HAHAHAHA RIVER PHOENIX IS DEAD!!!!

292 views
Skip to first unread message

VAXBANDIT

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 8:44:56 AM11/8/93
to
In article <1993Nov5.1...@csus.edu>, sha...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>John Gonzalez (gonz...@netcom.com) wrote:
[..........................]
>The violence on the black market is only there because drugs are
>illegal. Drug distribution channels are by necessity decentralized and
>none of phoenix's money probably ever came close to inner city gangs.
>And upper class gangs (including at the extreme limit the mafia) know
>better than to kill children. Meanwhile, if you'd like to blame anyone
>for the profit involved in drug distribution blame the government. As
>a good example of this, its useful to note that the American mafia
>acquired most of its power during alcohol prohibition while the European
>mafia hasn't had the benefit of such government assistance.
>

Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
too bad we can't leave them in their!
It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!

C. Matthew Sharkey

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 10:52:19 AM11/8/93
to
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:

>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!

The city of which you speak is Amsterdam. The problems that they encountered
were, if I remember correctly, from the free distribution of Heroin. If you
knew anything about the city in question, you would know that while their illicit drug laws parallel those of the US and others, they practice almost no
enforcement of these laws. In this sense, Heroin was already operativley
"legal" in Amsterdam. Their problem arose through the free distribution of
injectables and syringes to the populace. It stands to reason that if one
centralizes the use of Heroin, or any other drug, the point of centralization
will become characteristic of that drug's use.

>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>too bad we can't leave them in their!
>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!

Your literacy amazes me. It is apparent from the lucidity of your argument
that you, sir, have never "pumped your veins full of drug crap!"


Matt


Non Serviam
LSD PCP CIA FBI NSA ATF PLO IRA
bombs ... highjacking ... kill the president

The opinions above are those of everyone around you. You are alone in your
opposition. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up. Give up.

Mike McNally

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 11:17:15 AM11/8/93
to
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>...a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!

This sounds really good when said slowly in a William S. Burroughs voice.
It's a little unrealistic, however; if my experience is meaningful, not
too many scums or bums (assholes, I dunno) would pump joints into their
veins after the first couple tries. You don't get that high, and it
really smarts.

--
Mike McNally

Tolthrye

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 12:49:47 PM11/8/93
to

mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:


>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!


No shit, asshole. Are you really this stupid? Unbelievable.
How does someone with such a complete lack of brains learn
to use a computer?

"Legal to sell and use in this one little park here" is
not even close to "legal and regulated throughout
society". Even an idiot (ie, someone a few dozen IQ
points above VAXBANDIT the wondercabbage there) can
tell you that if you pack all the hardcore drug users
into "a single area" the size of a city park you'll
end up with a crappy situation. That's not the issue.

VAX, you brainless simpering moron, if you can't think
through something that simple do the rest of us a
favor and cut off your dick before you reproduce.

[more of VAXBANDIT's useless whining and complaining deleted]

>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!

Do you really believe this? What a clear sign you're an idiot.

What country are you from, anyway?

Reactionary brain-dead limbaughdroids like you are a threat to
freedom and democracy. Stick to screwing your sister and
leave us alone.


Sol Lightman

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 12:50:52 PM11/8/93
to
Using an as yet undetermined appendage VAXBANDIT (mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu) wrote:
]In article <1993Nov5.1...@csus.edu>, sha...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
]>The violence on the black market is only there because drugs are

]>illegal. Drug distribution channels are by necessity decentralized and
]>none of phoenix's money probably ever came close to inner city gangs.
]>And upper class gangs (including at the extreme limit the mafia) know
]>better than to kill children. Meanwhile, if you'd like to blame anyone
]>for the profit involved in drug distribution blame the government. As
]>a good example of this, its useful to note that the American mafia
]>acquired most of its power during alcohol prohibition while the European
]>mafia hasn't had the benefit of such government assistance.
]>

]Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ohhhh no! He wouldn't want to be labelled a COMMIE PINKO FAGGOT, now would
he.... that would be soooooo horrible. Give it a rest.

]some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget


]which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.

Switzerland, the incident is known as NEEDLE PARK.

]And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes


]littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
]assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!

... because they ghetto-ized the drug problem. Use your brain. Less than
ten square blocks I would not even deign to call ``legalization.'' You
can't expect to get good results with a piddly little ``experiment'' like
that. Legalization must be implemented on a large scale and supplemented by
appropriate health care and social counselling.

]Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of


]having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
]buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
]did before!

Huh? Your meaning is not clear. Of course, that's probably because
you are ranting...

]Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would


]be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
]too bad we can't leave them in their!


The ``fuckers'' just happen to be your doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers,
blue-collar-workers, corporate executives, philosophers, and artists.

]It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they

]forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!


OK, lets play it your way. Let's see how long before you forfeit your
rights....

Brian

--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,>
S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ {
415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu |____________ `--~ ;
\_,-__/
* To find out about our on-line library, mail a message with the
* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored

BIER, LAURENCE

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 2:01:00 PM11/8/93
to
In article <2blpvj$o...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cms5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (C. Matthew Sharkey) writes...

>mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>
>>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
>>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>>did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>>too bad we can't leave them in their!
>>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
>
>Your literacy amazes me. It is apparent from the lucidity of your argument
>that you, sir, have never "pumped your veins full of drug crap!"
>

But maybe he should try some. It might make him a better writer. I don't
see how he could get any worse.

*******************************************************************************
"I'm Mr. Burns, blah, blah, blah,
Do this, do that, blah, blah, blah,
I'm so big, blah, blah, blah..." -Homer Simpson
*******************************************************************************

Gary Edstrom

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 1:38:33 PM11/8/93
to
DO NOT respond to this thread without editing the Newsgroups and
Followup-To lines in the header. It is currently being posted to almost
a dozen newsgroups including "misc.test" which will cause you to receive
automated responses from around the world for a few days!

Someone's idea of a fun!

If you respond to this message, it will be directed only to
alt.flame, alt.drugs, and alt.sex

--
Gary B. Edstrom | Engineer
Internet: g...@netcom.com | Sequoia Software
CompuServe: 72677,564 | P.O. Box 9573
Fax: 1-818-247-6046 | Glendale, CA 91226

VAXBANDIT

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 3:31:57 PM11/8/93
to
In article <2bm0rr$f...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, sabg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tolthrye) writes:
>mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
> No shit, asshole. Are you really this stupid? Unbelievable.
> How does someone with such a complete lack of brains learn
> to use a computer?
> "Legal to sell and use in this one little park here" is
> not even close to "legal and regulated throughout
> society". Even an idiot (ie, someone a few dozen IQ
> points above VAXBANDIT the wondercabbage there) can
> tell you that if you pack all the hardcore drug users
> into "a single area" the size of a city park you'll
> end up with a crappy situation. That's not the issue.

Oh it isn't? you mean to tell me the repurcusions of what will happen when an
entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs isn't the issue?
NOW who is the moron butthead!? Also I'm obviously the only one between us with
a fuctioning brain because if you use that empty drugged noggen of yours you'd
relize that if you compare the number of drug users in a european country to
the number of users in the US that the U.S. has a shitload more drug-idiots like
your self! That means that urban junk yards like those in the New York area,
Los Angeles, etc etc etc will be far worse off than some piece of shit park!
Yes maybe they will be more wide-spread than the park... but that's even
worse you stupid asshole!!! Stop smokeing crack and use your brain for once!

>
> VAX, you brainless simpering moron, if you can't think
> through something that simple do the rest of us a
> favor and cut off your dick before you reproduce.

Oh gee... we have another jerk who likes to fantasize about other males getting
their dicks cut off... what?... you got a collection going or something?!
Why don't you start with the idiot who raped his wife and got his cut? You
both have something in common.... no intellegance!

>
> [more of VAXBANDIT's useless whining and complaining deleted]
>
>>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
>
> Do you really believe this? What a clear sign you're an idiot.

Hell yes, anyone who is moronic enough to commit a crime is no longer a citizen
IMHO let them roast for a while... then when they've become nice and crispy
maybe they will have earned a second chance. but as far as drug users are
conserned I say let them burn in hell.

>
> What country are you from, anyway?

the United States of America, what about you jerk? Obviously you are not an
american when you support some bullshit cause like legalizing drugs.

>
> Reactionary brain-dead limbaughdroids like you are a threat to

Limbaughdroids like me? Interesting.. esspecially when I don't support the fat
chump

> freedom and democracy. Stick to screwing your sister and
> leave us alone.

Here we go again... I suppose it's ass-sniff's like you who are responcible for
a culture with absolutely no morals.

William J. Taney

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 3:58:47 PM11/8/93
to
In article <CG6x1...@onyx.indstate.edu>,
VAXBANDIT <mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu> wrote:


>Hell yes, anyone who is moronic enough to commit a crime is no longer a citizen
>IMHO let them roast for a while... then when they've become nice and crispy
>maybe they will have earned a second chance. but as far as drug users are
>conserned I say let them burn in hell.
>

Reality Check!!! Think about the U.S. justice system and U.S. laws
in general... EVERYONE IS A CRIMINAL, and by your statement the entire
U.S. should be in an internment camp
The system is rigged so that the average person breaks the law all
the time, regardless of whether it is speeding, drug use, playing poker,
having homosexual intercourse, signing your checks in pencil and so
forth... It is not like the U.S. has a distint class of crimials, it is
just that the government targets out those law breakers in the general
public that they don't like and harrass them
--
-- * I won't slave for begars pay, Likewise gold
William J. Taney * or jewels, but I would slave to learn a way
mu...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu * to sink your ship of fools- Robert Hunter
Western Ill Univ *

P. C. Kilinskas

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 4:41:41 PM11/8/93
to
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:

>Oh it isn't? you mean to tell me the repurcusions of what will happen when an
>entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs isn't the issue?

This is a classic. I laughed my ass off when I read this line. Obviously
VAXBANDIT (nice name, you've definitely convinced me you're cool), is a master
of subtle double meaning. I personally would be interested to see what would
happen if the country "went to pot"; especially if it meant getting away from
alcohol.

>Yes maybe they will be more wide-spread than the park... but that's even
>worse you stupid asshole!!! Stop smokeing crack and use your brain for once!

And people like you blame drugs for violence. Stop embarrassing yourself
with this childish ranting.

>Here we go again...I suppose it's ass-sniff's like you who are responcible for


>a culture with absolutely no morals.

Ahhh, now it becomes clear. Whenever someone goes spouting off about "morals",
it is always because they are pissed off that the rest of the world won't
accept their personal definition of right and wrong.

Some people may hate you for the crap you're posting here, but I pity you.
It can't be easy living a life so filled with closed-mindedness and hatred.

Phil
____________________________________________________________________________
p...@acsu.buffalo.edu / "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT. You feel sleepy. Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The opinions
stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.

Lamont Granquist

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 5:16:48 PM11/8/93
to
In article <CG6E...@onyx.indstate.edu> mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu writes:
>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which)

Switzerland.

>that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
>
>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem!

This doesn't logically follow. That very local policy of legalization
created a massive influx of addicts from the surrounding areas in
Europe. It did not create any addicts it just changed how they were
distributed. Legalization on a nationwide or continentwide scale would
not encounter a problem of this magnitude.

>Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before!

Unlikely. Assuming that everyone who drinks took up smoking pot and adding
in a little fudge factor the worst case scenario would be 3 times that
many people doing the same thing they did before. Meanwhile, national
policy towards treating substance abuse would be shifted from an
utterly useless policy of incarceration to a policy of research and
treatment on demand. Any coneivable short term detrimental effect would
be attenuated by these other factors, which also have the potential to
increase in the long term future due to research -- a potential which
law enforcement completely lacks.

>Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>too bad we can't leave them in their!

Oh yeah, thats a good solution. Place them into prison, create broken
families, exacerbate their personal problems, pay for their incarceration
and place them into an environment where drugs are just as available along
with a criminal subculture for them to learn from. It seems that the negative
effects of incarceration seem to be almost identical to the claimed
negative effects of drugs. How surprising that the cure is as bad
as the disease.

>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!

No one has any "rights" at all. The problem is mindless assholes like
yourself who seem to believe that hard-handed criminal justice solutions
to problems have no consequences. Unfortunately in reality you can't "wish
away" social problems by throwing people in jail.

C.J. Corcoran

unread,
Nov 8, 1993, 3:23:44 PM11/8/93
to
>In article <1993Nov5.1...@csus.edu>, sha...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!

I know a city where drugs are 100% illegal and you'll find the same
problems in many sections. It's called New York. But in addition to
having syringes all over the ground, and people shooting up everywhere,
you also hear gunfire in the background. You have kids who are forced
into trying crack so a dealer can have another customer. And you have a
new line of criminals who went to jail for using drugs, and came out
knowing alot about other *real* crimes.

>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem!

What problem is that? The problem of all these people breaking the law?

>Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before! Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>too bad we can't leave them in their!

Right, just like we had ten times the number of alcoholics right after
alcohol prohibition. And do you really think that those who presently
use drugs in the inner cities are going to be using that much more if
they were legalized? I'm trying to understand how can imply that crime
will go up to support drug-habits. The black market is notorius for
inflating prices. A gram of weed in NY is the same price as a pound of
weed in columbia. Also, maybe now these 'criminals' can get jobs without
having to worry about drug-testing. Oh no, companies will have to hire a
person based on merit, rather than on what they do on their off-hours.
That's horrible! Perhaps you're right, we should stick 'em in prison and
leave them there. However, I'm sending the bill to you because I
certainly don't want to pay to put harmless people in jail.

>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!

And it's jerks like you who are completely fucking up this country with
your ignorant views of society. It's jerks like you who gladly give up
their rights without ever weighing the implications.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
- Martin Luther King
Letter From Birmingham Jail


-chris
--
Chris Corcoran "It is by will alone I set
cjc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu my mind in motion..."

Garthe Nelson

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 3:29:45 AM11/9/93
to
In article <CG6E...@onyx.indstate.edu> mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu
(VAXBANDIT) writes:
Their was a newsreport on
> some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I
forget
> which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100%
legal.
> And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had
syringes
> littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums,
and
> assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!


Gee, sounds suspiciously like any donwtown area of a large US city.

I certainly don't advocate drug use or abuse, and I do believe that
people, in general, are too stupid to know what's good for them. However,
it is not your right to advise/tell me what drugs I should/can use. It is
the right of the individual to fry his brain. If he fries somebody else
while frying his brain, it is entirely different matter; but until he
impairs the freedom of another, the individual may dispose of himself as
he wishes.

This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
despite the fact that the law prohibits it.

Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
weak to be worth consideration anyway.

garthe

VAXBANDIT

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 8:14:00 AM11/9/93
to
And it's people like you who insist upon letting the prisoners have television
radio's, cigarettes, recreational facilities, etc etc etc etc

They get all these little stupid ass perks that make their lives easier while
in prison... what the hell for?! All they deserve is food, an hour outside to
get some fresh air, and a cell to rot in. Thats it... other than sanitary
facilities prisons should have nothing else. It's outragious how much money
is spent on prisons because people believe prisoners "have rights" and they
are still citizens...
How about some of those jerks who run those extensive credit card fraud rings?
some of them do it *from prison* and how? by using a goddamn phone! Why the hell
is a prisoner given access to a fucking phone?! Who is he going to need to call?
I see absolutly no reason why a prisoner needs access to the outside world. Let
them stew by them selves! Then when they get out... catching up to the years
they missed is their problem not ours.

Atsushi Kanamori

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 10:11:04 AM11/9/93
to

>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>which) that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!

Since I don't have to share veins with those people, I have no problem with
that.


>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem! Instead of
>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>did before!

Well I don't see the former as a problem and I hardly see how making the
stuff affordable would *increase* the latter.

>Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison!

And are you willing to pony up the taxes to fund these free
meals and shelter you want to provide for these people?

Joshua Barrett Rogers

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 2:35:47 PM11/9/93
to
It is truly sad that such a fine actor is dead. The title to
this is repulsive.

Thomas Bromley

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 3:56:16 PM11/9/93
to
jb...@Virginia.EDU (Joshua Barrett Rogers) writes:

> It is truly sad that such a fine actor is dead. The title to
> this is repulsive.

(Repulsive title deleted for reasons of taste)

What's really sad is that more attention has been paid to this young man
in the week and a half since his death than was ever paid to him during
his career.

Sad that an actor who took such obvious care in finding the right roles,
and not just jumping aboard any two-bit piece of garbage that would have
made him millions in merchandising royalties never got the acclaim he
deserved, aside from positive reviews and an Oscar nomination.

Apparently, it's better to either (a) act in a Spielberg blockbuster, or
(b) behave outrageously and get your face all over the tabloids next to
Burt, Whoopi, and Shannen, than to try to be a serious actor and make a
career out of your talents.

RIP, River Phoenix. Hope the afterlife treats you better.


--
Tom Bromley tbro...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida
"If you can read this, you're too darn close!"

the Babesther

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 4:18:09 PM11/9/93
to

In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:


:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
:)
:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.

What about children?

--
_
(_` "I don't take information from orange,
(_,st :) irritating people."
h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu (TTFN!)

Richard Liblanc

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 12:51:06 PM11/9/93
to
In article <1993Nov7.0...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cjc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.J. Corcoran) writes:
>In article <Nov06.155...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sut...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Rich Sutton) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov5.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cjc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.J. Corcoran) writes:
>>{stuff deleted for brevity but the spirit of the following remains}
>>>
>>>I have no sympathy for a police officer who wants to control my
>>>private life. None at all. I'm not about to go out shooting cops, but I
>>>don't think it's a pity when one dies in an attempt to stop Joe Smith
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>from smoking one of those evil marijuana cigarettes. I have no sympathy
>>>for the cop who dies trying to confiscate
>>
>>>
>>>As for Phoenix, I didn't really know him. I'm not even too familiar with
>>>his movies, but regardless of how he died, what gives you the right to
>>>say, "Oh well, he deserves it!" That is a sick attitude. How the hell
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>can you have such a casual disregard for human life? Just because he was
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>different from you, it really doesn't matter that he dies? That is the
>>>same sick attitude which has fueled racism for centuries and led us into
>>>wars.
>>>
>>> -chris
>>
>>Would you answer your own question for us, Chris?
>
>Too bad you cut out the middle portion of the post. I think it makes
>things clear. During WWII, a jew would have no sympathy for a nazi who
>was trying to take away his home, and persecute him for his beliefs. If
>that jew shot that nazi, I doubt any of us would be able to say that he
>had a casual disregard for life. To me, there is a big difference
>between a person (who has done nothing to harm anyone) dying and a
>person (who tries to control your personal freedom) dying. I've
>answered your question in another post. I stand by my convictions.


Now please, tell me i didnt read that...Or at least tell me i didnt understand it
and let some brainfog obscure the point the author tried to made....please...

sigh, remember how all this started? Remember, long time ago, a long long time ago,
a moron posted a flame bait post and now here we are...I guess he must be jubilating
now...Moron :1 Net : 0

> -chris
>--


--
..........Richard Liblanc (lib...@info.polymtl.ca )...............
"There's a sucker born every minute."
"...And they die about that fast too..."
-Grimtooth

Garthe Nelson

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 7:51:04 PM11/9/93
to
In article <HAN.93No...@capstan.cis.yale.edu>
h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu (the Babesther) writes:
> In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe
Nelson) writes:
> :) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
> :) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
> :)
> :) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is
too
> :) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
> What about children?
> (_` "I don't take information from orange,
> (_,st :) irritating people."
> h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu
(TTFN!)

Educate them. The way to prevent people from doing something is to
convince them not to do it. Few people find force convincing and it
usually just leads to an escalation. Observe the weaponry used by those
you propose to rule by force. They don't look too scared.

garthe

Iain P. Grier

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 8:53:30 PM11/9/93
to
In article <HAN.93No...@capstan.cis.yale.edu>,

the Babesther <h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
>
>
>:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
>:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
>:)
>:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
>:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
>What about children?
>

So don't let your kids smoke dope until they're 21. Problem solved.
Not that getting alcohol was a big hassle when I was growing up anyways...

Bob Calvert

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 4:24:54 PM11/9/93
to

May I interrupt this thread for just one moment...?


Life is wonderful. Today was a great day to be alive!


(I thought that this thread was in dire need of something uplifting!)
--
/////////////// Bob Calvert \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////// r...@wts.com \\\\\\
////// My boss is a Jewish Carpenter \\\\\\
////// Romans 8:32 \\\\\\

Killer

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 11:26:33 PM11/9/93
to
L.H....@lut.ac.uk wrote:
: In article <2b6e2i$n...@universe.digex.net> c...@universe.digex.net (Cat) writes:
: >>MAC (mb...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:

: Oh, what a load of star-struck crap. All the people I would describe as
: 'beautiful' don't do drugs.

All the people I would describe as 'doing-drugs' are beautiful.

--
--
Killer
cas...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz
__ ___
/ ` | ~ Some say my name is Peter
| | | but they are the ones you have
| __ |--- to keep an eye on.
\__/ o on. |___)ite me.............
{This sig is evolving. Disturbances are to be expected.}

C J Silverio

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 11:59:53 PM11/9/93
to
---

h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu (the Babesther) writes:
|In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
|:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
|:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
|:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
|:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.

|What about children?

What about their parents? Do you think that perhaps parents
have SOME role in assisting their children to make decisions,
eat their celery, turn off the TV, cross with the light, use
alcohol & other drugs only when old enough, and wash behind
their ears, perhaps even WITHOUT government intervention?

Radical concept, I know. While you're pondering it, why
don't you try having this conversation in a newsgroup that
cares? Like, oh, I don't know... talk.politics.drugs maybe?

---
C J Silverio ce...@netcom.com ce...@well.sf.ca.us
"As for drug proscription, I don't think it's possible except by
inaugurating a society in which we wouldn't want to live."
- William F. Buckley, "National Review", Dec. 28, 1992, p 55

john baez

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 2:34:20 AM11/10/93
to

>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!

Really? Which country do you live in? I hope you never jaywalk.

john baez

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 3:09:31 AM11/10/93
to

>And it's people like you who insist upon letting the prisoners have television
>radio's, cigarettes, recreational facilities, etc etc etc etc

"People like you," huh? Let's drop this "people like you" stuff fast;
it's an exceptionally poor rhetorical technique. It doesn't mean
anything unless perhaps you are very familiar with the person you are
talking to, which I doubt somehow.

>They get all these little stupid ass perks that make their lives easier while
>in prison... what the hell for?! All they deserve is food, an hour outside to
>get some fresh air, and a cell to rot in. Thats it... other than sanitary
>facilities prisons should have nothing else. It's outragious how much money
>is spent on prisons because people believe prisoners "have rights" and they
>are still citizens...
>How about some of those jerks who run those extensive credit card fraud rings?
>some of them do it *from prison* and how? by using a goddamn phone! Why
>the hell is a prisoner given access to a fucking phone?!

First of all, this has nothing at all to do with what we were talking
about. I don't recall anyone here arguing that prisoners should be
given telephones.

Second of all, you almost contradict yourself. If you think prisoners should
be given sanitary facilities, food, or an hour outside, you are
extending to them some rights. If you think they give up all rights
extended to citizens upon being jailed, there is really no reason to
feed the rascals. Now, perhaps you think that while they give up the
"rights" to food etc. you still favor feeding them out of your love for
humanity. But somehow I doubt such a complex thought would have occurred
to you.

Joshua Geller

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 3:45:15 AM11/10/93
to

In article <HAN.93No...@capstan.cis.yale.edu> h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu
(the Babesther) writes:

> In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe
> Nelson) writes:

> :) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
> :) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.

> :) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
> :) weak to be worth consideration anyway.

> What about children?

there are two good answers to this: one is, get them before they reproduce!
if people die from stupidity without leaving progeny it increases the
intelligence of the next generation by just that little bit.

less cynically, if drugs are legal you can at least attempt to regulate
the access of minors to them. this is the case with alcohol, which is
legal, and which children are not legally able to purchase.

josh

Sander Raaymakers

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 4:29:37 AM11/10/93
to
cms5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (C. Matthew Sharkey) writes:

>mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:

>>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget

[STUFF DELETED]

>The city of which you speak is Amsterdam. The problems that they encountered
>were, if I remember correctly, from the free distribution of Heroin. If you
>knew anything about the city in question, you would know that while their illicit drug laws parallel those of the US and others, they practice almost no
>enforcement of these laws. In this sense, Heroin was already operativley
>"legal" in Amsterdam. Their problem arose through the free distribution of
>injectables and syringes to the populace. It stands to reason that if one
>centralizes the use of Heroin, or any other drug, the point of centralization
>will become characteristic of that drug's use.

The reason for the free distribution of syringes was very simple...
Using somebody elses syringe will increase the chances of getting AIDS.
Drug (ab)users could get free syringes for trading in a dirty one.
Registered drug users can even take part in a program where they
get Methadon for free, so they will not have to steal to get their daily kick.
I don't approve of the use of hard drugs, but legalizing it would probably
be a good idea...

Prices would drop, people wouldn't have to steal so much. The only problem
this leaves us with, is keeping all the foreign drug tourists out and
stay good friends with the surrounding countries!! (Especially those
paranoid Americans)

Our drug policy is a lot more liberal than the one in the united states
we have less problems, and virtually NO problems with users of Hashish
or Weed, which BTW can be bought easily anywhere in Holland.

Ciao,
Allessandro

+- san...@and.nl -------------------------------- AND Software -+
| Westersingel 108 |
| Holland, land of clogs, windmills and... 3015-LD Rotterdam |
+---------------------------------------- Tel: +(31)10 4367100 -+


Mike McNally

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 8:58:04 AM11/10/93
to
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>an entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs

yuk yuk yuk

--
Mike McNally

VAXBANDIT

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 9:24:37 AM11/10/93
to

What? That's ridiculous, I don't have to worry about that kind'a shit because
I.... *never break the law*. That's right folks... I'm one of the unique
individuals who just don't break the law... Say what you will but you will not
be able to soil the fact that while you guys fuck up from your parking
violations, driving while intoxicated, your fake IDs (for you frat brats),
and what not...

Guys I'm going to be the guy sitting in the back of the court room laughing
my ass off when you fuck-heads get convicted of tax fraud or DWI.

Hell I'm not that evil of a guy... I mean if someone is jailed for some minor
illegal act... sure they should get fed and cleaned.. can't have them looking
and smelling like bums when they are let out and go back to serve society.
But the minor criminals arn't the point.. the problem with society today
is we have too many bambi-loving morons who feel that their is some good in
*every* individual and we should help them with social programs and
rehabilitation so they can serve our society. But your wrong. And one day you
might be one more corpse bleeding in the streets because your social views let
some drugged up punk walk over to the local gun-shop and buy himself a shotgun
so he could hold you up, steal your wallet, and blow your stupid ass wide open.
Of course I couldn't give a rats ass if your dead... I just don't like the idea
that it could happen in my area.
The fact is that those people who continually break the law by commiting
henious acts like theft, murder, selling drugs, etc, will never shape up and
will always go back to doing the same stupid ass thing!

You make drugs legal and you will simply make the fuel that causes these idiots
to screw them selves up even more available! And that causes ME problems, not to
mention your sorry self.

You see the bottom line is... if you make drugs legal.. then criminals can
"pump it up" any time, and that causes more crimes, which might get you killed
and if you get killed... whose going to mow my lawn? or press my suit? or keep
the eletricity and gas coming into my home? or police my neighborhood?

So if anything else... just remember that your here for me.


The Masked Jackal

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 10:33:39 AM11/10/93
to
You obviously haben't read the constitution buddy. I ain't here for you. If
anything I should be pissed because my tax dollars are supporting your
elitist right wing ass in a higher education system that obviously has done
nothing to raise your awareness. What creates crime is not drugs, but ass-
holes like you who repeatedly fuck with people's freedom to determine what
ever they put in their bodies-so long as no one else is affected. You right
wingers are the first to scream "right to bear arms", then blame criminals
for doing just that. Get a life! The constitution was written on HEMP paper
you insipid fuckhead. And if you want someone to mow your lawn or press your
shirts, get off your lazy ass and practice your conservative preaching: DO IT
YOURSELF, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! It's called right to privacy from total
assholes like yourself

P. C. Kilinskas

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 11:00:00 AM11/10/93
to
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:

>What? That's ridiculous, I don't have to worry about that kind'a shit because
>I.... *never break the law*. That's right folks... I'm one of the unique
>individuals who just don't break the law... Say what you will but you will not
>be able to soil the fact that while you guys fuck up from your parking
>violations, driving while intoxicated, your fake IDs (for you frat brats),
>and what not...

>Guys I'm going to be the guy sitting in the back of the court room laughing
>my ass off when you fuck-heads get convicted of tax fraud or DWI.

Ok, it's all sarcasm... I apologize for responding seriously to your earlier
posts...

Jaap Dijkma

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 12:09:25 PM11/10/93
to

>You see the bottom line is... if you make drugs legal.. then criminals can
>"pump it up" any time, and that causes more crimes, which might get you killed
>and if you get killed... whose going to mow my lawn? or press my suit? or keep
>the eletricity and gas coming into my home? or police my neighborhood?

If you make drugs legal, there's a right way doing it:
-absolutely no advertising.
-only with a licence.
-no really bad drugs, i mean drugs with a major, permanent health-damage.

In almost any city you can have drugs if you want to, so legalizing
drugs won't make a difference. With legal drugs you know what you get
and you know where the money goes (taxes mostly I think). With illegal
drugs you don't know what poisen you get, and you do know that the
money is going to some criminal organization.

When you legalise drugs most big criminals will be out of a job, that's
why those criminal organizations will pay millions to prevent this.
(maybe they allready do...).

======================================================================
jaap dijkma, "Why bother with such a big stone arch?"
univesity of "It's just showing off. There's probably a sticker
nijmegen on the back saying 'My Other Grave Is A Porch'".
-- (Terry Pratchett, Johnny and the dead)

Rae Stabosz

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 2:16:13 PM11/10/93
to
In article <HomRcc...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> tbro...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Thomas Bromley) writes:
>
>Sad that an actor who took such obvious care in finding the right roles,
>and not just jumping aboard any two-bit piece of garbage that would have
>made him millions in merchandising royalties never got the acclaim he
>deserved, aside from positive reviews and an Oscar nomination.
>
>Apparently, it's better to either (a) act in a Spielberg blockbuster, or
>(b) behave outrageously and get your face all over the tabloids next to
>Burt, Whoopi, and Shannen, than to try to be a serious actor and make a
>career out of your talents.
>
>RIP, River Phoenix. Hope the afterlife treats you better.
>
>
>--
>Tom Bromley tbro...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
>Florida Atlantic University
>Boca Raton, Florida
> "If you can read this, you're too darn close!"

=========================

This is not meant to provoke flames or start a religious debate.
But as I've been reading this thread, and as a person who very much
liked River Phoenix's work, I thought I would mention that those of
you who are Catholic might pray for his soul. Actually, of course,
anyone might pray for his soul but Catholics who subscribe to the
traditional notion that "it is a good and wholesome thing to pray for
the dead" might forget that this is a good act one can perform for the
dead. The month of November, traditionally set aside as a month
dedicated to the souls in purgatory, is a good time to remember
that fact.

Rae

The Machman

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 6:45:44 PM11/10/93
to
h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu (the Babesther) writes:

>In article <blah blah> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
>
>:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
>:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
>What about children?

Children need their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) to prevent them from
using drugs. That's what parents are for. Government is no substitute
for parenthood.

-- dave

--
/''' The Machman mac...@u.washington.edu david c carroll
c-OO
\ "Big Science. Hallelujah"
-

Lamont Granquist

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 7:39:39 PM11/10/93
to
In article <HAN.93No...@capstan.cis.yale.edu> h...@capstan.cis.yale.edu (the Babesther) writes:
>In article <2bnkdp$j...@hub.ucsb.edu> gar...@ensuite.mcl.ucsb.edu (Garthe Nelson) writes:
>:) This is unmistakably evidenced by the fact that people do use drugs
>:) despite the fact that the law prohibits it.
>:)
>:) Also, anyone who needs the law to prevent them from using drugs is too
>:) weak to be worth consideration anyway.
>
>What about children?

In which case his first point is still quite applicable. They get it
right now -- i found buying pot on my high school campus easier than
buying alcohol there.

jsc...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 8:24:52 PM11/10/93
to
>>Gimmie a break, that's such a bleeding heart answer! Their was a newsreport on
>>some such network about a year or two ago about a european country (I forget
>>which)
>
>Switzerland.

>
>>that had a city that created a single area where drugs were 100% legal.
>>And what they ended up with was a slummy section of the city that had syringes
>>littered all over the place and a continual infestation of scum, bums, and
>>assholes pumping their veins full of drug crap!
>>
>>Making drugs legal wont do shit, it will just increase the problem!
>
>This doesn't logically follow. That very local policy of legalization
>created a massive influx of addicts from the surrounding areas in
>Europe. It did not create any addicts it just changed how they were
>distributed. Legalization on a nationwide or continentwide scale would
>not encounter a problem of this magnitude.

>
>>Instead of
>>having many idiots and assholes using drugs and causing crime to get money to
>>buy drugs, we'd have 10 times that many people doing the same thing they
>>did before!
>
>Unlikely. Assuming that everyone who drinks took up smoking pot and adding
>in a little fudge factor the worst case scenario would be 3 times that
>many people doing the same thing they did before. Meanwhile, national
>policy towards treating substance abuse would be shifted from an
>utterly useless policy of incarceration to a policy of research and
>treatment on demand. Any coneivable short term detrimental effect would
>be attenuated by these other factors, which also have the potential to
>increase in the long term future due to research -- a potential which
>law enforcement completely lacks.

>
>>Only now more and more people would be doing it because it would
>>be legal! At least when it's illegal we can stick the fuckers in prison! It's
>>too bad we can't leave them in their!
>
>Oh yeah, thats a good solution. Place them into prison, create broken
>families, exacerbate their personal problems, pay for their incarceration
>and place them into an environment where drugs are just as available along
>with a criminal subculture for them to learn from. It seems that the negative
>effects of incarceration seem to be almost identical to the claimed
>negative effects of drugs. How surprising that the cure is as bad
>as the disease.

>
>>It's jerks like you who insist on prisoners having "rights" when they
>>forfited any and all rights when they were convicted of commiting a crime!
>
>No one has any "rights" at all. The problem is mindless assholes like
>yourself who seem to believe that hard-handed criminal justice solutions
>to problems have no consequences. Unfortunately in reality you can't "wish
>away" social problems by throwing people in jail.
>

My commiting an immoral act, a criminal has said in effect "I truely believe
that it is right and proper to act this way", thus when society punishes a
criminal, it is acting in a way that the criminal cannot possiblely say
is immoral, provided there is the correct link between the crime and the
punishment. In the case of recreational drug use, this means that society
is within the moral system of the drug user when they "act irrationally"
toward the drug user, which might include throwing them in jail. Not to
mention that right of society to advance toward higher moral standards,
which comes from the fact that it is in the interest of every member of
society, including the criminal, that they live in a moral society.
And while it might be better POLICY to adopt a 'corrective' rather than
'punative' stance toward punishment, my arguement still stands.

David Henry Fetter

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 10:49:31 PM11/10/93
to
In article <CGACz...@sci.kun.nl> ja...@sci.kun.nl (Jaap Dijkma) writes:
>in article <CGA5D...@onyx.indstate.edu>, mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu writes:
>
>>You see the bottom line is... if you make drugs legal.. then criminals can
>>"pump it up" any time, and that causes more crimes, which might get you killed
>>and if you get killed... whose going to mow my lawn? or press my suit? or keep
>>the eletricity and gas coming into my home? or police my neighborhood?
>
>If you make drugs legal, there's a right way doing it:

There are many right ways, but there are major problems with the one you propose.

>-absolutely no advertising.

Why not? Alcohol and tobacco companies are allowed to, and you'd have more
fight than it's worth to make *them* stop.

>-only with a licence.

A license granted by whom, and for what? Right now, the DEA can issue you
a license to use Schedule I Controlled Substances which "have no medical
value" These include marijuana, an anti-emetic with no known lethal dose in
humans, MDMA, an entactogen of proven utility in psychotherapy, LSD, an agent
which has been used in the successful treatment of alcoholism, or heroin, a
painkiller.

They never do so for private citizens, and extremely rarely even for researchers
with good, competent science on their agenda.

>-no really bad drugs, i mean drugs with a major, permanent health-damage.

You must mean tobacco and ethyl alcohol. Or do you mean antihistamines, or
sugar?

The deadliest drugs are legal, and they'd still be the deadliest even if *all*
drugs, including strychnine (used at the turn of the century as a stimulant)
were legal.

>In almost any city you can have drugs if you want to, so legalizing
>drugs won't make a difference. With legal drugs you know what you get

The main differences will be in price, quality and reliability.

They will go down, up, and up respectively.

>and you know where the money goes (taxes mostly I think). With illegal
>drugs you don't know what poisen you get, and you do know that the
>money is going to some criminal organization.

Unless you've managed to manufacture your own, of course, from materials
you got legally. Some folks do manage to do this. Other folks quite
justifiably don't think it's worth the risk.

>When you legalise drugs most big criminals will be out of a job, that's

Unfortunately not. They'll have to look for other markets, and they
will find them. For awhile, though, they'll be a bit strapped for cash :)

>why those criminal organizations will pay millions to prevent this.
> (maybe they allready do...).

Doubtless they do, just as they did during the last Prohibition in this
country, but repealing this Prohibition will no more eliminate
organized crime than did repealing the last one :(

--
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> # <
> David Fetter # Zen Koans: <
> sha...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu # What is the sound of one hand clapping? <
> (414) 961-7293 (home) # What is the color of thunder? <
> 2602 E. Hampshire Ave. # What is the food of the <
> Milwaukee, WI 53211 # one eyed one horned flying purple <
> # people eater? <
> # <
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

C.J. Corcoran

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 12:19:47 AM11/11/93
to
>And it's people like you who insist upon letting the prisoners have television
>radio's, cigarettes, recreational facilities, etc etc etc etc
>
>They get all these little stupid ass perks that make their lives easier while
>in prison... what the hell for?! All they deserve is food, an hour outside to
>get some fresh air, and a cell to rot in. Thats it... other than sanitary
>facilities prisons should have nothing else. It's outragious how much money
>is spent on prisons because people believe prisoners "have rights" and they
>are still citizens...
>How about some of those jerks who run those extensive credit card fraud rings?
>some of them do it *from prison* and how? by using a goddamn phone! Why the hell
>is a prisoner given access to a fucking phone?! Who is he going to need to call?
>I see absolutly no reason why a prisoner needs access to the outside world. Let
>them stew by them selves! Then when they get out... catching up to the years
>they missed is their problem not ours.

Can't you realize that these people will someday be released into
society. I would say that the prison system is far from perfect, but
pissing off the prisoner more than you have to is not a smart move. And
don't give me your shit that all prisoners should serve life sentences.
That's not economically viable, so it's not an issue.

-chris
--
Chris Corcoran "It is by will alone I set
cjc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu my mind in motion..."

Andrew Bailey

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 3:25:35 AM11/11/93
to
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:

>Oh it isn't? you mean to tell me the repurcusions of what will happen when an
>entire country will go to pot from the legalization of drugs isn't the issue?
>NOW who is the moron butthead!? Also I'm obviously the only one between us with
>a fuctioning brain because if you use that empty drugged noggen of yours you'd
>relize that if you compare the number of drug users in a european country to
>the number of users in the US that the U.S. has a shitload more drug-idiots like
>your self! That means that urban junk yards like those in the New York area,
>Los Angeles, etc etc etc will be far worse off than some piece of shit park!
>Yes maybe they will be more wide-spread than the park... but that's even
>worse you stupid asshole!!! Stop smokeing crack and use your brain for once!

Is this a per capita coparison? Or even population density?


>Hell yes, anyone who is moronic enough to commit a crime is no longer a citizen
>IMHO let them roast for a while... then when they've become nice and crispy
>maybe they will have earned a second chance. but as far as drug users are
>conserned I say let them burn in hell.


OK how do you feel about decrinalization? Anyway I am sort of late to
this thread. And nowhere have you put a reasoned argument for the
criminalization of drugs in the first place. Note the massive drug
problem did not exist untill they where illegal. Before in the early
1900's when cocaine and laudanum were legal and freely available these
social problems seemed to not exist. The thing about drug use is that
unless the usage results in violent crime or theft a user is not harming
anyone apart from themselves, and you have already admited that you
don't give a toss about the lives of drug users, but the imprisonment
does. It costs money. The WoD costs a lot of money as the police have to
equip themselves to fight against the drug barons and they inturn
re-equip themselves. The police don't really get significant revenue
from the confiscation of property. Where else could this money be spent
h'mmm perhaps on healthcare or the american education system. Society
has declared drugs illegal, from what i have heard the reasons were not
entirly moral either, so perhaps it is wrong. maybe. But the fanatic
push to crush the drug trade only makes drug prices higher and promotes
more violent conflicts with police. Making prices higher means an
increase in voilent crime to support habits. Addiction can be viewed as
a sickness and there is alredy some data that supports alcholism as
being genetic can addiction be the same. You cannot hope to remove drugs
from society as where there is demand there will be supply, its what
capatalism is about. Drugs may not be a good thing but they are here to
stay and forcing usage and production underground creates lots and lots
of negative social problems. When a government spends a lot of money on
one thing it can't spend as much on others. Legalized drug use is part
of a philosophy about freedom, there right of a human to do anything as
long as it does not adversly affect that same right in others( yes it is
a broad staement and open to debate but what the heck). You say that
drug use is a crime and the law agrees with you but the law in other
coutries say that to express opions against the government is a crime is
this right. The law is not always right. Remember that.

>the United States of America, what about you jerk? Obviously you are not an
>american when you support some bullshit cause like legalizing drugs.

I am not an american.

This is a story I heard I dont know if it is true but it intrested me.
This guy takes some drugs where it is legal( in amsterdam I think) and
then one day he goes to the US and is arrested because its against the
law even though the offence did not occur in the US.
Hmmm.

The Acolyte

There is no democracy - Snog

aco...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au

Judy McMillin

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 9:19:49 AM11/11/93
to
In article <2bscob...@uwm.edu> sha...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David Henry Fetter) writes:
>In article <CGACz...@sci.kun.nl> ja...@sci.kun.nl (Jaap Dijkma) writes:
>>in article <CGA5D...@onyx.indstate.edu>, mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu writes:
>>
>
>Doubtless they do, just as they did during the last Prohibition in this
>country, but repealing this Prohibition will no more eliminate
>organized crime than did repealing the last one :(

Many people correlate that to the almost simultaneous
passing of the Marijuana and Cocaine Tax Act (I'm not
sure that's the exact name, but it's close).

Bostick J M

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 10:14:25 AM11/11/93
to
>>
>
>
>Hell I'm not that evil of a guy... I mean if someone is jailed for some minor
>illegal act... sure they should get fed and cleaned.. can't have them looking
>

do you consider smoking pot a 'minor illegal act' ?

>But the minor criminals arn't the point.. the problem with society today
>is we have too many bambi-loving morons who feel that their is some good in

>rehabilitation so they can serve our society. But your wrong. And one day you

your grammar is bad
your spelling is bad
your facts are bad
and your logic is bad

i just hope this whole thing is a joke and that our society
hasnt fallen this far
mark

Mike McNally

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 9:56:46 AM11/11/93
to
mak...@indsvax1.indstate.edu (VAXBANDIT) writes:
>bambi-loving morons

LOOK HERE, WIENER-BRAIN, without Bambi's love (and yes, it's REAL LOVE
DAMNIT), I'd be like NOWHERE today!!!

If I hear ONE MORE REMARK from you about Bambi I'll TRACK YOU DOWN AND
URINATE ON YOUR KNEES!


--
Mike McNally

Lamont Granquist

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 5:56:06 PM11/11/93
to
In article <2bs494$a...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> jsc...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>My commiting an immoral act,

I don't consider recreational drug use, as an indicator of a curious
personality, to be immoral.

>a criminal has said in effect "I truely believe
>that it is right and proper to act this way",

Most criminals (paradoxically) agree that they should be punished
and that society should not tolerate their behavior.

>thus when society punishes a
>criminal, it is acting in a way that the criminal cannot possiblely say
>is immoral, provided there is the correct link between the crime and the
>punishment. In the case of recreational drug use, this means that society
>is within the moral system of the drug user when they "act irrationally"
>toward the drug user, which might include throwing them in jail.

There is nothing to support to contention that drug use is irrational.
On the one hand recreational use is indicative of a curious
personality and on the other hand abuse and addiction is
indicative of self-medication of an underlying psychological disorder.
I find nothing irrational about this.

Meanwhile the concept that the punishment must be "within the moral
system of the criminal" is silly.

>Not to
>mention that right of society to advance toward higher moral standards,
>which comes from the fact that it is in the interest of every member of
>society, including the criminal, that they live in a moral society.

*MY* system of morals states that heavy-handed approaches to
solving problems related to victimless crimes are "immoral" based on
their failure to solve any problems and their violation of privacy
rights.

And i do not see how criminalization is making any kind of
progress. Its a tactic which has been used for thousands of
years and has consistantly failed. A medical and psychotherapeutic
approach to prevention and treatment is something which actually
DOES promise to produce evolution. Evolution to a society which
doesn't *need* drugs to be criminal in order to control their
use.

>And while it might be better POLICY to adopt a 'corrective' rather than
>'punative' stance toward punishment, my arguement still stands.

...in much the same way that castle rests on clouds.

Lamont Granquist

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 1:25:04 PM11/11/93
to
In article <JOSHUA.93N...@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> jos...@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>there are two good answers to this: one is, get them before they reproduce!
>if people die from stupidity without leaving progeny it increases the
>intelligence of the next generation by just that little bit.

Actually drug abuse is likely predicted by psychosocial stress and its likely
there will always be some fixed percentage of the population which undergoes
sufficient psychosocial stress to cause drug abuse.

hmmmm... I just realized that this might actually support your argument
since you were focusing on increased intelligence and not decreased
drug abuse as a result of natural selection. Just be careful with the
evolutionary argument -- it is not as simple as it might seem -- read
"The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins for further info.

Greg Smith

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 10:50:38 AM11/11/93
to
Enough is enough. Stop wasting bandwidth