I have no problem with setting a framework for us to live together: you don't
hurt me and I won't hurt you. Don't steal from me, don't kill me - in effect
allow me to live my life as I see fit and when we're in common areas together
we'll agree to not murder each other. Fine. But the church cannot see to create
a framework they need to create a box that restricts ideas and movements to a
rigidly defined space, one that they define. There is no room for dissent or
free expression only adherence to their scriptures.
No one stops the church from showing on TV what it would like to show on TV but
the church routinely tries to stop others from doing the same. No one stops the
church from displaying artwork it wants to display but the church is constantly
trying to stop others from displaying art works they do not agree with.
Cannot the church simply maintain it's attention to itself and it's believers?
Do they always need to attempt the legislation of a moral code that is narrowly
defined? Can the church accept that there are "families" that do not follow
their own rigid structures?
Can the church survive (and I think that is a key word) on it's own in a
multi-cultural and secular society? I think not. Which is why it is always
trying to control the debate, the laws, the culture... to provide for it's own
furtherance and existence.
If the church was "right" then there'd be no need for it to try to control
everything in our lives as they do. Rather, they would revel in their confidence
and allow the rest of the freedom to be "wrong". The church does not do this and
it must realize and come to grips with it.
Anyway, this has been far enough off-topic to be the meat for another thread.
jmg
>The two differences are a) which ideology they are using government
>coercion to shove down our throats and b) the liberals have been in
I think you are trying to say that if one wants the government to assist in
social change they are considered to be "liberals". Then by that theory those
who want government to assist in corporate change they can be considered
"conservative"?
>political experts are right about the next election, we're going to
>start hearing howlings from the liberals about the rise of the KKK
By your definition the KKK would be a liberal organization. Funny stuff.
The labels suck and plainly do not work.
I'm in favor of the death penalty (when applied fairly and quickly)which makes
me a conservative. I'm in favor of gay rights which makes me a liberal. I'm in
favor of the govvies backing off corporations which makes me a conservative and
I'm also in favor of the govvies stopping corporate welfare which makes me a
conservative.
Where do I stand?
Jim Ward
>SJF 1959 wrote
>>Can I just mention one of my pet peeves..
>>
>>It's that giant menorah the put up on Boston Common during Hanukah. As if
>>that somehow cancelled out the nativity scene.
What? You guys don't like being put in the role of the Anti-Religion?
>In a way, it does. In essence they are saying they don't take anyone's
>religion seriously; they're just putting up cultural icons.
>I wonder how you would feel if I made the same point:
>Can I just mention one of my pet peeves..
>It's that giant nativity scene they put up on Boston Common during
>Christmas. As if that somehow cancelled out the menorah.
I want my giant Ganesha!
Which gets me to ruminating - what festivals do Hindus and Buddhists
celebrate in late December?
Jim Ward
>I'm in favor of the death penalty (when applied fairly and quickly) which makes
>me a conservative. I'm in favor of gay rights which makes me a liberal. I'm in
>favor of the govvies backing off corporations which makes me a conservative and
>I'm also in favor of the govvies stopping corporate welfare which makes me a
>conservative.
>Where do I stand?
In the grand American tradition of holding beliefs which are
irritating to both political parties. Long live Democracy!
deepstblu
>
> jmg...@ix.netcom.com (jmg) writes:
>
> >Drug fueled crimes are overwhelmingly those related to crimes committed NOT TO
> >OBTAIN drugs but to protect the market.
Mmm, I don't know. Probably more violent crime comes from turf wars, but
there's plenty of property crime committed by users. If you park your
car in a central city area, it is not advisable to leave anything of
even trivial value visible, because when you come back it'll be gone and
your window will be broken. Get out here to the inner-ring suburbs and
you can leave your umbrella on the seat, but don't leave the car running
while you dash into the store for a pack of Kools, because someone like
Bruce W. Peters may be waiting. Mr. Peters is charged with stealing five
vehicles in four days under such circumstances, financing his drug habit
by selling them "for small sums of money to people who took them on
joyrides and then abandoned them on the streets." (Phila. Inquirer 7/18)
(Yeah, leaving the car running is a stupid move. I include this just to
show that the situation isn't a UL.)
I used to think that legalization would reduce the petty crimes by
making drugs cheap enough to reduce the need to commit them. But when
you read of guys stealing cars and essentially trading them for one or
two doses of crack--which isn't all that much money--I start to wonder a
bit.
> >Legalization would resolve that
> >overnight.
> Why? Crimes have been comitted to protect market shares in garbage removal.
And vending machines, jukeboxes, restaurant supplies...
Rick B.
Jim Ward
>deepstblu <deep...@sprynet.com> writes:
>>drug-fueled crime, c) the traditional American Puritan antipathy to
>>pleasures not derived from hard work, and d) bureaucratic empire
>As you know, I don't come from Puritan stock myself, but I do have to object to
>the general tendency to blame any anhedonism in American culture on them.
>Moreover, it's only fair to point out that the American Puritans were *heavy*
>beer drinkers.
I thought they were heavy cider drinkers, beer being a German
immigrant import.
Jim Ward
>Having grown weary of my old caption, I merely quote the expurgated ramblings of sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) as follows:
>>"Bill Baldwin" <rev...@gte.net> writes:
>>
>>>wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
>>>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
>>>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
>>>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
>>
>>You don't have to take my word for it, but the conventional wisdom in drug
>>abuse rehabilitation is that willpower has nothing to do with abstention from
>>addictive substances.
>What does?
I read that if your goal is to destroy your life (because you believe
you are a bad person and deserve to be punished), then drug abuse is a
pleasant ride to the end (six feet under).
Deborah has experience in this area, and I am interested in her views
about what causes addiction.
One of the things about drug discussions is that no one seems to quote
any science. Drugs have been around a long time. You would think
someone would've done some studies that say "If you legalize X, then Y
people will probably become addictied, causing Z dollars in damage to
society".
Instead, people tend to argue from the gut, "I like A, so A should be
legalized, and people who don't like it are fascists or don't have
enough willpower". Or "A is bad and should never be used or it might
fall into the hands of children".
I note that no country has legalized opium or heroin, so these are
universally agreed upon to be bad drugs. Doesn't Amsterdam sell legal
pot? How has their experience worked out? How come Holland can
legalize it, but the US can't? I look to Nevada to lead the way,
adding a Hemp City tourist attraction outside Area 51.
Perhaps any society can only allow a certain quantity of legalized fun
before falling apart. Maybe the Dutch can be so liberal with dope
because they are repressed in other areas.
(During the World Cup, sometimes I was rooting for Holland, other
times I was rooting for the Netherlands. I gotta know the Straight
Dope! What team was I cheering for??)
Jim Ward
>Judging by addictive potential, physical risks, likelihood of hurting
>others, and burden-on-society, alcohol is a big loser. However, it's
>very popular and has been used throughout recorded history, and is easy
>to make. Marijuana rates lower than alcohol in most of the negative
>categories, and (as hemp) rates high in the "practical uses" category.
>Why is it illegal while alcohol is not? Crack cocaine has very high
>addictive potential and physical risk, as well as burden-on-society in
>the form of crack babies, habit-feeding crimes, etc. Since crack has no
>other uses, the cost to society is too high. LSD, mushrooms etc. rank
>low in all categories, both negative and positive. Why not make it
>legal? Where's the harm? It's already been done with peyote, used in the
>Native American church.
One theory is that for a society to function, the people must want to
work. Most work is dull (but necessary) and you gotta to give people
something fun to do in the off hours.
Alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene - can actually help workers endure the
tedium. Legalize 'em!
Cocaine, LSD, and mushrooms - workers may not show up the next
morning. Ban 'em!
Marijuana - could go either way. I think pot needs some good PR, maybe
a cuddly cartoon spokesperson, like Willie the Weed.
Adam Tyner
>I'm in favor of the death penalty (when applied fairly and quickly)which makes
>me a conservative. I'm in favor of gay rights which makes me a liberal. I'm in
>favor of the govvies backing off corporations which makes me a conservative and
>I'm also in favor of the govvies stopping corporate welfare which makes me a
>conservative.
>
>Where do I stand?
The same place as me, apparently. ;-) Last summer I was on a road
trip, and to break away from the monotony of hearing the same 5 songs
on top 40 radio stations, I decided to turn to the AM dial and
actually listened to Rush Limbaugh for a while... He said that
moderates "are people who believe in nothing". Now tell me - who
sounds more like they believe in something - people like you who
formulate your own beliefs or those who blindly follow a party
regardless of the issues?
-Adam, who started re-reading "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" last
night... :-)
Rajat Datta
>(During the World Cup, sometimes I was rooting for Holland, other
>times I was rooting for the Netherlands. I gotta know the Straight
>Dope! What team was I cheering for??)
Netherlands. Holland is the name of one of the areas that make up
Netherlands. It would be like calling the U.S. California.
rajat
Rajat Datta
>ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) wrote:
>
>>The two differences are a) which ideology they are using government
>>coercion to shove down our throats and b) the liberals have been in
>
>I think you are trying to say that if one wants the government to assist in
>social change they are considered to be "liberals". Then by that theory those
>who want government to assist in corporate change they can be considered
>"conservative"?
The conservative push to use government money to control the arts,
abortion policy, etc. are social changes. Both groups use government
to coerce social changes, not political.
>
>>political experts are right about the next election, we're going to
>>start hearing howlings from the liberals about the rise of the KKK
>
>By your definition the KKK would be a liberal organization. Funny stuff.
How did what I say describe the KKK as a liberal organization? The
liberals seem to be very quick to describe anyone not for sex and race
based preferences as Nazis or KKK members (which mirrors a conservative
tendency to label someone as communist or godless).
>
>The labels suck and plainly do not work.
>
>I'm in favor of the death penalty (when applied fairly and quickly)which makes
>me a conservative. I'm in favor of gay rights which makes me a liberal. I'm in
>favor of the govvies backing off corporations which makes me a conservative and
>I'm also in favor of the govvies stopping corporate welfare which makes me a
>conservative.
>
>Where do I stand?
Much closer to the libertarians (little 'l' not big 'L' possibly), except
for the part of the government backing of corporations. How can the
government back corporations and have it not be corporate welfare?
rajat
jmg
>I read that if your goal is to destroy your life (because you believe
>you are a bad person and deserve to be punished), then drug abuse is a
>pleasant ride to the end (six feet under).
You read bad propaganda. The overwhelmingly best way to ruin your life is with
alcohol. It's easy to get, legal to make (for self consumption) and a six pack
of beer is cheaper than a six pack of soda. Way to go!
>One of the things about drug discussions is that no one seems to quote
>any science. Drugs have been around a long time. You would think
>someone would've done some studies that say "If you legalize X, then Y
A good deal of the science has been quashed by either federal agencies or by
universities and medical establishments, mainly to further the status quo. One
of the federal government's own agencies concluded recently that marijuana was
not the devil that so many had made it out to be (I'm looking for the reference
for you doubters out there) but the govvies had the report quashed and the
results of the report altered. Moreover the UN also quashed a report calling for
widespread legalization saying that the war on drugs has disrupted more lives
and cost more money than the worst case scenario of legalization would cause.
>Instead, people tend to argue from the gut, "I like A, so A should be
>legalized, and people who don't like it are fascists or don't have
People tend to argue about things they know little about. While listening to
talk radio in NY the other day (which is a valid reason for legalization, of you
ask me!) I heard Jay Diamond or one of those pinheads talk about how if drugs
were legal we'd have "zombies walking around the streets". I can guess he'd
never been to New Canaan, CT to see the 'Prozac Wives' (who are allowed to
drive!). But I digress...
The point is that there won't be any zombies walking around the streets nor
driving any more than there are today. Though illegal, friends tell me that
whatever is wanted is available - just that the price is high making Schedule I
substances available almost only to the wealthy - thus crack cocaine for the
poor.
>enough willpower". Or "A is bad and should never be used or it might
>fall into the hands of children".
That's my favorite anti rant - "we MUST protect our children!". Protect them
from what?
If kids today don't see the constant warring between groups as damaging to their
upbringing I don't know what...
If we were a nurturing society then we'd be able to worry less about what
substances people were using for personal enjoyment because if they had a bad
time or were curious they'd be able to go somewhere for real and honest
information, not the bad news church led propaganda mills we have today. What a
pity!
>I note that no country has legalized opium or heroin, so these are
>universally agreed upon to be bad drugs. Doesn't Amsterdam sell legal
>pot? How has their experience worked out? How come Holland can
In Amsterdam you are allowed up to 5 grams for personal use and while
technically illegal, coffee houses sell pot to customers : See, the Dutch tend
to treat their residents as adults capable of making personal choices. Here in
the US.... well, you can have a gun but you can't have a joint.
General Barry McCaffrey (America's proud and fearless "Drug Czar") called the
Dutch experiment a total disaster by pointing to a bunch of crime figures that
showed the Dutch had a higher murder rate, blah blah blah. It is most
unfortunate that when someone looked at the numbers he was using they found he
was wrong - by a factor of ten, proving that the US had a murder and crime rate
ten times higher. Who researched those numbers? Well, the Dutch government for
one along with people like myself and other agencies concerned with the truth.
When the error was pointed out to Mr. McCaffrey he replied to the effect that we
could "ignore the facts" to make his point. As an American I am so proud he's
leading the fight! Honesty and truth can be set by the wayside while we "ignore
the facts".
>Perhaps any society can only allow a certain quantity of legalized fun
>before falling apart. Maybe the Dutch can be so liberal with dope
>because they are repressed in other areas.
The Dutch have chosen to make their citizens responsible for their own actions
and were willing to do so OUTSIDE of the bullshit and pseudo-science and
political rhetoric that otherwise clouds the debate.
>(During the World Cup, sometimes I was rooting for Holland, other
>times I was rooting for the Netherlands. I gotta know the Straight
>Dope! What team was I cheering for??)
Brazil. You were rooting for Brazil!
jmg
>there's plenty of property crime committed by users. If you park your
>car in a central city area, it is not advisable to leave anything of
But you are assuming that the property theft from your car was done in order to
provide funds for "drugs". It could have been for fun, alcohol or pampers. (as
one who has worked extensively in inner city neighborhoods I can tell you that
pampers and infamil (sp?) is high on the list of items good are stolen to pay
for.)
>Bruce W. Peters may be waiting. Mr. Peters is charged with stealing five
>vehicles in four days under such circumstances, financing his drug habit
>by selling them "for small sums of money to people who took them on
>joyrides and then abandoned them on the streets." (Phila. Inquirer 7/18)
May I ask what matter it is WHY Mr. Peters was stealing cars? Isn't it enough he
was stealing cars? Would the law be any different if he were doing it to put
food on his table or keep a roof over his head?
>I used to think that legalization would reduce the petty crimes by
>making drugs cheap enough to reduce the need to commit them. But when
>you read of guys stealing cars and essentially trading them for one or
>two doses of crack--which isn't all that much money--I start to wonder a
I think the rhetoric and propaganda have gotten to you.
>> Why? Crimes have been comitted to protect market shares in garbage removal.
>And vending machines, jukeboxes, restaurant supplies...
Indeed - and the crime is the crime. The motivation and reason behind it are
apparently not an issue; unless you want to begin the process of learning why
crimes are being committed NOT for police action but for social improvement. But
we gave that up years ago - out with rehab and in with incarceration.
jmg
>liberals seem to be very quick to describe anyone not for sex and race
>based preferences as Nazis or KKK members (which mirrors a conservative
>tendency to label someone as communist or godless).
Your use of the terms gloss over so much of import that the words mean nothing
but become buzz words for a semantic and political fight. Find other words -
because you cannot place people or politics into little boxes. It just don't
work that way.
Moreover, at a time when understanding is required your continued misuse of the
terms "liberal" and "conservative" serve to divide rather than attract. Try some
building and joining rather than tearing down.
BTW, Are you a US citizen?
>government back corporations and have it not be corporate welfare?
It's all a matter of terminology.
FrogPrinc9
>
>j...@radix.net (Jim Ward) wrote:
>
>>I read that if your goal is to destroy your life (because you believe
>>you are a bad person and deserve to be punished), then drug abuse is a
>>pleasant ride to the end (six feet under).
>
>You read bad propaganda.
Parts of the argument you put forth in this thread is at least somewhat
persuasive. In this case, however, how can you call bad propaganda something
which you have not read, not knowing the source/author(s)? Simply calling it
propaganda is, in itself, propaganda.
>
>>One of the things about drug discussions is that no one seems to quote
>>any science. Drugs have been around a long time. You would think
>>someone would've done some studies that say "If you legalize X, then Y
>
>A good deal of the science has been quashed by either federal agencies or by
>universities and medical establishments, mainly to further the status quo.
Without naming which agencies, universities and medical establishments; telling
us which reports were quashed; and providing cites as to the thought processes
of those performing the quashing ("Hey, Ethel, we have to do this if we want
to further the status quo") this paragraph is nothing more than a conspiracy
theory rant. You may, in fact, be correct in your assertion, but you have
provided no evidence allowing this argument.
>One
>of the federal government's own agencies concluded recently that marijuana
>was
>not the devil that so many had made it out to be (I'm looking for the
>reference
>for you doubters out there)
I read this also, but since you are seeking the reference I shan't bother. You
are right, though.
> but the govvies had the report quashed and the
>results of the report altered.
Uhhh -- the report was not quashed or you and I could not have read it (or of
it). IIRC the *conclusions* drawn from the report were the debatable issue,
not the report itself.
> Moreover the UN also quashed a report calling
>for
>widespread legalization saying that the war on drugs has disrupted more lives
>and cost more money than the worst case scenario of legalization would cause.
More conspiracy theory.
>
>>Instead, people tend to argue from the gut, "I like A, so A should be
>>legalized, and people who don't like it are fascists or don't have
>
>People tend to argue about things they know little about. W...
>
Or about things they know something about, and on which they hold strong
opinions. Like your post. You generally provide more substance and less
linguistic legerdemain.
>That's my favorite anti rant - "we MUST protect our children!". Protect them
>from what?
>
>If kids today don't see the constant warring between groups as damaging to
>their
>upbringing I don't know what...
>
But you see, Jeff, just as you do not want any of us, via church, government or
individual action to decide what you may and may not do, we do not want you to
make decisions on what is and is not potentially harmful to our children. Your
opinion of the "warring between groups" being damaging is only your opinion.
Parents may well feel that taking a stance in that "war" is a way to show their
children what they perceive as values. Surely you do not wish to impinge on
that right, do you?
>
>In Amsterdam you are allowed up to 5 grams for personal use
Which is, admittedly, different that the U.S.
> and while
>technically illegal, coffee houses sell pot to customers : See, the Dutch
>tend
>to treat their residents as adults capable of making personal choices. Here
>in
>the US.... well, you can have a gun but you can't have a joint.
but how, does this show Amsterdam to be different from the U.S.? Here pot is
technically illegal, but if you are arrested and are in possession of minimal
amounts of grass for personal use, you are unlikely to be arrested and, if you
are, the penalties are far from Draconian.
>
>The Dutch have chosen to make their citizens responsible for their own
>actions
>and were willing to do so OUTSIDE of the bullshit and pseudo-science and
>political rhetoric that otherwise clouds the debate.
Yet you say it is illegal for coffee-houses to sell pot? Paradoxical
>
>Shadow boxing in the dark.
>
Yes, this time at least, I believe you are.
John Brown
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may
reach you." Gibran
FrogPrinc9
>ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) wrote:
>
>>liberals seem to be very quick to describe anyone not for sex and race
>>based preferences as Nazis or KKK members
>BTW, Are you a US citizen?
>
BTW, Are you a Racist?
John Brown
Tim Robinson
>>I used to think that legalization would reduce the petty crimes by
>>making drugs cheap enough to reduce the need to commit them. But when
>>you read of guys stealing cars and essentially trading them for one or
>>two doses of crack--which isn't all that much money--I start to wonder a
>
>I think the rhetoric and propaganda have gotten to you.
I think you're right. Someone once pointed out that if you repeat
something publicly loudly and long enough that people will begin to
believe it. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that may have been Goebels.)
Anyway, for the last few decades decades the government has been
yammering away at the line "drugs cause crime." People have begun to
believe... or at least rationalize it. A statement that is more
realistic and needs considerably less explaining to understand or prove
is "black-markets cause crime." Of course, once you start thinking
along those lines, the solution to a lot of drug-crime problems becomes
obvious.
| Tim Robinson | Lonely Web page. Please visit. |
| timt...@ionet.net | http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by |
| men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." L. Brandeis |
Fake e-mail used for spam fighting. Please use the one in the sig.
Tim Robinson
>Cocaine, LSD, and mushrooms - workers may not show up the next
>morning. Ban 'em!
I agree... once you've banned those workers, they will discover they
have to sober up or have nothing.
Tim Robinson
>That's my favorite anti rant - "we MUST protect our children!". Protect them
>from what?
As a father of four, I can tell you that that thing I want them
protected from is the drug war and its effects.
Jeff, as someone else points out in another post, they think that Person
A's right to drugs interferes with Person B's right to parent. Frankly,
this notion escapes me. We do it with alcohol. The sale of alcohol
only to adults doesn't interfere with anyone's parenting. No reason we
can't do it with other drugs. Presently, drug dealers are already
criminals, so they don't give a rat's ass about the age of the buyer.
In a society without a a drug black market, parental controls stand a
chance of being returned.
Now, I realize a lot of kids get alcohol which is technically illegal to
sell to minors. But find me a drunk teen and 95% of the time I'll show
you parents who have abdicated parenting at some important stage in
their child's life.
Tim Robinson
>irritating to both political parties. Long live Democracy!
Nope. Death to Democracy. Long live a Representative Constitutional
Republic. (... and to hell with poetic slogans :-) .)
Jim Ward
>Having grown weary of my old caption, I merely quote the expurgated ramblings of j...@radix.net (Jim Ward) as follows:
>>In the grand American tradition of holding beliefs which are
>>irritating to both political parties. Long live Democracy!
>Nope. Death to Democracy. Long live a Representative Constitutional
>Republic. (... and to hell with poetic slogans :-) .)
Ahh, poo! When we fight the commies, I want to be rooting for
Democracy, not the Representative Constitutional Republic.
And you need poetic slogans to lead a soldier to battle.
Tim Robinson
Our Founding Fathers hated Democracy too and managed to lead soldiers
against the Brits.
jmg
>>Cocaine, LSD, and mushrooms - workers may not show up the next
>>morning. Ban 'em!
>
>I agree... once you've banned those workers, they will discover they
>have to sober up or have nothing.
But Tim, why single out these workers? Everyone knows that the loss of
productivity due to alcohol is astronomical and yet we do not force beer
drinkers to piss in a cup on Monday mornings. You'll also know that those
addicted to caffeine can be jumpy, edgy and abusive in meetings and those using
nicotine lose about an hour a day in productivity. The list does not stop there.
So in the interest of fairness... well, you know what that means.
Jeff
--
Shadow boxing in the dark. [www.bongoboy.com]
jmg
>>BTW, Are you a US citizen?
>>
>
>BTW, Are you a Racist?
>
>John Brown
Hehehe - your moniker, John Brown, bodes well for the question but I do not
understand why you are asking me that.
jmg
>Without naming which agencies, universities and medical establishments; telling
>us which reports were quashed; and providing cites as to the thought processes
You'll need to do some research on your own if you care to reach the truth but
here's a start for you:
http://marijuana.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/drugs/marijuana/news.html
>individual action to decide what you may and may not do, we do not want you to
>make decisions on what is and is not potentially harmful to our children. Your
Tell me how the repeal of Sunday Blue Laws or the striking down of sodomy laws
will interfere with your ability to raise your kids as you see fit?
>but how, does this show Amsterdam to be different from the U.S.? Here pot is
>technically illegal, but if you are arrested and are in possession of minimal
>amounts of grass for personal use, you are unlikely to be arrested and, if you
>are, the penalties are far from Draconian.
Then you are not paying attention to the current laws - let's say you get
stopped on the highway in Michigan with Ohio plates on your car going 65 in a 55
zone. The police officer "thinks" he smells marijuana in your car and orders you
out of the vehicle. Now he searches your vehicle for drugs (he no longer needs a
warrant, if you notice) and all he finds is an obviously old roach in a corner
of the trunk under the carpeting, water stained and flat. Because you are from
Ohio and you are being searched in Michigan Federal law considers you to be
transporting drugs across state lines which incurs a TEN YEAR sentence with NO
POSSIBILITY of parole. You like?
Here's another one: as a rider on the recently failed (!) tobacco legislation
Republicans added a rider that stated that anyone caught with marijuana as a
teenager will not be eligible for student loans. Now, on the surface those who
demand adherence to their personal view of discipline will think this a good
idea. But isn't the idea supposed to be one of improvement of oneself? So why
take away the tools a kid needs to grow? Only in America I guess.
Anyway, from state to state we are burying ourselves deeper and deeper into an
abyss that will be painfully difficult for us to extract ourselves from. Rather
than be tolerant we as a nation are becoming hateful and mean - in some cases to
the point of stupidity. Wasn't it Newt Gingrich who attempted to pass
legislation that would use the death penalty for those importing Schedule I
substances?
>Yet you say it is illegal for coffee-houses to sell pot? Paradoxical
There are many paradoxes. Since it is impossible to impose a complete
prohibition some people would rather consider making things safer. Some people
treat the drug issue as a public health issue, others as a criminal matter. One
costs a couple of thousand a year and the other 22 thousand or more each year.
Guess which one the US selects? With more than 600,000 (almost 700,000)
Americans in prison today (x $22,000) for marijuana ALONE(!) we're talking big
bucks here. And what does it buy us? Is smoking a joint so horrible to the
community that the result should be time spent in jail? Let's be serious here.
The current drug policy in the United States borders on the insane.
As an American citizen I am ashamed of what my government is doing to its people
and I object strenuously at each and every opportunity. What pisses me off even
more is that I AM the government. It is just unfortunate I have come of majority
too late to have been effective at the beginning. Maybe today things would have
been different. Now the work is just harder.
Look, right or wrong someone has got to do it. Luckily this time, I'm right.
>>Shadow boxing in the dark.
>>
>Yes, this time at least, I believe you are.
>"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may
>reach you." Gibran
See!? Gibran knew we'd be chatting.
Jim Ward
>frogp...@aol.com (FrogPrinc9) wrote:
>>Without naming which agencies, universities and medical establishments; telling
>>us which reports were quashed; and providing cites as to the thought processes
>You'll need to do some research on your own if you care to reach the truth but
>here's a start for you:
>http://marijuana.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/drugs/marijuana/news.html
That was a nice article. It apprears that the truth is being supressed
because it threatens US law enforement budgets. Another article
mentions that Dutch teenagers get among the highest scores in the
world on international science and mathematics tests. Maybe if our
teens smoked more pot they'd score higher.
http://marijuana.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/drugs/marijuana/dutch.html
Fat Tony
>enough willpower to abstain from addictive substances". But this
>"conventional wisdom" seems to be saying it's flat-out impossible to
>say "I will not drink another drink" and make it stick. Or if you did
>say so, and it did stick, it was sheer coincidence, and had nothing to
>do with the fact that you resolved to quit.
ever been addicted to anything, bob? quitting ain't easy. i fully
accept that I'm addicted to caffeine, and if I don't get my fix, I
just can't function. I "quit" smoking around october or so, first
tapering and then cold turkey; I was also in a support group for
people wanting to quit at the time. unfortunately, it only lasted a
few months before I was smoking socially again. still am. i wouldn't
say that quitting anything cold turkey is impossible, but without a
support group such as AA or NA or something of that nature, i doubt it
will last very long.
Fat Tony
>mention that the police are free to search you, your home, or your possessions
>without warrant?
unless the constitution has changed recently, I don't think they can.
you can consent to a search, and they may perform a search on probable
cause. refusal to consent is not grounds for probable cause.
FrogPrinc9
>frogp...@aol.com (FrogPrinc9) wrote:
>
>>just as you do not want any of us, via church, government or individual
action to decide what you may and may not do, we do not want you
>to
>>make decisions on what is and is not potentially harmful to our children.
>Your
>
>Tell me how the repeal of Sunday Blue Laws or the striking down of sodomy
>laws
>will interfere with your ability to raise your kids as you see fit?
>
But we were not talking about Sunday Blue laws or sodomy laws. My quote above
was in response to your earlier post, which said:
"That's my favorite anti rant - "we MUST protect our children!". Protect them
from what?
If kids today don't see the constant warring between groups as damaging to
their
upbringing I don't know what...
If we were a nurturing society then we'd be able to worry less about what
substances people were using for personal enjoyment because if they had a bad
time or were curious they'd be able to go somewhere for real and honest
information, not the bad news church led propaganda mills we have today. What a
pity!"
Clearly, then, our discussion involves substance abuse. I could rant about a
local speed trap, but it has no more to do with this than drinking on Sunday,
sodomy laws, etc.
>>"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may
>>reach you." Gibran
>
>See!? Gibran knew we'd be chatting.
>
Nice touch.
John Brown
Joe Shimkus
(Fat Tony) wrote:
> i wouldn't
> say that quitting anything cold turkey is impossible, but without a
> support group such as AA or NA or something of that nature, i doubt it
> will last very long.
My dad, over 35 years free from smoking (so I've been informed by my
mother). He was a two pack a day man before he just quit.
- Joe
Rajat Datta
>ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) wrote:
>
>>liberals seem to be very quick to describe anyone not for sex and race
>>tendency to label someone as communist or godless).
>
>Your use of the terms gloss over so much of import that the words mean nothing
>but become buzz words for a semantic and political fight. Find other words -
>because you cannot place people or politics into little boxes. It just don't
>work that way.
Having been called a racist for expressing my opposition to quotas and
preferences, I find it far from buzzwords. Never did I notice any attempt
to discuss what are potential solutions other than being dismissed out of
hand. You're not with us? Then you're a racist and we don't need to talk
to you anymore.
We constantly hear about the so-called Christian Right that are crying
about how the government coerces private organizations from behaving
according to their beliefs. Yet, these people advocate other policies
for the government that would keep people from behaving according to
another set of beliefs. We hear complaints from the so-called left
questioning why government funding via the NEA should allow the
government to censor the artists, and yet they stand behind the
policies that private organizations cannot be allowed to follow their
religious beliefs because they accept government money.
They are both more alike than different.
>
>Moreover, at a time when understanding is required your continued misuse of the
>terms "liberal" and "conservative" serve to divide rather than attract. Try some
>building and joining rather than tearing down.
Hey, they can get together just by understanding that both sides are about
using government coercion to further their ideologies. Their only true
enemies are people like Barry Goldwater.
>>government back corporations and have it not be corporate welfare?
>
>It's all a matter of terminology.
Boy, and I'm supposed to be glossing over things of import. So you're
for government support of businesses if it's called government backing
corporations and against it if it's called corporate welfare? Wonderful!
rajat
Bill Baldwin
>The conservative push to use government money to control the arts,
>abortion policy, etc. are social changes.
Doesn't calling abortion policy a "social change" assume what it ought to
prove? Viz. that the fetus is a non-person with no legal rights? If the
fetus is in fact a person with legal rights, then prohibiting it is no more
a "social" change than prohibiting homicide.
--
Bill "Who wasn't actually asking to discuss abortion when he noted that we
never really discuss it around here" Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
>(SJF 1959) wrote:
>>Moreover, it's only fair to point out that the American Puritans were
*heavy*
>>beer drinkers.
>
>I thought they were heavy cider drinkers, beer being a German
>immigrant import.
Dunno about the cider, but beer should have been an English import as well.
And if anybody would have imported it, the Puritans would have. One of the
Divines of the Westminster Assembly* owned an operated a brewery.
--
Bill Baldwin
*The Westminster Assembly created a Confession of Faith and Larger and
Shorter Catechism at the request of Cromwell's Parliament. The Westminster
Standards, as they were collectively called, define the core of the
Puritans' theology.
Bill Baldwin
>You read bad propaganda. The overwhelmingly best way to ruin your life is
with
>alcohol. It's easy to get, legal to make (for self consumption) and a six
pack
>of beer is cheaper than a six pack of soda. Way to go!
No way, man! Any six pack of beer that costs less than a six pack of soda is
not a pleasant way to go. I'm not becomin' a lush until I can afford regular
doses of -- at a minimum -- Henry Weinhard's.
--
Bill Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
>With more than 600,000 (almost 700,000)
>Americans in prison today (x $22,000) for marijuana ALONE(!)
Are you confident of that statistic? It kind of makes me gasp. That would
make a pretty compelling argument for the legalization at least of
marijuana. Whatever good imprisoning potheads might do -- and I'm not
convinced it does any -- it doesn't do $13.2 billion+ per year worth of
good.
A major rhetorical argument for keeping pot illegal is that, even if it's
not so bad itself, it leads to the use of harder drugs.* Play along for a
minute. Why might it be so? Because if you're already breaking the law to
smoke marijuana, it's easier to justify breaking the law to try other drugs.
Conclusion: Making marijuana legal is the single easiest way to keep it from
leading to harder drug use. Suddenly kids who are in just for the buzz could
say, "Hey man, pot's one thing. But cocaine is ILLEGAL. You could DO TIME
for that."
--
Bill Baldwin
*I am told, incidentally, that this theory is the source of the recent slang
term of approbation "the bomb."** In an episode of Dragnet, Sgt. Joe Friday
supposedly said, "Marijuana is the match. Heroin is the fuse. LSD is the
bomb." Apparently some music group -- can anyone name it? -- not too long
ago recorded a song that plays that last sentence over and over, "LSD is the
bomb" "LSD is the bomb."
Any or all of this may be wildly inaccurate or just plain wrong. But that's
what I heard.
**Yes, indeedy. All the kids are going around saying "Yo, Dude. Check out
this recent slang term of approbation." I just love being hip.
Bill Baldwin
>Now, I realize a lot of kids get alcohol which is technically illegal to
>sell to minors. But find me a drunk teen and 95% of the time I'll show
>you parents who have abdicated parenting at some important stage in
>their child's life.
The last five minutes, for starters. ;-)
--
Bill Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
>I think you're right. Someone once pointed out that if you repeat
>something publicly loudly and long enough that people will begin to
>believe it. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that may have been Goebels.)
That's who I remember, too. In any event the informal logical fallacy called
"The Big Lie" is associated with someone close to ... oh, wait, maybe we
don't want to end this thread yet.
--
Bill Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
>>I just want you to leave the church alone. Can you do that?
>
>Well Bill, some 20 something states still have sodomy laws on their books
States have lots of strange laws that never made it off the books. Are these
laws enforced?
> - some
>states still have Sunday "blue laws", others do not allow the purchase of
>alcohol on Sundays
I don't support blue laws.
> - there is the whole abortion issue
Why do you believe this is in the same category? Abortion has been
recognized as an evil by societies that have never even heard of
Christianity or the Church.
>and the drug issue
That's a social issue, not a church issue. If you got rid of the church,
you'd still have anti-drug laws.
>the prostitution issue
Marriage as an institution is a proven winner. It makes for more stable
societies. The state has a vested interest in protecting that institution.
Anti-prostitution laws are one way of doing that. Some might also argue that
the state has an interest in protecting its citizens from exploitation, even
if they would agree to be exploited for the right amount of money. That's
why we have laws against prostitution and against selling a kidney.
>and a whole lot of other things that I find, and that
>history finds to be brought about by the church attempting to legislate
>behavior.
Except for the blue laws -- where I agreed with you -- nothing you listed is
a result specifically of the Church attempting to legislate behavior. Forms
of the laws you cite existed before there was a Church. Maybe not the drug
laws -- which, as I said, would still exist without the Church -- but
everything else.
>The funny thing is that I feel that both can survive quite well side by
side and
>that one need not interfere with the other. But the whole "judeo/christian"
>thing we try to make law simply interferes with MY freedoms (and alleged
rights)
>while furthering your agenda.
Try this one on. Some Gentiles paint swastikas on synagogues. You're a
Gentile. (If you're not, play along.) Therefore painting swastikas on
synagogues may be described as "your agenda." In other words, I think you're
jumping the gun in assuming you know what my "agenda" is. More than jumping
the gun. I don't think you're doing a good job of deducing my agenda from
the clues I've provided in my posts. I detect a rather jaundiced
view of the Church's agenda as a whole, also. Do you believe the
Christian Coalition is not only representative but exhaustively definitive
of the Church's agenda? In my opinion, it is neither.
>No one stops the church from showing on TV what it would like to show on TV
but
>the church routinely tries to stop others from doing the same.
Examples?
>No one stops the
>church from displaying artwork it wants to display but the church is
constantly
>trying to stop others from displaying art works they do not agree with.
I've never done this. My local congregation has never done this. My
denomination has never done this. No fellow believer I know has ever done
this. It's possible you're not attacking a straw man. But you're not
attacking the Church either.
--
Bill Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
>If the
>fetus is in fact a person with legal rights, then prohibiting it is no more
>a "social" change than prohibiting homicide.
Prohibiting abortion, that is.
--
Bill Baldwin
Dave Wilton
>One of the things about drug discussions is that no one seems to quote
>any science. Drugs have been around a long time. You would think
>someone would've done some studies that say "If you legalize X, then Y
>people will probably become addictied, causing Z dollars in damage to
>society".
>
>Instead, people tend to argue from the gut, "I like A, so A should be
>legalized, and people who don't like it are fascists or don't have
>enough willpower". Or "A is bad and should never be used or it might
>fall into the hands of children".
I couldn't agree more. I have yet to see a newspaper columnist or
other major media news outlet quote a peer-reviewed study on (for
example) the efficacy of marijuana as a medical treatment. In fact, I
recall politicians getting upset when the surgeon general called for
funding such studies.
In all this debate about whether or not to legalize marijuana for
certain medical purposes, I would think that somebody in Washington
would want to know whether it actually works or not. But evidently
not.
(If I cared enough, I would look it up on Medline or some other
source. I'm pretty sure the info is available, it's just not cited by
any of the loud voices in the argument.)
I also find it strange that the same politicians who argue that
tobacco should not be be banned because it would only create a black
market are all for banning marijuana. (Personally, I think an absolute
ban on either is bad policy.)
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/homepage.htm
jmg
In theory yet not in practice.
Just another weakening of the Constitution to support the war on drugs.
jmg
>>Well Bill, some 20 something states still have sodomy laws on their books
>
>States have lots of strange laws that never made it off the books. Are these
>laws enforced?
In a famous case in Georgia (but that says a lot in itself) the cops went
LOOKING IN THE WINDOW of a private home before they arrested a guy on sodomy
charges.
>I don't support blue laws.
Perhaps not, but they are perhaps the most obvious example of church related
laws.
>That's a social issue, not a church issue. If you got rid of the church,
>you'd still have anti-drug laws.
I do not agree. But it may be impossible to prove either way.
>Marriage as an institution is a proven winner. It makes for more stable
>societies. The state has a vested interest in protecting that institution.
So then why prohibit [BY CODE] gays from marrying and then label it anti-family?
>Anti-prostitution laws are one way of doing that. Some might also argue that
>the state has an interest in protecting its citizens from exploitation, even
>if they would agree to be exploited for the right amount of money. That's
>why we have laws against prostitution and against selling a kidney.
I see it as a private transaction between consenting adults that no one should
have a concern in, unless they want to collect sales tax. :)
>Except for the blue laws -- where I agreed with you -- nothing you listed is
>a result specifically of the Church attempting to legislate behavior. Forms
As I said earlier I disagree with you though it may be impossible to prove one
way or the other.
>of the laws you cite existed before there was a Church. Maybe not the drug
>laws -- which, as I said, would still exist without the Church -- but
>everything else.
If I remember correctly the catholics used to produce some of the best beers and
ales in the business...
>Christian Coalition is not only representative but exhaustively definitive
>of the Church's agenda? In my opinion, it is neither.
I believe the christian coalition has placed itself, politically, in a position
to act as the arbiter of christian thought and policy in America. If other
christians object they might do so publicly but I see no christian opposition
group.
>>No one stops the church from showing on TV what it would like to show on TV
>>but the church routinely tries to stop others from doing the same.
>
>Examples?
Sure, there's the catholic network EWTN(?) that runs masses all the time and
then there are all those preacher shows on TV constantly.
On the other hand there is the Disney/ABC boycotts (the cancellation of Ellen is
the best example) among others.
>I've never done this. My local congregation has never done this. My
>denomination has never done this. No fellow believer I know has ever done
>this. It's possible you're not attacking a straw man. But you're not
>attacking the Church either.
I am not attacking "the church" since there are christians out there who will
live their lives in an manner that sets an example for others. But I am
attacking "the church" that enters into civic politics and tries to set laws in
a secular society that are better left to secular matters.
jmg
>Boy, and I'm supposed to be glossing over things of import. So you're
>for government support of businesses if it's called government backing
>corporations and against it if it's called corporate welfare? Wonderful!
Rajat, you have repeatedly twisted thoughts and words that do not exist.
In another post I asked if you were a US citizen (since you are rather vocal
about it) and I do not understand the 'goteberg' reference in your email
address. I asked not to call you a racist (as some jerk had attempted) but to
get a clearer idea as to your interests and background. It is an honest
question.
J. Michael Looney
> I think the double standard exists where you're not looking. Because
> public schools accept tax money, they can't teach religion in them while
> quite often in the past, that was normal. Atheistic/agnostic taxpayers
> fussed and got the results they wanted. But what's good for the goose
> is good for the gander, so taxpaying Christians fussed that their
> tax money was beings spent on sex and blasphemy and they are right in
> expecting that to be stopped.
Ah, what are you calling blasphemy? Just asking...
> Sorry. Lost my head for a sec. Someone will probably say I'm biased
> against classical, so my opinion doesn't count. Sorry, but I'm a
> violist and I love classical music. But, again, I don't think someone
> else should be forced via taxation to pay for what I like. And it has
> absolutely zilch to do with religion.
I can vouch for this. Tim has 94.1 as his standard radio setting in his
car. That is the "All Classics, All the Time" radio statio here in Tulsa.
sjf...@my-dejanews.com
through Deja News at my office. Thanks for bearing with me.
=========================================
(snip)
> >>>wrong questions.) Here's what worries me. Suppose I get prescribed some
> >>>medically necessary morphine and I become addicted. And what if morphine is
> >>>readily available over the counter? I'd like to think I have the willpower
> >>>not to go buy some. But what I've read about addiction suggests that may be
> >>
> >>You don't have to take my word for it, but the conventional wisdom in drug
> >>abuse rehabilitation is that willpower has nothing to do with abstention from
> >>addictive substances.
>
(snip)
>
> Deborah has experience in this area, and I am interested in her views
> about what causes addiction.
>
Your trust in me is touching, and I have to repay it by telling you the
truth, which is that I don't know.
:-)
However, I know from my experience in drug prevention/treatment circles that
qutting - for an addict or alcoholic - is not a matter of making a reasoned
cost/benefit analysis and then exerting one's will to hold to a decision.
Let me give you an example. I stopped drinking (unless you count a sip of
champaign during a toast at my sister's wedding) in 1981. I thought it over,
realized that it drinking made me feel crummy and depressed, and decided not
to do it any more. End of story. When I mention this to friends of mine who
recovering alcoholics, they laugh - with various degrees of mirth and
bitterness, depending on how low a bottom they hit before getting sober.
Here's another example. Some years ago, a close friend who was a recovering
drug addict was staying at my house. I was getting over a severe cough, and
had some prescription codeine in my desk that I kept forgetting to take. My
friend said something like, "It blows my mind to watch you with that stuff.
You put it in the drawer, and forget you have it until the pain from coughing
is really severe. If that were MY codeine, I'd be thinking about it every
second, and counting the minutes until I'm entitled to take the next one. I
bet when I come back in a couple of months you'll be over the cough and there
will still be plenty of pills left in the bottle." Sure enough, the next time
he was in town, he fished it out of my desk with a dramatic flourish.
So what's my point? For an addict, the mechanisms that we think of as
"rationality" and "willpower" seem to be short-circuited. Actually, my
hypothesis is that everyone has areas in which these processes are
short-circuited. For me, they don't happen to involve alcohol and codeine -
but it's not a trait about which I can boast. I don't know how these things
are assigned.
My other point is that for an addict the solution does not seem to be more,
different, and better forms of rationality and willpower. Which I also think
is the case for quite a few aspects of the human condition, by the way. It's
a religious point of view, though, and I wouldn't dream of asking
non-religious folks to take my word for it.
Best regards from Deborah
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Rice, Glenn P.
>
>
> *I am told, incidentally, that this theory is the source of the recent slang
> term of approbation "the bomb."**
hmm, my impression was that "the bomb" is something GOOD. Considering
that "dope" is (or was) slang for "good", I'd think that that "LSD is
the bomb" would not necessarily imply that "the bomb" is bad.
--
/| Glenn Rice [zone 5] |\
< | extg...@showme.missouri.edu | >
\| Epiphyllum: www.missouri.edu/~extgrice/nbc |/
J. Michael Looney
> I'm in favor of the death penalty (when applied fairly and quickly)which
makes
> me a conservative. I'm in favor of gay rights which makes me a liberal.
I'm in
> favor of the govvies backing off corporations which makes me a
conservative and
> I'm also in favor of the govvies stopping corporate welfare which makes
me a
> conservative.
>
> Where do I stand?
Chaotic Good.
The whole left/right thing is flawed. The "Classic" Role Playing Games
alignment system makes MUCH more sense.
Law/Neutral/Chaos Good/Neutral/Evil
Pick one from each group.
I don't have it with me, but I could post the whole "rational" of each of
the nine types. As a general rule, you will find one that you do fit into.
The number of people that I know that fall in to "evil" is, to my mind, a
bit scary.
Rice, Glenn P.
>
> One theory is that for a society to function, the people must want to
> work. Most work is dull (but necessary) and you gotta to give people
> something fun to do in the off hours.
>
> Alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene - can actually help workers endure the
> tedium. Legalize 'em!
>
> Cocaine, LSD, and mushrooms - workers may not show up the next
> morning. Ban 'em!
It seems likely to me that work hours lost due to alcohol
(over)consumption vastly outnumber work hours lost to mushroom
hangovers. I'm guessing from your tone that you think this theory as
ridiculous as I do....
>
> Marijuana - could go either way. I think pot needs some good PR, maybe
> a cuddly cartoon spokesperson, like Willie the Weed.
Mister Jay (from Doonesbury) is a good start.
J. Michael Looney
> Wait! Are you saying that political activism motivated by religous
> convictions influences people to use drugs recreationally?
Based on some of the things that I have seen here in Tulsa ("The Buckle of
the Bible Belt") I think you have that backwards.
I think drugs figure highly (no pun meant) in some people thought process
leading to political activism, either that or they really are morons.
J. Michael Looney
> You'll also know that those
> addicted to caffeine can be jumpy, edgy and abusive in meetings
I am NOT addicted to caffeine. [1]
I am jumpy, edgy and abusive all on my own thank you.
[1] truth be told, I really am.
J. Michael Looney
> >Ah, what are you calling blasphemy? Just asking...
>
> fundamental religious ideas and symbols for ridicule for the specific
> purpose of incitement." It's been a long time since I looked at
> Oklahoma's blasphemy law, but as I recall, it was a bit better worded.
> While I don't know that I agree with the Supreme Court, I do know that
> they say there is a difference between advocating revolution in the
> abstract and revolution in the specific. Their point being that the
> latter is illegal. In the same way, I can understand religious
> disagreement being non-blasphemeous, but when used in such a way as to
> incite people it's blasphemy. Though I'm not Jewish, I could see
> plunking a Star of David in urine and setting it out for display as
> blasphemous.
1) You are up early, at least for you. :-)
2) Sorry, for some reason I thought you were talking about teaching
blasphemy , not in general (as in NEA stuff). Re-reading your post I see
you were not.
You never hit me as the type to think that teaching the theory of evolution
was blasphemy, I was just trying to find out.