OT:Harry Browne says:
Nu Tau
'See if it weren't for the government you couldn't walk.'"
-Harry Browne in an interview with Georgemag.com.
Read the entire interview at
http://www2.georgemag.com/interviews/harry1.html
--
"The time to fight for freedom is the time freedom is threatened, not the
time freedom is destroyed, for that later time is too late. Freedom is
threatened now, the destruction of freedom is not far off. Now is the time
to fight."
-John Whiteside Parsons
Vote Libertarian
http://www.harrybrowne.org
George Shouse
"Nu Tau" <Nu_...@Vice.org> wrote in message
news:01c01fb3$e2580440$348f1c3f@vicegod...
> "Government knows how to break your legs and then hand you a crutch and
say
> 'See if it weren't for the government you couldn't walk.'"
>
> -Harry Browne in an interview with Georgemag.com.
>
> Read the entire interview at
> http://www2.georgemag.com/interviews/harry1.html
Harry does come up with some great lines!
Ben Johnson
wrote:
I especially like this part from the link above:
***
Are you are referring to drug use?
We have a million people in prison who have never done harm to anybody
else. Who have never intruded on anybody's person or property, who
have never committed violence. At the same time we have running around
on the streets murderers and rapists and child molesters who have
gotten out of jail through plea bargaining and because of overcrowded
prisons. They are terrorizing the American people while pot smokers
are sitting in prison taking up cells.
Part of the Libertarian platform calls for an end to "The insane War
on Drugs."
The 80's was the worst time for this when Democrats and Republicans
were trying to out posture each other on this issue. Tip O'Neil told
the Democrats that we have to do something to show that we are tougher
than the Reagan administration. So they rammed through these mandatory
minimums that set up these stringent mandatory minimums and took away
a judge's discretion. In the 90's they made it worse. Now the only way
for people to avoid the worst possible sentence is to turn other
people in. So now they catch a big kingpin and he turns in a bunch of
people under him who are not violent, who are not a problem at all,
and he gets out with a 2 year sentence and they have 30 years to life.
So Gore and Bush may have been sentenced to 30 years for past drug
use?
Yes, and this might be a better country after all. (Laughs). It's so
insane that it's like a comic novel, it's just so ludicrous.
***
Classic.
Ben Johnson
George Shouse
I do like hearing the truth once in a while, don't you?
George Shouse http://www.shouses.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Always a fan of the World Champion Los Angeles Lakers
Minnesota Vikings return to the Super Bowl in 2001
It must be a Purple and Gold thing.
Hang the banners and retire #99
http://www.harrybrowne.com
Jeff Mayner
"Jedi boy" <ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:39c3d324$0$26543$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> George Shouse <g...@shouses.com> wrote in message
> news:vph7ssoo7k87872se...@4ax.com...
was
> trying to rip off her rings while she was trying to tell the moron she
would
> give them to him if he gave her a chance.
If drugs were decriminalized your wife would most likely not have had to
face such horrible circumstances. I'm sorry to hear of her terrible
experience. That being said, here in America, it's clear to this Laker Fan
that if the (so-called) War on Drugs was done away with and the money was
spent on prevention and education, clean needle programs and more of the
responsibility put back to the States and to local agencies, well, simple as
it sounds, things would be better. I have been on both sides of the drug
problem. I've done 'em, I am a child of the 70's after all ;-), and I've
been done by 'em, house broken into, business robbed for drug money, etc.
This issue should be a no-brainer. The BS we've put up with from the Feds
and Big Drug Companies and the Prison Industry for the last 30 years is
insane, to say the least. The Libertarian Party offers the only clear path
to some semblance of control. To think you can stop it is plain stupid and
that's the position that the last several Administrations have been
operating under. Why? Absolutely too much money to be made, that's why.
Jeff
>
> Drug addicts may not be the worst people in the community, but aside from
> dope smokers I think they should be locked up. Because inevitably most of
> them end up being a menace to society.
>
> So if the the jails are full build bigger jails, I don't mind paying more
> tax dollars for that.
>
>
Ben Johnson
<ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>Jeff Mayner <bk...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:ss7q9n...@news.supernews.com...
>I don't agree. Drugs are very cheap, E tabs can be got for $5, a hit of
>heroin can be got for $15, and LSD tabs are regularly handed out free by the
>wacki tobaci dealers. I think with the controls that would need to come in
>with legalisation and the inevitable stranglehold that the international
>drug companies would take the price of drugs would go up, not down, and as
>such you would have just as much if not more desparation crime from the
>addicts.
I'm wondering what the figures are for desparation crime arising out
of alcohol addiction as opposed to say mj addiction or crack or heroin
addiction? I wonder if there is a way to determine the figures for
each type of 'addiction' as it relates to desparation crime.
btw, my wife nor I have ever been physically accosted arising out of
desparation crime, but I've had several close calls on the road with
drunk drivers.
>
>I'm sorry to hear of her terrible
>> experience. That being said, here in America, it's clear to this Laker Fan
>> that if the (so-called) War on Drugs was done away with and the money was
>> spent on prevention and education, clean needle programs and more of the
>> responsibility put back to the States and to local agencies, well, simple
>as
>> it sounds, things would be better.
>
>There is no evidence to suggest that this is so. Over the past 15 years the
>Australian government has had an increasing blitz on drug education
>especially in schools, and all the evidence is showing that it is leading to
>an increase in young people using drugs, simply because they are more aware
>of which drugs are more dangerous and the different risks in taking them.
>Also its exposing a world of curiosity to a lot of kids who normally
>wouldn't even come across drugs or know anyhting about them. And subsequent
>to these figures there is a current line of thinking that the best way to
>stop the kids from using illegal drugs is to encourage fear and ignorance.
There is no way to shut down drug use. Look at Iran where alcohol is
prohibited yet drinking goes on behind closed doors. People need
drugs to sooth themselves, most are not capable of doing it
themselves. This is why alcohol is widely used. Some prefer other
forms of drugs. The moral majority in this country has saw fit to
determine for its populous just which drugs are acceptable and which
drugs are not.
>
> I have been on both sides of the drug
>> problem. I've done 'em, I am a child of the 70's after all ;-), and I've
>> been done by 'em, house broken into, business robbed for drug money, etc.
>> This issue should be a no-brainer. The BS we've put up with from the Feds
>> and Big Drug Companies and the Prison Industry for the last 30 years is
>> insane, to say the least. The Libertarian Party offers the only clear path
>> to some semblance of control. To think you can stop it is plain stupid and
>> that's the position that the last several Administrations have been
>> operating under. Why? Absolutely too much money to be made, that's why.
>>
>
>You're never going to stop it. But the point is drug crime exists because
>the addicts cannot get their lives together. If I was going to invest more
>money in the problem I wouldn't bother educating the kids, as the evidence
>shows it has little effect, but I would put more money into reabilitating
>prisoners, avoid mixing drug addicts & dealers with hard core criminals in
>jails and especially trying to re-socialise drug users. Because many people
>canb break the habit, but the problem is the problems in their lives still
>exist and this is inevitably why they turn back to drugs.
If we are going to spend more money to fight drugs it should be to
stop alcohol consumption and its associated problems on society.
>
>However if your life is that out of control that you are dealing or using
>crack, LSD, heroin and are in a situation where you are caught by
>police...then you should be locked up until you get clean. And the only
>thing I would want to change is to make jails into a real reabilitation
>system for these types of people rather than just punishment and humiliation
>as it is now.
If these people could not learn on the outside, what makes you think
they'll learn on the inside?
Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson
<mal...@mminternet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:22:43 -0000, "Jedi boy"
><ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>I don't agree. Drugs are very cheap, E tabs can be got for $5, a hit of
>>heroin can be got for $15, and LSD tabs are regularly handed out free by the
>>wacki tobaci dealers. I think with the controls that would need to come in
>>with legalisation and the inevitable stranglehold that the international
>>drug companies would take the price of drugs would go up, not down, and as
>>such you would have just as much if not more desparation crime from the
>>addicts.
>
>I'm wondering what the figures are for desparation crime arising out
>of alcohol addiction as opposed to say mj addiction or crack or heroin
>addiction? I wonder if there is a way to determine the figures for
>each type of 'addiction' as it relates to desparation crime.
>
>btw, my wife nor I have ever been physically accosted arising out of
>desparation crime, but I've had several close calls on the road with
>drunk drivers.
I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be desperation.
Ben Johnson
>
Jeff Mayner
>
> Jeff Mayner <bk...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:ss7q9n...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Jedi boy" <ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:39c3d324$0$26543$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > George Shouse <g...@shouses.com> wrote in message
> > > news:vph7ssoo7k87872se...@4ax.com...
> heroin can be got for $15, and LSD tabs are regularly handed out free by
the
> wacki tobaci dealers. I think with the controls that would need to come
in
> with legalisation and the inevitable stranglehold that the international
> drug companies would take the price of drugs would go up, not down, and as
> such you would have just as much if not more desparation crime from the
> addicts.
I disagree. There are models that show the opposite. The crux of the matter
and what I'm trying to get at is there has to be a change in the way the
"problem" is attacked. The present "system" isn't working. It's BS and the
Lobbyists for the Big Drug Companies in Washington have the politician's
ears.
>
> I'm sorry to hear of her terrible
> > experience. That being said, here in America, it's clear to this Laker
Fan
> > that if the (so-called) War on Drugs was done away with and the money
was
> > spent on prevention and education, clean needle programs and more of the
> > responsibility put back to the States and to local agencies, well,
simple
> as
> > it sounds, things would be better.
>
> There is no evidence to suggest that this is so.
Well, yes there is. You don't have to take my word for it. I am not saying
what will work. I'm saying what does not work and offering up my opinion of
what could possibly be the correct next step to get there.
> Over the past 15 years the
> Australian government has had an increasing blitz on drug education
> especially in schools, and all the evidence is showing that it is leading
to
> an increase in young people using drugs, simply because they are more
aware
> of which drugs are more dangerous and the different risks in taking them.
"If" they're going to take them wouldn't you like them to at least be
informed enough to know which are going to "F" them up the least? Would you
rather have them make an informed decision or just take what ever comes
along cause they have no idea what's worse? I don't accept your argument
that education about drugs is going to invite more into the culture of
taking drugs. That holds absolutely no water. If I want to take drugs, I'll
take them. If I don't want to I wont. Governments continue to try and make
those decisions for they're peoples when in reality it's the people that
should be making those decisions themselves. I, and a whole lot of other
people, do not need this kind of direction from some compromised asshole in
Washington.
> Also its exposing a world of curiosity to a lot of kids who normally
> wouldn't even come across drugs or know anyhting about them.
I don't know what's going on in Australia but I *DO* know what's going on in
America. Maybe the kids over here are more in tune with what's going on, I
don't know. I talk to kids all the time. Most are aware of drugs in their
schools and on the street. Most are aware of their parents habits also. Like
alcohol and nicotine use. That's the biggest stumbling block to educating
kids, the fact that they see all these ads against pot, etc., but then they
see huge billboards right on the cities streets advertising how cool it is
to smoke a Camel and what fun it is to dring Bacardi and "Party", but do so
responsibly of course! :-(
And subsequent
> to these figures there is a current line of thinking that the best way to
> stop the kids from using illegal drugs is to encourage fear and ignorance.
What a concept. Ignorance for the masses. Dumb down the populace and then
they'll believe anything we tell them. Wont work over here. The Religious
Right has been trying to do this very thing, take us back 200 years, etc,
and it's cost the Republican Party the Presidency the last two elections,
IMO.
>
> I have been on both sides of the drug
> > problem. I've done 'em, I am a child of the 70's after all ;-), and
I've
> > been done by 'em, house broken into, business robbed for drug money,
etc.
> > This issue should be a no-brainer. The BS we've put up with from the
Feds
> > and Big Drug Companies and the Prison Industry for the last 30 years is
> > insane, to say the least. The Libertarian Party offers the only clear
path
> > to some semblance of control. To think you can stop it is plain stupid
and
> > that's the position that the last several Administrations have been
> > operating under. Why? Absolutely too much money to be made, that's why.
> >
>
> You're never going to stop it. But the point is drug crime exists because
> the addicts cannot get their lives together.
I don't agree, but nothing is absolute. Your point is probably true in some
cases, not true in others. Why is it that the various Governments always
paint everyone with the worst brush, rather then investing a little time and
$ to find out who's salvageable and who's not? Do drugs you do time and when
you get sent up the river, don't bend over to pick-up the soap 'cause some
AIDS infested monster is gonna rape your skinny little drug taking ass and
make you his punk. At least until he gets out on a reduced sentence because
he had the intelligence to kill someone and wasn't as stupid as you to try
and snort a little coke.
If I was going to invest more
> money in the problem I wouldn't bother educating the kids, as the evidence
> shows it has little effect, but I would put more money into reabilitating
> prisoners, avoid mixing drug addicts & dealers with hard core criminals in
> jails and especially trying to re-socialise drug users.
Drug "users" shouldn't be in jail or prison in the first place. If I smoked
some pot tomorrow, the furthest thing from my mind would be the possibility
of a prison sentence. If I killed someone, wether in the heat of passion or
by accident, I would expect to get sent away. In reality, this seemingly
easy to understand scenario is the one that's NOT based in reality.
Because many people
> canb break the habit, but the problem is the problems in their lives still
> exist and this is inevitably why they turn back to drugs.
>
> However if your life is that out of control that you are dealing or using
> crack, LSD, heroin and are in a situation where you are caught by
> police...then you should be locked up until you get clean.
Dealers maybe. Users no.
And the only
> thing I would want to change is to make jails into a real reabilitation
> system for these types of people rather than just punishment and
humiliation
> as it is now.
I agree with this for all people presently locked-up. Why are they
continually creating more prisons, then staffing them with guards that are
often criminals themselves, (think Cochran), that look away from the rampant
drug use and rapes that occur in them? Cause they (the prisons) are money
makers all the way around.
The prison supplies:
- Jobs for the cities they're in
- Jobs for the construction industry that builds them
- Benefits to the politicians whose districts they're built in
- etcetera...
Besides all that, GREAT win for the UCLA Bruins today. Who wants to watch
some boring Olympics when they can watch an exciting college football game
that is in doubt right down to the last minute?
Jeff
Ben Johnson
<ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>Ben Johnson <mal...@mminternet.com> wrote in message
>news:3A7EOW6ys25Go6...@4ax.com...
>
>
snip
I pretty much agree with everything you said there.
>> >
>> >However if your life is that out of control that you are dealing or using
>> >crack, LSD, heroin and are in a situation where you are caught by
>> >police...then you should be locked up until you get clean. And the only
>> >thing I would want to change is to make jails into a real reabilitation
>> >system for these types of people rather than just punishment and
>humiliation
>> >as it is now.
>>
>> If these people could not learn on the outside, what makes you think
>> they'll learn on the inside?
>>
>
>More controlled environment free from distractions or the day to day hassles
>of life that prevent people from giving their problem the consideration it
>needs, no bad influences or temptations, and they would be dealing with
>professional councellors who have probably gone through the same thing they
>have and could help then analyse their life and recognise the problems that
>need to be addressed to avoid turning back to drugs.
I think that if you take a number of addicts that very few will be
able to walk away never to touch the stuff again. For the most part,
the rest of them will need some form of handholding, some more severe
than others. Perhaps one day when genetics are better understood we
can possibly link addictive behavior to it and develop a
countermeasure but until then I think history can help us in that we
will always have a percentage of the population that just cannot
control themselves whether it be gambling, alcohol, hard drugs, sex,
killing whatever regardless of the amount of education or
rehabilitation is provided. Bascially, these people need to be
'managed' imo, not rehabilitated.
>
>And if they've already failed on the outside, what makes you think the best
>thing to do would be to leave them to their own devices?
>
IMO we manage these people by putting them in a 'working prison' if
you will. Basically, we get as much work out of these people as
possible whether it be assembling small electronics, digging ditches,
painting public edifices, basically work that is not really sought
after. This will keep them off the addictive drug of their undoing
and society yields a tangible benefit. Basically, if you can keep
these people off of the drug in the first place, most of the problems
disappear.
Ben Johnson
Jeff Mayner
> i think you meant to say:> news:ss87s64...@news.supernews.com...
> > Besides all that, GREAT win for the UCLA Bruins today. Who wants to
watch
> >
> > Jeff
Maybe.
Your.
Right.
We'll.
Never.
Know.
Though.
Will.
We?
Jeff
>
>
>
Jeff Mayner
I thought it was my one moment of clarity for the year. :-(
Jeff
"Jedi boy" <ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:39c422a9$0$26536$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> i think you meant to say:
>
> Jeff Mayner <bk...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:ss87s64...@news.supernews.com...
> > Besides all that, GREAT win for the UCLA Bruins today. Who wants to
watch
Ben Johnson
wrote:
>
>"Jedi boy" <ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:39c3f17a$0$17751$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>>
This country is the classic example of moral hypocrisy in action.
Actually you'd want to lock up the user, if he's infringing on the
rights of others that is.
Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson
<ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>Ben Johnson <mal...@mminternet.com> wrote in message
>news:lx=EOeggR39Pa1W...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:16:35 -0000, "Jedi boy"
>> <ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> >And if they've already failed on the outside, what makes you think the
>best
>> >thing to do would be to leave them to their own devices?
>> >
>>
>>
>> IMO we manage these people by putting them in a 'working prison' if
>> you will. Basically, we get as much work out of these people as
>> possible whether it be assembling small electronics, digging ditches,
>> painting public edifices, basically work that is not really sought
>> after. This will keep them off the addictive drug of their undoing
>> and society yields a tangible benefit. Basically, if you can keep
>> these people off of the drug in the first place, most of the problems
>> disappear.
>>
>
>this amounts to reform in the prison system, which I think we all agree is
>needed.
>
Actually, I would take this a step further and privatize.
Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson
<ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>Ben Johnson <mal...@mminternet.com> wrote in message
>news:MlbEOY0agH2t0f...@4ax.com...
>> >this amounts to reform in the prison system, which I think we all agree
>is
>> >needed.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I would take this a step further and privatize.
>>
>
>how do you do that with a system that doesn't have the ability to make
>money?
>
Instead of sending these people to prison to serve their 'time', you
send them to private institutions that will get them sober and put
them to work. If they absolutely refuse to work, then they are sent
back to prison. The incentive for them to work would be the ability
to earn money at their release. Being an addict does not necessarily
mean one is obtuse. When they've served their 'time' they are free to
go back into society. Repeat offenders will simply do more time.
Ben Johnson
Jedi boy
Drug addicts may not be the worst people in the community, but aside from
Jedi boy
> face such horrible circumstances.
I don't agree. Drugs are very cheap, E tabs can be got for $5, a hit of
heroin can be got for $15, and LSD tabs are regularly handed out free by the
wacki tobaci dealers. I think with the controls that would need to come in
with legalisation and the inevitable stranglehold that the international
drug companies would take the price of drugs would go up, not down, and as
such you would have just as much if not more desparation crime from the
addicts.
I'm sorry to hear of her terrible
> experience. That being said, here in America, it's clear to this Laker Fan
> that if the (so-called) War on Drugs was done away with and the money was
> spent on prevention and education, clean needle programs and more of the
> responsibility put back to the States and to local agencies, well, simple
as
> it sounds, things would be better.
There is no evidence to suggest that this is so. Over the past 15 years the
Australian government has had an increasing blitz on drug education
especially in schools, and all the evidence is showing that it is leading to
an increase in young people using drugs, simply because they are more aware
of which drugs are more dangerous and the different risks in taking them.
Also its exposing a world of curiosity to a lot of kids who normally
wouldn't even come across drugs or know anyhting about them. And subsequent
to these figures there is a current line of thinking that the best way to
stop the kids from using illegal drugs is to encourage fear and ignorance.
I have been on both sides of the drug
> problem. I've done 'em, I am a child of the 70's after all ;-), and I've
> been done by 'em, house broken into, business robbed for drug money, etc.
> This issue should be a no-brainer. The BS we've put up with from the Feds
> and Big Drug Companies and the Prison Industry for the last 30 years is
> insane, to say the least. The Libertarian Party offers the only clear path
> to some semblance of control. To think you can stop it is plain stupid and
> that's the position that the last several Administrations have been
> operating under. Why? Absolutely too much money to be made, that's why.
>
You're never going to stop it. But the point is drug crime exists because
the addicts cannot get their lives together. If I was going to invest more
money in the problem I wouldn't bother educating the kids, as the evidence
shows it has little effect, but I would put more money into reabilitating
prisoners, avoid mixing drug addicts & dealers with hard core criminals in
jails and especially trying to re-socialise drug users. Because many people
canb break the habit, but the problem is the problems in their lives still
exist and this is inevitably why they turn back to drugs.
However if your life is that out of control that you are dealing or using
crack, LSD, heroin and are in a situation where you are caught by
police...then you should be locked up until you get clean. And the only
thing I would want to change is to make jails into a real reabilitation
system for these types of people rather than just punishment and humiliation
as it is now.
> Jeff
Jedi boy
> >> If drugs were decriminalized your wife would most likely not have had
to
> >> face such horrible circumstances.
> >
> >I don't agree. Drugs are very cheap, E tabs can be got for $5, a hit of
> >heroin can be got for $15, and LSD tabs are regularly handed out free by
the
> >wacki tobaci dealers. I think with the controls that would need to come
in
> >with legalisation and the inevitable stranglehold that the international
> >drug companies would take the price of drugs would go up, not down, and
as
> >such you would have just as much if not more desparation crime from the
> >addicts.
>
> I'm wondering what the figures are for desparation crime arising out
> of alcohol addiction as opposed to say mj addiction or crack or heroin
> addiction? I wonder if there is a way to determine the figures for
> each type of 'addiction' as it relates to desparation crime.
>
for the record I think weed should be legalised, its no more harmful than
tobacco or booze and is much less addictive, and more importantly it does
not seem to result in the emotional roller coaster of getting drunk, which
often leads to violence.
> btw, my wife nor I have ever been physically accosted arising out of
> desparation crime,
incidently I notice I didn't clarify it before but it wasn't my wife,
because to the best of my knowledge I'm not married.
but I've had several close calls on the road with
> drunk drivers.
>
its a problem, the unfortunate thing is in Australia there are no RBT
(Random Breath Tests) on the road when its raining at night, from what I can
gather its because police consider it dangerous enough trying to pull over
drivers in the dark and wet, but a bit too dangerous when they're drunk as
well.
So basically you can drive totally tanked as long as its raining.
There are arguments to say drugs like heroin should be legalised. Because
as long as its taken in measured amounts you can basically take it
indefinately without it having *any* long term effects.
However the only drug I think should be legalised is weed. The others are
either too addictive or dangerous, and I can't see any good coming from
legalising them.
Agreed, however heroin addiction is becoming a *major* problem in Australia.
> >
> >However if your life is that out of control that you are dealing or using
> >crack, LSD, heroin and are in a situation where you are caught by
> >police...then you should be locked up until you get clean. And the only
> >thing I would want to change is to make jails into a real reabilitation
> >system for these types of people rather than just punishment and
humiliation
> >as it is now.
>
> If these people could not learn on the outside, what makes you think
> they'll learn on the inside?
>
More controlled environment free from distractions or the day to day hassles
of life that prevent people from giving their problem the consideration it
needs, no bad influences or temptations, and they would be dealing with
professional councellors who have probably gone through the same thing they
have and could help then analyse their life and recognise the problems that
need to be addressed to avoid turning back to drugs.
And if they've already failed on the outside, what makes you think the best
Jedi boy
Jeff Mayner <bk...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ss87s64...@news.supernews.com...
> Besides all that, GREAT win for the UCLA Bruins today. Who wants to watch
Jedi boy
> > > If drugs were decriminalized your wife would most likely not have had
to
> > > face such horrible circumstances.
> >
> > I don't agree. Drugs are very cheap, E tabs can be got for $5, a hit of
> > heroin can be got for $15, and LSD tabs are regularly handed out free by
> the
> > wacki tobaci dealers. I think with the controls that would need to come
> in
> > with legalisation and the inevitable stranglehold that the international
> > drug companies would take the price of drugs would go up, not down, and
as
> > such you would have just as much if not more desparation crime from the
> > addicts.
>
> I disagree. There are models that show the opposite. The crux of the
matter
> and what I'm trying to get at is there has to be a change in the way the
> "problem" is attacked. The present "system" isn't working. It's BS and the
> Lobbyists for the Big Drug Companies in Washington have the politician's
> ears.
I don't see any obvious laws that should be changed.
People who break the law should be put in jail.
So what are you proposing?
The only thing that should be different is the jail system should be about
de-criminalising and re-socialising, not toughening up and fucking up
criminals to the point that they can no longer be functioning members of
society, which is what I think it does now.
>
> >
> > I'm sorry to hear of her terrible
> > > experience. That being said, here in America, it's clear to this Laker
> Fan
> > > that if the (so-called) War on Drugs was done away with and the money
> was
> > > spent on prevention and education, clean needle programs and more of
the
> > > responsibility put back to the States and to local agencies, well,
> simple
> > as
> > > it sounds, things would be better.
> >
> > There is no evidence to suggest that this is so.
>
> Well, yes there is. You don't have to take my word for it. I am not saying
> what will work. I'm saying what does not work and offering up my opinion
of
> what could possibly be the correct next step to get there.
>
We have needle exchange programs and safe injecting rooms...they help the
symptoms, but not the problem. thats not the answer IMO.
> > Over the past 15 years the
> > Australian government has had an increasing blitz on drug education
> > especially in schools, and all the evidence is showing that it is
leading
> to
> > an increase in young people using drugs, simply because they are more
> aware
> > of which drugs are more dangerous and the different risks in taking
them.
>
> "If" they're going to take them wouldn't you like them to at least be
> informed enough to know which are going to "F" them up the least? Would
you
> rather have them make an informed decision or just take what ever comes
> along cause they have no idea what's worse? I don't accept your argument
> that education about drugs is going to invite more into the culture of
> taking drugs. That holds absolutely no water.
Then why is drug use on the rise around the world?
If I want to take drugs, I'll
> take them. If I don't want to I wont. Governments continue to try and make
> those decisions for they're peoples when in reality it's the people that
> should be making those decisions themselves. I, and a whole lot of other
> people, do not need this kind of direction from some compromised asshole
in
> Washington.
the people by and large don't know what's good for them.
Why do you think we need all the laws that we have? People need to be
protected aginst themselves.
IMO a drug addict has proved they are incapable of running their own life,
and therefore *needs* someone to give them some of focus and direction.
>
> > Also its exposing a world of curiosity to a lot of kids who normally
> > wouldn't even come across drugs or know anyhting about them.
>
> I don't know what's going on in Australia but I *DO* know what's going on
in
> America. Maybe the kids over here are more in tune with what's going on, I
> don't know. I talk to kids all the time. Most are aware of drugs in their
> schools and on the street.
Of course you would be aware. But educate a kid on the dangers of injecting
heroin and therefore how to avoid them, and the fact that unless you
overdose heroin causes no long term damage to your system, kids ar more
likely to try it IMO.
For example I've smoked a little weed in my time, but nothing harder. The
main reason for this is because I knew that weed wasn't really dangerous and
not really addictive.
I think its the same as the teenagers now who learn that ecstasy is not
addictive...so whats the harm in giving it a try once?...heaps of people do
it and not overdose, so if its not the least bit addictive whats the
problem?
This is the mode of thinking a lot of youngsters slip into when receiving a
thorough education on drugs. IMO the type of education I got was much
better, alchohol is OK in moderation, avoid smoking because its addictive
and leads to cancer, weed is OK but best to stay away from it because its
illegal... everything else is highly addictive and dangerous, don't even
consider using anything.
As a result I always had a phobia about any drugs harder than weed or
booze...and was never tempted to try them.
Therefore I believe that the best education should be limited to telling
kids about the highly dangerous and addictive nature of hard drugs without
going into details of how they are administered, which are addictive but not
dangerous, and which are dangerous but not addictive and which are both.
Most are aware of their parents habits also. Like
> alcohol and nicotine use. That's the biggest stumbling block to educating
> kids, the fact that they see all these ads against pot, etc., but then
they
> see huge billboards right on the cities streets advertising how cool it is
> to smoke a Camel and what fun it is to dring Bacardi and "Party", but do
so
> responsibly of course! :-(
>
drinking and smoking are engrained in Western culture, and obviously open to
abuse.
What are you suggesting?....people should not be allowed to drink and
smoke?...what next?...you gonna ban driving because young drivers have a
habit of wrapping their cares around power poles?
>
> And subsequent
> > to these figures there is a current line of thinking that the best way
to
> > stop the kids from using illegal drugs is to encourage fear and
ignorance.
>
> What a concept. Ignorance for the masses. Dumb down the populace and then
> they'll believe anything we tell them. Wont work over here. The Religious
> Right has been trying to do this very thing, take us back 200 years, etc,
> and it's cost the Republican Party the Presidency the last two elections,
> IMO.
Well, I guess I'm not saying total ignorance. But there is no evidence to
suggest educating young people on the details of hard drug abuse is helping
the situation...so why continue to do it when drug use is on the rise?
Obviously reform is needed in the prison system
> If I was going to invest more
> > money in the problem I wouldn't bother educating the kids, as the
evidence
> > shows it has little effect, but I would put more money into
reabilitating
> > prisoners, avoid mixing drug addicts & dealers with hard core criminals
in
> > jails and especially trying to re-socialise drug users.
>
> Drug "users" shouldn't be in jail or prison in the first place. If I
smoked
> some pot tomorrow, the furthest thing from my mind would be the
possibility
> of a prison sentence. If I killed someone, wether in the heat of passion
or
> by accident, I would expect to get sent away. In reality, this seemingly
> easy to understand scenario is the one that's NOT based in reality.
>
So someone has made a mess of his life and is a burdon on society by
becoming a chronic drug addict and you want to leave them on the street????
> Because many people
> > canb break the habit, but the problem is the problems in their lives
still
> > exist and this is inevitably why they turn back to drugs.
> >
> > However if your life is that out of control that you are dealing or
using
> > crack, LSD, heroin and are in a situation where you are caught by
> > police...then you should be locked up until you get clean.
>
> Dealers maybe. Users no.
>
Dealers obviously need to be dealt with harsher, but users are a menace to
themselves and the rest of society. And until they're not I can't see any
sense in letting them continue to make a mess of things.
Best case scenario: Locked up and re-abilitated.
Second Best: Locked up and removed from the community
Worst scenario: Left on the street to the detriment of themselves and the
rest of the community.
> And the only
> > thing I would want to change is to make jails into a real reabilitation
> > system for these types of people rather than just punishment and
> humiliation
> > as it is now.
>
> I agree with this for all people presently locked-up. Why are they
> continually creating more prisons, then staffing them with guards that are
> often criminals themselves, (think Cochran), that look away from the
rampant
> drug use and rapes that occur in them? Cause they (the prisons) are money
> makers all the way around.
>
> The prison supplies:
> - Jobs for the cities they're in
> - Jobs for the construction industry that builds them
> - Benefits to the politicians whose districts they're built in
> - etcetera...
I agree, the prison system is a disgrace. However the solution is not
simply to put less people in prison.
Personally I would prefer that criminals be abused in prison than left free
to roam the streets and abuse innocent people. That seems harsh, but its
the lesser of two evils.
>
> Besides all that, GREAT win for the UCLA Bruins today. Who wants to watch
> some boring Olympics when the Australians are kicking our ass?
this I agree with...
Jedi boy
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:16:35 -0000, "Jedi boy"
> <ce...@REMOVETOREPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ben Johnson <mal...@mminternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:3A7EOW6ys25Go6...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
>
>
>
> I pretty much agree with everything you said there.
>
>
> >> >
using
> >> >crack, LSD, heroin and are in a situation where you are caught by
> >> >police...then you should be locked up until you get clean. And the
only
> >> >thing I would want to change is to make jails into a real
reabilitation
> >> >system for these types of people rather than just punishment and
> >humiliation
> >> >as it is now.
> >>
> >> If these people could not learn on the outside, what makes you think
> >> they'll learn on the inside?
> >>
> >
> >More controlled environment free from distractions or the day to day
hassles
> >of life that prevent people from giving their problem the consideration
it
> >needs, no bad influences or temptations, and they would be dealing with
> >professional councellors who have probably gone through the same thing
they
> >have and could help then analyse their life and recognise the problems
that
> >need to be addressed to avoid turning back to drugs.
>
> able to walk away never to touch the stuff again. For the most part,
> the rest of them will need some form of handholding, some more severe
> than others. Perhaps one day when genetics are better understood we
> can possibly link addictive behavior to it and develop a
> countermeasure but until then I think history can help us in that we
> will always have a percentage of the population that just cannot
> control themselves whether it be gambling, alcohol, hard drugs, sex,
> killing whatever regardless of the amount of education or
> rehabilitation is provided. Bascially, these people need to be
> 'managed' imo, not rehabilitated.
>
agreed.
> >
> >And if they've already failed on the outside, what makes you think the
best
> >thing to do would be to leave them to their own devices?
> >
>
>
> IMO we manage these people by putting them in a 'working prison' if
> you will. Basically, we get as much work out of these people as
> possible whether it be assembling small electronics, digging ditches,
> painting public edifices, basically work that is not really sought
> after. This will keep them off the addictive drug of their undoing
> and society yields a tangible benefit. Basically, if you can keep
> these people off of the drug in the first place, most of the problems
> disappear.
>
this amounts to reform in the prison system, which I think we all agree is
needed.
Jedi boy
> >this amounts to reform in the prison system, which I think we all agree
is
> >needed.
> >
>