Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
Drug Debate -> March 3 - 24
Apollo BBS Archive - Drug Debate - March 3 - 24, 1989
Message: 57444
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Gangs
Date: 03/08/89� Time: 18:28:22
�
� Gangs seem to be the current media hysteria, so it should be noted that
total gang related homicides in Phoenix during 1987 were 17 and that this
declined to 13 during 1988.
� Once again we have been propagandized into a panic over something which is
being touted as the latest epidemic. Remember how all our children were
going to be kidnapped, how we were all going to be wiped out by the AIDS
epidemic, what was it before that?
� Since these gangs prosper mainly by dealing in illegal substances should
we crack down on law abiding citizens who use prescription drugs or aspirin?
This makes every bit as much sense as harassing law abiding citizens over
their legally owned weapons in order to get back at the gangs for shooting
people with their illegal ones.
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
�
Message: 57452
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gangs
Date: 03/09/89� Time: 07:11:12
�
Changing the subject a bit - it seems to me that the drug/gang/gun problem
would be solved if we legalized drugs to begin with. Gangs might still be
around but if they are not fighting for something such as drugs - then the
main reason for their existence would be gone. They would have nothing to
protect.
Dean ... your point about gangs being the new media hype is true of course -
however, my daughter just moved from the L.A. area because of the violence
of the gangs there and they are so many. I ask her why she didn't move to
Phoenix and her reply was that the gangs are moving here now! She moved to
Santa Fe instead and claims there are no gangs there. (at this time!)
;������ -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
Message: 57454
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/57453
Date: 03/09/89� Time: 11:18:21
�
The best way to solve a problem involving a dangerous product such as
narcoti, is not to make it legal. If that were the case, we could curb mafia
action in the underground porno industry by making child pornography legal.
We could lighten the load in the prisons by making murder legal. We could
eliminate the problem of pimps and organized crime in the prostitution
business by making call-girls legal (my, wouldn't that help curb the spread
of AIDS? [sarcasm]). In short, the way to curb an evil is not by legalizing
a greater evil. Could you imagine the field day that companies would have it
narcotics became legal? They would have an advertising field day, and suck
hundreds of thousands of kids down that drug-induced drain. The chief source
of income (and source of violence) among gangs currently is crack, a drug
that can addict a user upon the first dose, and will cause the user to do
anything within his/her power to keep a fix (the high lasts 20 minutes, in
which a terrific depression follows [also a hunger for another high.]) Kids
would deplete their finances, and resort to crime to keep their habit going
(which is prevalent now, but not to the extent that it would be if crack
were legalized.)
Would you want crack to be legal? Your plan (were it to work) would involve
a blanket legalization. Any omission would result in the gang's trafficking
those one or two ILLEGAL drugs.*
Message: 57455
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/09/89� Time: 15:53:48
Re:� "if we legalized drugs to begin with"
That same argument has been used for prostitution too.� I know some
countries have either legalized or semi-legalized drugs and/or prostitution.
But has it helped society?� Does anyone have statistics?� No one is jumping
on the bandwagon of success here.
�
Message: 57456
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Crime
Date: 03/09/89� Time: 16:01:51
The best deterrent to crime is to make it unprofitable.� The next best
deterrent is to execute the criminal.� I know some of you do not believe
capitol punishment deters crime, but I have never heard of a dead man
robbing a store, mugging an old lady, or raping a young girl.� Maybe when
the situation gets bad enough the government will zap all the convicts on
death row.� That would have to save a bunch of money right there.� And I've
already heard all that hoopla about some innocent getting zapped by mistake.
�My comment, tough!� Zap them all anyway!
�
Message: 57459
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/legal
Date: 03/09/89� Time: 20:24:19
������� Your child porno does not fit well with drugs.� Not a good example.
Why not make drugs legal.� Those who want to do them now have no trouble.
In fact, two years ago an ounce of cocaine was $1000.� Today the same amount
is $500.� This is because there is so very much on the street that prices
continue to drop and also the demand has gone down.�
������� If every drug user was put in prison (an impossible task) then there
would be a prison on every block.� According to the most recent government
stats, it costs $20,000 per year per inmate.� Guess who pays?� Why it is the
middle class worker who pays.�
������� The very worst drug is already legal and has been legal for years.
It is alcohol.� Pot, which is the mildest and does help people overcome
alcohol addiction carries a felony penalty.
������� Again, drugs being illegal stops no one from using them.� In fact as
a person grows and learns how corrupt this society is, drugs become more
desirable because they are illegal.�
������� There would be no Bloods or Crips in this area if drugs were legal.
Just as many people would use them but there would be room in prison for
people who commit crimes that involves hurting others.
������� Christ used drugs.� It says so in the bible.
;����������� Rod
�
Message: 57460
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/last
Date: 03/09/89� Time: 20:32:53
������� Many a public official, policemen and probation, parole officers use
drugs.� Judges, attorneys, city, county, state, federal personnel use drugs.
������� What do you think the solution is?�
Message: 57476
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul
Date: 03/10/89� Time: 15:24:13
� You complain that I failed to address the availability of weapons to
outlaws and the crimes which they commit with them. You also continue to
say that the AK-47 and Uzi, etc. are legally available with little if any
prerequisites.
� Every gun sold retail in the U.S. is subject to registration under the
Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The buyer must provide identification,
prove residency in that state, and sign several statements of eligibility
concerning felony convictions, drug use, mental disability, etc. Some
states, like California, also require a waiting period and background
check.
� Every FULLY automatic weapon sold in the U.S. is subject to the controls
I described in the earlier messages, administered by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms under a law that has existed since 1934. As you have
been told several times, these legally sold weapons have not been used in
any crimes.
� It is obvious that all this makes it unlikely that a person would buy a
gun, especially a fully automatic one, from a gun dealer with the intent of
using it to commit a crime unless that person had no intention of trying
to escape. Since this has had absolutely no effect in stopping crime it is
obvious that criminals have other sources for weapons and that the current
level of infringement, not to mention the constantly proposed increases in
it, serve no useful purpose whatsoever with regard to crime.
�
� I took the trouble to provide some information about the firearms which
are in question here in hopes of penetrating some of the media induced fog
surrounding them. The AK-47 is a military FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon. It is
not available to criminals by any means in the U.S. which can be effected
by further gun legislation. Stopping the heavily regulated sales of them to
collectors would not help, as none of those sales has ever resulted in a
crime. Stopping the sale of semi-automatic look-a-likes would not help
because criminals don't have to buy retail anyway, and there is no way to
outlaw these look-a-likes without also outlawing all the functionally
similar firearms which have been in legal use in this country for the last
ninety years. To ban these firearms would make paper criminals out of the
millions of Americans who own clip-fed self-loading guns. Police effort
would then be required to track down those who would refuse to comply with
the ban, and do you doubt than many would? The police would suffer a double
injury as their manpower was called away from real police work to hunt down
the otherwise law-abiding victims of this travesty, while the nation's
respect for law and the police would reach a low comparable to that seen
during Prohibition. It would have zero effect on real outlaws, as they can
get illegal guns smuggled into the country as easily as they do illegal
drugs.
� You say that I have ignored the facts about 'ever increasing numbers' of
people killed by gangs. I did post the totals for gang related homicide for
Phoenix for the last two years. Maybe you didn't notice that since it wasn't
an 'ever increasing number' as the fixated media has declared. I don't have
such figures for L.A., but I would not take the media's word for it
there either without some hard facts to back it up, considering that they
are currently in such a frenzy over this that no contradictory information
is likely to be heard.
� During the time I was in California last month incidents of police
over-reaction to alleged gang activities exceeded reports of actual gang
warfare by about two to one as nearly as I could tell. The police are
under severe pressure to show results against the gangs with all this media
hype going on.
� Even if we accept everything that has been said about gangs running
rampant and killing bystanders on a daily basis with machine guns, what
would be a correct course of action? Would it be to put useless restrictions
on those who abide by the law, or to look for ways to actually improve the
situation? If law enforcement and the criminal justice system have not dealt
with this problem, then why not? That is the issue which needs to be
addressed, and the gyrations of the gun confiscation lobby are only clouding
the issue and making real progress that much less likely.
� If there has been a failure of law enforcement and the criminal justice
system to deal with the situation, then what are the reasons for that
failure?
� Some would say that the police are out-gunned by these gangs and can not
cope with them. If this were true then we would be in serious trouble
because any criminal who could get a hold of a machine gun would be
practically untouchable by the police. In fact, of course, the police
are armed appropriately to their mission and rely more on their tactics and
communications than mere firepower in the hands of every officer.
� The patrol officer wears a handgun because it is the handiest and least
obtrusive weapon available, which suits the fact that the great majority of
their work is routine and involves interaction with the public. When a
shooting situation develops the officers usually have a shotgun in their
patrol car and they can use communications to arrange everything from
backup cars, helicopters, SWAT teams with snipers and machine guns, or a
tank if required. It is true that a lone officer who is away from his car
and out of communications is out-gunned by a criminal who has a rifle, but
this has always been true. If the police can no longer accept this state of
affairs then they can always issue more effective weapons for each officer
or patrol car, but they can not realistically hope to eliminate the rifle
from the hands of the criminal.
� Another possible reason for the failure of law enforcement and the
criminal justice system to control gang activities is the difficulty they
have in keeping these offenders off the street once they have been arrested.
Repeat offenders commit the majority of violent crime, but they are often
returned to the street after little or no incarceration. Prison overcrowding
is the most heard excuse for this. There is a great need to build more
prisons and/or make sure that the prison space we do have is used to keep
dangerous criminals off the street. If our prisons and jails weren't filled
with people who did not rob or attack anyone, but only offered to buy or
sell drugs or sex for instance, then the existing system would be much more
effective at discouraging these violent repeat offenders.
� Whether it is mainly because of prison overcrowding or other factors, the
fact remains that the criminal justice system is so ineffective that this
alone could dissuade the police from working too hard or taking too much
risk in order to arrest dangerous criminals. They know that it doesn't do
any good in the long run. Nobody will testify in court because they know
that they will soon be targeted when the criminal hits the street again.
� The man who shot those children in Stockton, Patrick Edward Purdy, had
been arrested for felony crimes numerous times before, but they never
bothered to indict him. A police psychiatrist's warning that Purdy was a
danger to himself and others meant nothing to them and he was always
released.
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
Message: 57486
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/11/89� Time: 05:02:11
Re:� "Christ used drugs.� It says so in the bible."
����
I'll bite.� Where does it say that?
Message: 57487
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/victimless crime
Date: 03/11/89� Time: 05:32:09
When a kid abuses drugs, that kid is the first victim. Then the family
members are victims. Then those from whom that kid must eventually steal to
obtain more drugs are victims. THen the entire society, who must bear the
cost of either rehabilitation, investigation of the crimes committed, and
probably hospitalization and/or funeral expenses become victimized.
�How can you say that drug abuse is a victimless crime?
Legalization is not the answer either. All that will accomplish is to make
the poison that much more available. The kids will be able to buy it at the
corner candy store instead of having to find a pusher that hasn't been shot
yet for selling on the wrong corner.
�
Message: 57489
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/dope
Date: 03/11/89� Time: 08:14:16
Where else is organized crime going to go? Where else could they make those
kind of big bucks? They'll always be around, but why give them something
like the profit of drugs? Re: child pornography - yes, they make big bucks,
but nowhere near what a drug runner or even a pusher can make. There just
isn't the demand for child porn. Besides - that IS exploitation - the
children have no choice - drug users do so because they want to!
����������� -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
Message: 57490
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/evils
Date: 03/11/89� Time: 08:26:30
�
You can put the tag of evil on such things but that doesn't make it so.
Drugs have been around ever since man has been here - it was legal up until
the last couple centuries.
Re: the state making kids drug users - that won't happen any more than the
state making them alcoholics. That is ridiculous. A drug store (literary)
could be run just like a liquor store and I certainly don't see any twelve
year old purchasing Jack Daniel's from the local store. Sure, the kids will
get� hold of it just like they do liquor and cigarettes and they'll no
doubt steal for it too - but certainly on a much lesser scale than now. He
wouldn't be able to make the big bucks or sell it to adults because the
adults can get what they want anytime and at reasonable prices. It will
also remove the thrill of doing something illegal. That can't be under rated
either. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
Message: 57492
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Bob/Drugs
Date: 03/11/89� Time: 11:57:28
������� Okay, you bit, here goes.
������� Jesus had oils rubbed into his skin.� They made him feel refreshed
and smell good.� Pot has the same effect.� I guess one could make a paste of
pot and rub it on the skin.� It certainly smells good.
������� Hope this answers your question. -Rod
�
Message: 57493
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/victimless crime
Date: 03/11/89� Time: 12:07:58
������� You used the word abuse.� All substances can be abused and this
includes bacon.� There is nothing wrong with substances that come
from flower tops when used on occasion.� They are much better than animal
products.� By your logic everyone is a victim of something.
������� Drugs which comes from vegetable matter are most probably the most
healthful substances on this planet.�
������� I'm sure that every American abuses the fallout from automobile
exhausts and this certainly isn't a victimless crime.� Every man, woman
and child has to suffer the consequences on a equal basis.� Plant substances
are probably the best things ever to come down the pike and I'm not talking
substance which are allowed to ferment.
������ But one must be careful and not abuse that which we have a choice of.
������� I guess kids after trying certain drugs find them to be such a
contrast to their everyday life that in many cases abuse follows.� Too bad
the stage is set for that to happen.� This world is so very corrupt that
people, all people, want to do things that make them feel good.� Children
have so very little real things that make their lives feel good.
������� -Rod
�
Message: 57497
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Drugs & Crime
Date: 03/11/89� Time: 19:20:19
�
����� For every problem there is a cause.� Every problem has a
solution.� Simple words, simple meaning.
����� Why people abuse substances is anyone's guess.� My guess based
upon a few items of knowledge will follow.� It has been noted that
during times of great stress people will do abnormal things.� During
the First World War, 1914-1919, cigarette sales went way up.� During
the Great Depression, ash trays had to be added to the table in
restaurants as the amount of smokers increased at an alarming rate.
You know, smoke a cigarette, calm your nerves, is an old saying.� Alcohol
is no exception.� In the old movies, most everyone smoked right on
screen and many a time I have heard the comment on films, "I deserve a
reward, I'll have a drink".� Of course everyone who watched wanted to
be cool like the movie stars so again these two substances soared in
sales.� So, we have two things that bring about abuse, stress and peer
(or should that be idol) pressure.
���� In our nation today and especially in the big cities, there is
an awful lot of stress.� We go by the clock more so than anytime in
history.� Hustle-bustle is a way of life.� Being short of money, having
to go without items and having your credit cards charged to the max is
the norm.� Both husband and wife working at jobs away from their brood
is more necessary now than ever before.� Children are being raised by
child care centers and their schools.� Their parents are usually too
tired to help much after a hard day of work.
����� Why is it like this?� It isn't necessarily Capitalism that is to
blame.� But it is Pig-Capitalism.� Another cause is separation of the
common person from their government.� It is being pushed and shoved by
the Establishment with no recourse.� It is a feeling of hopelessness
that comes from situations beyond our control. "Guess I'll have
another drink and dull the problem from my mind."
����� We are a nation of madmen, out of control.� It is not
economically feasible to rent a house nor is it economically possible
to purchase one, at least for the average middle class person.� This
in itself is a gigantic rub as a safe and secure cave is a basic need
of the human self.� Always has been, always will be.� A cat or other
animal will not have a kitten in a place considered to be dangerous.
They will spend weeks checking out a safe spot.� A human is no
exception to this rule.� A feeling of safety and well-being is most
important to us.� Many people (read many) are dictated to by their
landlords.� Three days late with the almighty money and eviction
proceedings are started.� There are just as many stresses with this
so-called, buying a home, as the lender likes to see their money just
as well and balloon payments have become a part of many financing
deals.
����� So here we have parents who both work in order to pay for their
nest and children who lack in parental supervision.� This is not a
good situation for this country.
������ The final matter I wish to touch on is that there are bombs that
exist which are more than capable of destroying all human life on this
planet.� This in itself is bad and causes stress but because we are
constantly reminded of world unrest and military paranoia the situation
is in the forefront of our minds.
����� Although drugs are not the correct way to solve the problems of
the world they do offer a solution to the person who is overwhelmed by
the enormousness of them.
����� So you see, the government is prosecuting people for problems
that it is directly responsible for.� Prisons are being filled beyond
capacity with those who are not real criminals.� But when the inmates
are released from prison watch out because now we are dealing with a
bitter victim of the unjust laws of the establishment.� Society is
becoming worse off.
����������� -Rod
Message: 57503
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/crime
Date: 03/12/89� Time: 01:39:26
������� The difference between drug abuse, and child porno, murder, etc.,
can be summed up as "consenting adults."� Child pornography and murder
involve people that are not adults, or are not consenting, or both.� I would
not favor legalizing drugs for children, anymore than booze is legal for
children now.
=3D Alan
�
Message: 57509
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Question?
Subject: Dean
Date: 03/12/89� Time: 05:58:59
�
�If "useful ways of dealing with crime are available", then how come the
gangs are getting such a foothold and growing so large and dangerous, mostly
on the profits from the sale of illegal drugs?
Id "useful ways of dealing with crime are available", then why are there
areas in this best of all possible countries where honest people must fear
for their lives every time they step out of their doors?
If "useful ways of dealing with crime are available", how come police in
some parts of our country have to go to work in body armor?
How come Dean?
Message: 57513
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 03/12/89� Time: 11:34:59
� I said that effective ways of dealing with crime were available, I did not
say they were being used. Enforcing existing laws and keeping violent
offenders off the street and in custody works, but the criminal justice
system is not functioning effectively in this area. This is partly due to
the prisons and jails being filled with people who are not violent offenders
and partly due to other problems in the judicial system. Don't expect any
relief from this as long as a doomed 'war on drugs' is our top national
priority in law enforcement.
� Body armor saves more police officers from injury in traffic accidents
than it does in shootings. It is probably an excellent idea for anyone who
drives a lot as part of their job, but especially anyone who gets into the
occasional high speed chase.
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
�
Message: 57523
Author: David Hsu
Category: Answer!
Subject: legalize it
Date: 03/13/89� Time: 04:09:07
I think we should legalize crime.� After all, those who want to commit
crimes are going to do so regardless of any laws which are passed.� Just
think of what we could do with the billions of dollars saved by the
elimination of the criminal justice system, law enforcement, and
the penal system.� Why, we could pay compensation to all the poor victims of
the environment who suffered in jail for their little misunderstandings with
society.
Message: 57525
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Jesus/Drugs
Date: 03/13/89� Time: 13:12:56
Some how I can't equate "Jesus had oils rubbed into his skin" with smoking
pot.� On occasion I rub hand lotion on my skin, but no one has even
suggested that I'm doing drugs.� You'll have to do better than that Rod.
Message: 57530
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: David Hsu
Date: 03/13/89� Time: 17:37:48
������� Are you talking about victimless crimes?� Well, hell, lets just put
everyone in prison.� I'm fairly positive that everyone has committed a crime
during their lifetime.� But who would be the guards?� Or would we do it on
the honor system?� We could each carry a key and lock ourselves in.
������� Oh, you think that because a person is a cop or a judge or some
other official that they are not guilty of anything.� I see.
������� Your message sucked.
����������� -Rod
�
Message: 57532
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/57474
Date: 03/13/89� Time: 23:11:47
Rod, do YOU understand that the criminal element that pervades the
trafficking of both child pornography and illegal drugs, profits upon the
illegality of both? Make drugs illegal, and the criminals will pool their
money into something more profitable. And you are being half-cocked if you
wish to legalize one to eliminate crime, and not the other. Ethically, you
should be for the legalization of both, or the status quo. And you say that
drug abuse is a victimless crime, eh? Tell that to the kid that is lying
dead in the gutter as the result of some bad dope he bought from the
neighborhood pusher. Yeah, victimless crime, right. There is one victim: THE
USER.
Message: 57533
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 57475/Rod
Date: 03/13/89� Time: 23:16:19
�
If the judge trying my case is kcufed up on cocaine or any other illegal
drug, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. Any officer of the law who willfully uses
drugs, either on or off duty, is a DAMN HYPOCRITE, and is no better than any
criminal on the street in my eyes. Furthermore, if that person is going to
his taxpayer-paid job copping a buzz, then I want his butt OFF THE FORCE. To
Protect and To Serve does not mean To Protect (The Stash) and Serve (Your
Fellow Officers).
�
Message: 57534
Author: Stuart Dobbs
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 00:45:37
�
Hey fellow.� You ain't never gonna stop them cops from catching a buzz.� I
don't care who they hire, human is human.� Same for judges and the like and
you ain't never gonna know about it cept once in a while, maybe.� There is
thousands of judges and cops in this country.� Do you think they are all
honest and don't by future freeway land while laughing at the geeks who come
before them without a pot?
When you gonna wake up, the coffees perkin.� Every human is dishonest to a
degree.� Them big money boys don't even take the time to consider us yokels.
All they wants is that power and glory they gets from putting us in the
slammer and taking our land and possessions.� Praise Dobbs.
Message: 57535
Author: Rick Shaw
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jesus on drugs
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 03:30:29
He drank wine, didn't he?
�
Message: 57536
Author: Rick Shaw
Category: Question?
Subject: Williams/Hsu
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 03:34:02
�
I think he was serious.� Sounds like a Libertarian.
�
Message: 57537
Author: David Hsu
Category: Answer!
Subject: Williams
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 03:52:34
�
You misunderstand me.� I'm talking about letting everyone OUT of prison.
However, your suggestion of putting everyone in prison is well taken, since
the differences between the two conditions are negligible.�
As far as the virtue of judges and policemen, it is my considered opinion
that all officials, with the exception of certain petty bureaucrats in the
U.S. Department of Labor, are clearly either immoral stooges of the
military-industrial tool-complex, or have secret vices beyond the ken of any
of us, save perhaps Merle Haggard.
Yes, I'm a Libertarian and proud of it.
�
Message: 57539
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gee...
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 11:27:14
�
Stuart, uh Rick, uh I mean ROD... You most certainly are on a roll, aren't
you? Well, when you're finished "rolling" it, turn off your computer, smoke
it, and hush.
Wine was not intended to be used as a means for getting intoxicated in those
days. The Bible shuns drunkenness (1 Cor 5:11, among others). Even you
should know that, since you claim to be an ex-Bible scholar. I tend to doubt
that more and more each day.
�
Message: 57546
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Rick/Stu etc.
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 19:02:42
�
������� You are way off base, bub.� I am neither Rick or any of those others
you mentioned.� But I am a Libertarian.
Message: 57548
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/1 of 2 1/4
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 19:04:54
�
Daryl, you still do not understand.� Child pornography is a serious
crime that involves a victim.� That's right, it is someone hurting
another.� Pot, heroin, cocaine, magic mushrooms and Peyote are from the
plant kingdom.� Get this.� It is the individuals right to take any of
these substances.� In fact it is their right to take Cyanide if they so
desire.� Of course they would be violating others rights if they took
poison while speeding down a freeway at 80.� People do not have the
right to be foolish where it involves freedoms of others.� But, damn it,
you cannot usurp the rights of others in regards to what they put into
their bodies.� Although it is done, it is in direct violation of an
individuals freedom.� But that just happens to be the type of world we
now live in.� Ignorance is king.
����� I hope you can see the difference between herbal intake and
using a child to produce explicit sexual material.
����� You mention a kid who is in the gutter, dead from too much dope.
Well, I can see those children in the gutter, dead from being run over
by an automobile but deaths due to drug over-usage is far down on
the scale of reality.� It is rare.� It would be easier for a child to
OD on the booze in his fathers liquor cabinet than die from pot or
cocaine.
�
Message: 57549
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/ 2 of 2 1/4
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 19:05:47
�
����� But if you want to protect the kids from bad dope then push for
legalization.� There would be no bad dope.� It would all be pure.
By the way, what is 'bad dope' and how does one go about dying from
it?� Well, sure if someone is foolish enough to stick needles into
their veins and squeeze the 'bulb' then I guess a lot could happen,
including infections.� But anyone who is idiot enough to allow
substances to bypass all bodily defenses by putting things directly
into their blood stream should be educated.� They should be given or
sold clean needles.� They should be helped out of their dilemma but
not with prison or jail but with an education.
����� Many anti-drug laws were drawn up by legislators drinking
cocktails.� I'm sure they couldn't discern the difference in the land
where ignorance is king.
����� Many people who have little self-worth shoot the harder
substances such as heroin.� The reason they have little self-worth to
begin with is the way our society is set up.� Some children are born
with little intelligence compared to others.� They grow up as slow
achievers and very little is offered to them in the way of a decent
livelihood or home.� They are set upon by the sharks of this world.
They never get ahead.� They are probably more efficient at
�
Message: 57550
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/ 1/4
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 19:06:33
�
shop-lifting and other criminal type behavior as minimum wages are
hardly enough to support them, their wives or children.� Society
offers little to these people of low intelligence.� There are people
who go all through school and do not know how to read, write or add.
The school just wanted to get rid of them.� If our teachers are not
intelligent then who is?
����� We have a lot of growing up to do and in the meantime, the
bigots will continue to have a lot of say in this world.� Prisons will
remain full and murder, rape and smog will get worse.� -Rod
Message: 57551
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/wine
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 20:03:32
Daryl, you say that wine was not intended to be used as a means for
getting intoxicated in the days of 2000 years ago.� You make me
laugh.
����� So what you are saying is that our ancestors of 2000 years ago
were somehow more intelligent and enlightened.� Sure, yea.� You doubt
the people became intoxicated at wedding feasts or when problems
beyond their control arose?� They just sat down and had a biblical
conversation with God.� They didn't get drunk.� Are you serious?� You
go on to say that in 1 Cor. 5:11 it says The Bible shuns drunkenness.
Well, that's good enough for me and everyone else.� (grin)� It's
simply amazing how everyone followed the bible 2000 years ago just the
same as they do today.� I bet they got a real thrill from Mark and the
others not to forget Paul.� People back then were so smart that they
would wait till Monday to pull their beasts of burden, who had fallen
into a pit on a Sunday, to safety.� You are hilariously funny today.
That particular civilization was corrupt to the max, bout' like it is
today.� Cept' they didn't have Libertarians back then.� -Rod
�
Message: 57552
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 20:17:01
� Let me say that I agree with Rod and that I am impressed as hell at how
well he is expressing himself.
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
�
Message: 57557
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/57548
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 22:36:15
Rod, there is a vast difference between raw unprocessed coca leaves and
highly concentrated and refined cocaine and crack. You say that it is an
individuals right to kcuf their lives up with drugs. THEN WHY IS IT ILLEGAL
IN THIS COUNTRY? HOW CAN IT BE A RIGHT WHEN MERE POSSESSION OF THESE
*ILLEGAL* DRUGS CAN GET YOU PUT IN THE SLAM? Your Bill of Rights and mine
are apparently quite different. Or perhaps your mind is too clouded to read
it properly.
�
Message: 57558
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod Part II
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 22:43:07
�
� Protect the kids from drugs by making it legal and offering them purer
dope. If that isn't a perfect example of NON-LOGIC, I don't know what is.
From someone who seems to place a high priority on logical solutions to
problems, I think you need to put that pipe down for as long as it takes to
allow you to think (relatively) clearly once more. It's the easiest cop out
in the world to blame the big bad society for everything. When it comes down
to the nitty gritty, the person is responsible for his own life. If he
doesn't try to make something out of it, it is his own fault. Drugs are a
cop-out for the weak-minded, weak-willed, that place a sense of non-value
UPON THEMSELVES. It's an old saying, but I think it bears repeating. DRUGS
ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HANDLE REALITY. If you have to destroy your mind
with drugs, or booze up until you are vomiting to have "fun," then please
steer clear of me, thankyouverymuch.
Message: 57559
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod III
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 22:52:20
�
If a kid doesn't want to take the time to learn, THAT IS HIS OWN FAULT. If
his teacher is unwilling to give him the one-on-one he may need to get him
past the hard spots, he should seek out someone who will, not just blow it
off. Again, that is the result of the weak will of the individual, not
society. Too many kids nowadays have a "What the kcuf do I need to learn
this for? I'll never use it" attitude. THEY ARE ALLOWING *THEMSELVES* TO
REMAIN IGNORANT. I agree that a student should not be allowed to progress in
grade level until his requirements are met, however IT IS UP TO THE KID TO
LEARN. If he doesn't want to learn, there is not a teacher in the world that
can force him to. And, like I said, though it is easy to blame it on the big
bad ol "society," how YOU direct YOUR life is YOUR responsibility. Just
because you kcuf up in life, don't go blaming it on me, or on my neighbor,
on on the guy down the street, or down the block, or in the next town,
state, etc. etc. YOUR LIFE IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. LEAD IT WISELY. AND FOR
YOUR OWN SAKE, DON'T KCUF WITH DRUGS, DAMN IT! Despite how earnestly those
like Rod want to "improve" your lives by legalising drugs, to make it
easier, cheaper, and purer for you, IT'S THE WRONG ROAD, FRIEND. And though
Rod may feel that drug abuse is a victimless crime, HE IS WRONG AGAIN. By
doing drugs, you set yourself up to be the victim of your own demise. Drugs
do not improve your thinking. Drugs will not improve your productivity in
the long run. Drugs will not allow you to find inner peace. Drugs will alter
your thinking, kill brain cells, destroy self-value, incentive, and future
goals. Drugs will mess you the kcuf up.
Message: 57560
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Wine
Date: 03/14/89� Time: 22:58:49
�
Talking to you is nigh impossible. It's like talking to a very loud and
pompous brick wall. Wine was not created for the intent and purpose of
getting snockered. If it were, I would most certainly doubt that it's use in
moderation would have been practiced by Christ. You can drink a little wine
and not feel buzzed in the least. In fact, much of the wine used in Biblical
times was heavily watered down (most likely for that reason). And as I am
sure you would know if you were knowledgeable of the Bible, that many did
not follow the words of God, and many suffered directly as a result. Of
course, some people are wrapped up in their own false sense of self worth
that they don't want to be bothered by having to answer to a higher
authority. These same people are going to have a terribly rude awakening one
of these days. I will continue to pray for you, though. Perhaps it may do
some good eventually.
Message: 57561
Author: Mildred Stumpstedd
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hi
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 01:26:41
������� I new here and I have been reading some of the posts.� They are
pretty interesting too.
I know a fellow who is serving eight years in Florence Prison because he had
some marijuana.� He is with some people who are in for murder and are only
serving seven years.� My question is this:� Why are the Senators and
Congressmen of this Country not in prison where they belong.� They are the
biggest crooks of all and are the ones who make the laws.� Yet they are also
the ones who break the laws big time.� Is this fair.�
�And whoever it was that called our Jesus a wino is not telling the truth.
Wine wasn't made in order to get high.� It was made solely for the purpose
of helping food digest.� Jesus will get you for that and make you pay in
the end, that's for sure.� You'll wish you had never, never even thought
such a thought in your life.� How does eternal hell sound to you?� You'd
better think about it.� Our bible school teacher says that at least 75% of
the people in this world will go there.� There is only room for the good
people.� This is a Christian Nation and I will fight to the death to defend
it.� My teacher told me that all Communists will go to hell.� All Jews and
Moslems, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and many Christian sects will go
too.� God is the most perfect being.� He just created some real bums, that's
all.�
�Go to church every Sunday and confess Jesus in your hearts.� Jesus loves
you more than you will ever know.� He died for you.� He is sitting on the
right hand of the Father, smiling at his beloved.� He lives!!� Viva God and
all his chosen.� The Saints smile on you and wait for you.� Love Mildred
�
Message: 57562
Author: Peter Leventhal
Category: Answer!
Subject: wine/Bible
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 03:09:10
�
I think the point was not whether or not Jesus could hold his liquor, but
whether or not he consumed drugs.� Whether he intended to get smashed, or
just to partake of the common practices of the day, he consumed alcohol,
and alcohol is a drug, yes?
�
Message: 57565
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 05:36:14
�
You and a few others stubbornly fail to recognize the fact that, when it
comes to substance abuse, there are many victims. Victim #1 is, of course,
the abuser, whose mind, body and eventually life are destroyed by continued
abuse. Victims of each abuser are also his or her family, who suffer agony
beyond description as they watch helplessly as their loved one flushes his
life down the toilet, not to mention the real loss of the money and other
items the abuser steals from the family to feed his addiction.
�Next comes society as a whole, victimized not only be the loss of those
things stolen to buy dope, but by the ultimate cost to the public for
rehabilitation and treatment, and all too often, burial of the indigent
addict, indigent only because of, and directly attributable to, the drugs
they have consumed. Victimless? Indeed!
�
Message: 57567
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/#57557
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 07:30:52
�
These things are illegal because the moralists want others to do what they
think is right. For as long as I can remember, there is always someone who
tries to tell me what is good and bad for me - right and wrong. I need no
one to do that for me. Rod is right - we need to let the individual judge
for himself what he wants to do (IF he is not hurting anyone else!) - even
if that means shooting up with bleach is that's what he chooses to do.
Re: Biblical wine - they were no different than we are today. In fact, the
wine was probably a lot more potent than it is today. Wine will make
me drunk quick - just a glass - than whiskey of any sort! So will beer and
both of these are much lower proof than whiskey, gin, vodka etc. Just
because wine is a countries tradition doesn't mean it is/wasn't abused.
������� -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57568
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/drugs
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 07:35:44
�
Who said anything about legalizing drugs and giving it to kids because it's
purer? The rules of legalized drugs would be the same as it is for alcohol
now. How come you don't see 'booze peddlers' out on the street selling the
stuff to kids or any one else? Because it's legal and has no profit in it!
'Rum Running' is a thing of the past. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
Message: 57569
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/57557
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 08:17:41
������� I think the whole point of this is discussion is that yes, drugs are
illegal, but that they should not be.� Why are drugs illegal?� From the
misguided perception that simply making something illegal will get rid of
it.
������� Another point has to be made about what a victimless crime is.� That
is an action that is illegal, but does not harm anyone beyond the person
committing the "crime."� If an adult wants to do something to himself, even
something stupid like smoking tobacco or crack, they should have the right
to do so.
������� Under a legalized drug system, sellers of contaminated drugs could
be prosecuted under product liability laws.
������� Note that above I mentioned "adults."� Children, under the law, are
not fully responsible for their own actions, so like with alcohol and
cigarettes, they should not be able to obtain drugs until they reach
the age of majority.
�
����� /
� /� *� /� Alan
�*���� *
�
�
Message: 57572
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl 1 of 5
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 11:55:10
�
Daryl, you graciously point out that a difference exists between the coca
leaf and processed cocaine and crack.� Granted, there is also a
difference between milk that lays in a cows belly and that which sits in
your refrigerator.� I think your mind may be a bit cloudy from drinking
same.� After all, cholesterol is a number one killer and everyone knows
by now that milk from another beast is not the best for the human body.�
The majority of it sits in the intestines and, err, well, rots.� But it
is your right to purchase it and use it as you see fit.� Even though I
don't think you should use it, that it is bad for your system and you
will undoubtedly suffer for it in later years, it is your right to drink
all you want.� You cannot legally legislate what another does to their
body.� It is bigoted to say the least.
���� You ask why some drugs are illegal and cause the user, if caught, to
be put in prison.� Good question.� There are many reasons, Daryl.� One of
them is in the form of a question.� Why should a wealthy and powerful
person lose an income of billions of dollars each year by legalizing
drugs?� The big importers have power and influence in this nations
capital and can easily pay for lobbyists.� Another reason is that the
best drugs grow better in South American Countries.� Pot needs a warm,
humid, mountainous country and the same for coca.� The pot that grows in
Nebraska just doesn't come out as well.� Although pot grows well in
Northern California and Oregon and it is their number one cash crop.�
Well, it is done so by some old hippies that are not members of any big
cartels.
�
Message: 57573
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl 2 of 5
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 11:55:58
���� Any big capitalist worth his salt would grow and distribute drugs if
given half a chance.� This should be obvious to you as you can take a
look at the liquor industry.� Alcohol is the number one killer in the
drug world and there are more bottles than Bibles.� Users are caught and
put in prison because we live in a bigoted, fairly evil world.
���� As Ann pointed out, plants have been used since mans first step.�
Coffee, Tea, and a host of others are being ingested everyday.� Look at
the number one prescription drug, Valium. It comes from plants that grow
in a field.
���� This nations law enforcement boys, many themselves using drugs, will
NEVER put an end to drug usage.� The fabric of this nation is being
ripped to shreds over the bigotry of this issue.� A nation that has one
single individual in a prison, an institution whose sole purpose is
punishment, is sick.� Our prisons are bursting at the seems.� People will
continue using drugs.� At least we could make sure they are pure.
���� You said yourself, in your last message, that when it comes to the
nitty gritty a person is responsible for their own life.� Yet you are
trying to legislate the lives of those you say have that responsibility.
This is bigoted and don't try to deny it.� More on this later.
���� If drugs are a cop-out for the weak-minded, weak-willed then I guess
everyone is weak.� So, you think it is your right, as a Christian-Bigot
to determine what is best for others.� You, as your lord tells you, knows
what is right for everyone else.� Okay, Ev.
�
Message: 57574
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl 3 of 5
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 11:56:40
�
���� You say that drugs are for people who can't handle reality.� Is this
why hundreds of thousands of American Servicemen in Viet Namn smoked pot
and snorted heroin.� I guess this reality you mention is a fun thing, eh?
���� But, coming back on the boat or by plane, these same servicemen quit
their drugs and caused the new West Coast Drug Treatment Facilities to be
unused.� Less than one percent of the returning servicemen used them.�
They were probably the ones who watched their buddies head being shot
off.� This is the kind of reality that is offered to young men.� Die for
pig-capitalism.� And don't tell me that we weren't on that foreign soil
in order to rip-off their wealth.� And don't tell me that you, if you had
been there, would not have knelt in your foxhole, holding a bible in one
hand while pushing heroin up your nose with the other.� And then when
your reality suddenly changed, you probably would have lost your need and
desire to be zombied out.
���� Well, my good friend Daryl, look around you and see the reality of
the millions of people who rush to their doctor each month to get their
prescription for drugs.� This is a rough world and a big part of why this
is, is because of people like you who think it is their right to
legislate the morality of others.� We live in a world of Christian-Bigot-
Landlords who up the rent after having a personal conversation with
Jesus.� But, but, it says so in the Bible, right?
Message: 57575
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl 4 of 5
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 11:57:24
�
���� Believe me Daryl, I do steer clear of people like you.� No problem.
Oh, I see them, talk with them but they are not counted as my close
friends or people I associate with on a regular basis.� But change is
possible and it happens.� You have intelligence.
���� In your message, Part 3, you say that if a kid doesn't want to take
the time to learn, THAT IS THEIR OWN FAULT.� Congratulations, spoken like
a true Christian.� Daryl, you missed my point entirely.� Wake up.� There
are many people in this nation who lack in basic intelligence.� They are
the underachiever, they are born this way.� They are naturally ignorant
but they are not bad people.� They have their own genius in animal
intelligence, survival, cunning and all that.� But in the business world
they are not bright.� They could have ten teachers for 100 years and they
would still be dense.� It is how their physical brain works.� It is in
the genes, it can't be helped.� It is not their fault.� You as a so-
called Christian are condemning them.� I don't understand but then again
I understand.� Know what I mean?� You said it yourself, "weak will".� It
is a fact of life.� These people, by the laws of our society, are being
trodden upon, being used.� Someone has to live in sub-standard housing
and purchase the junk products.� American depends upon them.� But they
are people nonetheless, they have hearts and feelings and deserve better
than what is offered.� Rajneesh should never have been closed down.� I
guess that I should be thankful that you do not run a mental institution.�
But I bet that your brother ran one up in Oregon a few years ago until he
was caught.
�
Message: 57576
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: 5 of 5
Date: 03/15/89 �Time: 11:58:08
�
���� About the best thing I could recommend for you is that you go smoke
a joint, friend.
��� In your last message to me, headed "WINE", you say that it was not
created for the intent and purpose of getting snockered.� Well, then why
didn't they just drink grape juice?� It tastes much better.� One swallow
of ANY alcoholic beverage effects my mind.� One half can of beer will
make me drunk.� For what purpose did early man ferment plant material?�
Was it digestion or to ease a harsh reality?� According to your bible
story, Christ made the good wine first and after the guests drank this
and got buzzed the watered down stuff tasted okay.
���� Yes, I am one of those people who is wrapped up in my own false
sense of worth, as you mention.� My children must profit from it, too.�
At least I hope they do.
���� When you are praying to your God about me....ask him this for me,
Send Drugs!����
��� -Rod
Message: 57577
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: LEGALIZATION?
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 12:12:25
�
���� Obviously, we aren't going to legalize all drugs tomorrow - but where
would be a good place to start?� Personally, I'd say with the
de-criminalization of marijuana.� To begin with, let's clear up a
misconception here.� You can't even start to compare this drug to the harder
stuff, such as crack.� It's kind of like comparing "near beer" with grain
alcohol, if you know what I mean.�
���� Drug use is a victimless crime, in that there is no victim to
potentially file a police report after the fact (as there would be in the
case of child porn.)� This is even true in the case of marijuana, where
the effects are much less intense than with the harder stuff.
���� In drug-abuse deaths due to accident, suicide or unknown cause
(in a report by the Drug Abuse Warning Network), the #1 killer was "alcohol
in combination".� Next, came heroin, cocaine and codeine.� Tylenol was #10,
aspirin #11.� Marijuana?� 42.
���� Marijuana has been shown to aid in the treatment of depression, help in
controlling seizures in people afflicted with MS & cerebral palsy, and
stimulate appetite/reduce nausea in cancer therapy. (As a side note, a
program in Britain which allows the use of heroin to relieve pain in
terminal patients has been called successful.)� Being on Schedule I,
marijuana cannot even be used in medical research these days.
���� When drugs such as marijuana are illegal, what happens?� First, the
price skyrockets.� With the harder, more expensive drugs, this translates
into one thing -� more capital is needed to continue buying.� Often times,
when users exceed their means, the additional cost comes out of your pocket
and mine - quite literally, and by force at times.� Drug laws force people
who may be law-abiding otherwise into "criminal" activity.� If you really
wanted to help a drug user, is sending him to prison for possession of a
small amount of marijuana really the best way to help?
�� On another note, if a drug is illegal, those people wishing to buy must
then deal with a person who grows/makes and sells this drug knowing
full well the legal risk involved.� Talk about a nervous character... Drug
manufacturers have also been known to "invent" new drugs, to get by drug law
loopholes.� These "designer drugs" can prove to be far more dangerous than
the drug being replaced.� I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a
pharmaceutical company, with all the regulations & guidelines it follows,
making these drugs than Moe the back street chemist.
���� If drugs were legalized, we wouldn't have that kid dead in the gutter
any more than we have the occasional case of teenagers going belly up from
alcohol poisoning.� Prices would drop substantially, resulting in less crime
committed to support an expensive habit.� I really don't think usage would
increase substantially (ask yourself - would YOU start using drugs on a
regular basis if they were legal.� If you answer "no", what make you
any better than the average joe?)
���� In the case of legalizing marijuana, I can't see any good reason to
keep it illegal. It's just not that dangerous, especially when you put it up
against crack, or a bottle of Jack Daniels.� As for the legalization of other
drugs, such as heroin, all I can say is that there aren't any easy solutions
here.� However, I know a half-assed "war on drugs", isn't a solution, it
is ignoring a bigger problem by smoothing things over with tough talk.
Talk, that is what the war amounts to these days.
��� Sometimes drastic problems call for drastic solutions.� Drug
legalization may be that solution.� Not an easy pill to swallow, I know.�
���� If you'd care to help in this solution, please get in touch with:
Message: 57589
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/profit
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 05:27:25
�
I'm sure that Kemper Marley, wholesale liquor dealer and one of the richest
and most powerful men in the state, would be interested to know that there's
no profit in booze.
Besides. alcohol is the only addictive, poisonous "disease" that can legally
be sold on virtually every major corner, in every liquor store, drug store
and supermarket, and it should stay the only one. Making dope legal is not
going to solve the problem at all, and that is a fact.
�
Message: 57590
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Alan
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 05:35:09
�
The last statement of your message tells me that it has been too long since
you have taken a good look at out high school and even junior high campuses,
where children are being coerced into not only smoking cancer sticks, but
using all sorts of drugs as well. This is pressure put on kids not only by
their peers, but by those who are supposed to be the examples as well. Just
walking into a teacher's lounge is enough to gag a maggot, what with all the
stale cigarette smoke in the air.
No Alan, legalization is not the answer. Neither, for that matter, is the
Phoenix police present drive to get tough on the users. Education of the
children and much tougher prosecution of the dealers and importers and/or
manufacturers would help. Even up to and including the death penalty for
convicted pushers, since they are responsible for many deaths with their
poison.
�
Message: 57593
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul/legal drugs
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 07:13:01
�
Then what is your answer to the problem? Surely the death penalty is no/has
been a deterrent. With those kind of big bucks involved, they figure it's
worth risking their lives for anyway. In fact, a lot less money could be
involved and they'd risk their lives. If this country gave the death
penalty to all pushers - we'd become mass murders ourselves. I don't think
we have enough courts or judges, prisons etc. to carry out such a thing
anyway. What are we going to do with a little 12 year old pusher too? Send
him to the gas chamber? Do you also realize what it would take - man power
wise to hunt down all these drug dealers? Wouldn't it be easier to just take
away their profit? Don't just condemn this idea and not give a solution
yourself. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
P.S. If I remember right, about 6 months ago didn't you say you were
thinking the subject over and hated to admit it, but you might change your
way of thinking and making it legal?
Message: 57596
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul/57565
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 09:31:55
�
Of course, and the only way to solve all of that needless suffering and
victimization is to LEGALIZE it, right? Then everything will be peachy keen
and everyone will have daisies in their yard all year long, and we'll all
ride bicycles to work and think like Rod. Whoopee!
Message: 57598
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Wine
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 09:48:04
Wine, like anything else is fine IF CONSUMED IN MODERATION. In the days of
Christ, drugs as we know them today did not exist (both the healing kind and
the narcotics). Most certainly it was known that drinking to excess produced
drunkenness. It was also frowned upon greatly: "But now I have written unto
you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a
fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." Drunkenness is in some pretty
heavy company, there. It's nestled in there among such other detestable
things as fornication, idolatry, and extortion (1 Cor 5:11). Next chapter:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Cor 6:9-10). "Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall
clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20-21). Riotous overindulgence of food
(such as pagan feasts) always included the overindulgence of alcohol.
However, as we can see, it was something for an upright man to detest.
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the
Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always
for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Ephesians
5:18-21).*
�
Message: 57599
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Wine II
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 10:02:41
However, the wine itself is not seen as a detestable thing. David wrote of
all the good things of the Lord in Psalms, and among those things he
included, "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the
service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; [this in no
way can be misconstrued to give a blessing to the smoking of marijuana, as
it expressly refers to the use of the herb to "bring forth food out of the
earth"] And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face
to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." (Psalms 104:14-15).
Then of course, there was the occasion when Christ, at a wedding reception
in Cana of Galilee, turned waterpots of water into wonderful wine (it's
superiority attested to by the governor of the feast: "When the ruler of the
feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was:
(but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast
called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth
set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse:
but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:9-10) (The practice of
serving the guests good wine, and then after the tastebuds could not discern
the difference, setting out cheaper wine, was in practice even then! *grin*)
However, once again, drinking to excess was not the accepted use among
upstanding people of those times. As it was already mentioned: "Drink no
longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often
infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23).
�
Message: 57600
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Drugs To Kids
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 10:11:43
You seem to be closing your eyes to the fact that teenage alcoholism is a
serious problem in our country. Many kids who would never smoke a single
vial of crack or snort a single line of cocaine, regularly get themselves
drunk to the point of illness. Why is alcohol the substance of preference to
underage youth? Because it is legal, and because it is acceptable. You say
there are no "alcohol peddlers" out there. Granted, there is nobody on the
street corner with bottles tucked under his trenchcoat. However, many
underage kids are still getting alcohol in as great a quantity as they want
or can afford. How? An older friend. An older brother or sister. A fake ID.
You name it. It's a hell of a lot easier for kids to get, and a damn sight
cheaper. It is the allure of the advertising and the acceptability through
the media that does it. In Holland, a 16 year old can get a can of Heineken
from a coin-operated dispenser on his school campus. However, drinking to
excess is frowned upon severely by Nederlander teenagers. Drunkards are
those to be scorned or mocked, and it is certainly not a status symbol.
�
Message: 57601
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Alan/Legalization
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 10:18:57
�
Alan, like you said, making it "illegal" for someone to get something isn't
going to make it go away. Like you said also, cigarettes and alcohol are
illegal for minors. However, with the legalization train of thought, why
should they be? I know a lot of minors that are a damn sight more
responsible than a lot of adults that I know. AND DESPITE THE LAWS AGAINST
CHILDREN BUYING/USING ALCOHOL/CIGARETTES, CHILDREN ARE STILL USING THEM, AND
USING THEM IN GREAT QUANTITY. If you make crack and other narcotics illegal,
it is going to raise the acceptability level of those drugs, and use among
teenagers will rise. How? By the same means that beer companies are aiming
their commercials (Spuds is a prime example) to teenagers and youth. As soon
as RJR finds out there is money to be made in the newly-legalized drugs,
they are going to put out advertising campaigns the likes of which you have
never seen before. Anyone who can make a dollar in the legalized drug market
will be doing so, and using all means within their power to do so. Making
those drugs illegal to underage children will produce the same "halting
effect" that the ban on underage drinking and smoking have now. Kids are
still going to get it, kids are still going to use it, and being that the
acceptability level will be raised, I feel that more kids will start using
the newly legalized hardcore drugs. And using a lot of them. Why? Because
society will be telling them that it's LEGAL! And it's the thing to do to be
POPULAR and have FRIENDS! Why else?
�
Message: 57603
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Reply
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 10:30:44
�
First of all I want to thank you warmly, and from the bottom of my heart for
taking my words out of context, twisting the meanings of others, and
attempting to throw them back in my face under the guise of respectability.
I try to answer your questions honestly, and I would ask that, lest I not
give your posts the time of day, that you would offer me the same gesture.
Oh, and thanks too for all the mudslinging. That really lends credence to
your smoke-clouded thinking. This world and all it's "me-me-me" train of
thought makes me violently ill. Tell you what, good ol buddy pal, why don't
we just legalize EVERYTHING? No sense in trying to place limitations on
people's lives. Let's let everyone just do whatever the hell they please. I
mean, why should I want to try and restrict someone else's life just because
I would like to retain a sense of general order? Heck, if you want to go to
church? Fine, go with the flow! If you want to go up to that same church and
torch it to express your newly found freedoms, what the hell? There are no
laws anymore. They are too repressive! Why should we be kept from doing
whatever we want to do even though we are being wholly irrational and
potentially ruining our own lives? Need a good laugh? Just knock an old lady
into the middle of Central Avenue during rush hour and have yourself a grand
old chuckle.
Off base, you say? Perhaps a little. But well within your scope of
legalization. Why legalize some things and not others? If someone wants to
mess their life up on crack in the privacy of their own home, I could really
care less.
�
Message: 57604
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Drugs II
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 10:36:29
�
It is not my place to tell them whether or not to do it there. They are
probably so messed up they wouldn't listen to a little common sense.
However, if that same person is out on the street, in a car, or any place
out in public without his full faculties, who knows what he might do? It has
been proven that those who become addicted to crack (nearly all that have
tried it) become so wholly and completely dependent upon that drug that they
care nothing about how they get their next fix as long as they get it.
Burglary, murder, robbery, it doesn't matter. All that matters to them is
that high. If I were to give the okay to legalize any currently illegal
recreational drug, I would suggest marijuana, but ONLY marijuana. And it
could not be an "outdoor drug" much like alcohol is restricted (you can't
drink a beer in your front yard). Not that I condone the use of marijuana,
but on the whole I have understood it to be a much less damaging drug than
the others you want to include in a blanket legalization.
Message: 57605
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Final
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 10:47:25
At this point I will refuse to attempt any sort of rational discussion with
you. You use my words out of context, you twist other words beyond
recognition, you sling mud like there is no tomorrow, you put words in my
mouth, you mock my personal beliefs, and this is only the beginning. For
someone who claims to respect the rights of others and blasts those who you
feel DON'T respect the rights of others, you are a real hypocrite. And
calling me a bigot? Your anti-Christian bigotry and constant Christian
mockery is far more repulsive than any any racist bigot I have seen in a
long time. (And lest you attempt to use this line out of context to claim
that I support racial bigotry) I HATE ALL FORMS OF RACIAL BIGOTRY. There.
But do not attempt to judge others until you take a good long look in the
mirror, pal. This is not to say that I hate you, Rod. I don't HATE anyone.
It's the things that you say that I cannot stand. Expect me at the next GT
to say hello, and engage in light conversation, but don't expect me to ever
again attempt to debate anything of any weight with you again. It's futile.
Open your mind, Rod, like you claim to do.
�
Message: 57611
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Savage on drugs
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 16:46:39
�
The notion that the drug problem will be solved through law enforcement
efforts directed against pushers and smugglers is nonsense.� Tougher law
enforcement is not going to deter many from entering the business; the risk
of prosecution is simply an operating expense for these people.� Even the
death penalty would not serve as much of a deterrent.� The risk of execution
(like the risk of death in other occupations) would merely be computed into
the cost of doing business.� The ultimate result of greater law enforcement
directed against drug suppliers will be to drive up their operating
expenses, which would consequently drive up the price of drugs on the
street.� Since demand, at least among addicts, is relatively inelastic, this
will mean addicts will have to raise more money to support their habits.
How do addicts raise money to pay for drugs?� Crime.� Thus, the result of
increased law enforcement efforts directed against drug suppliers is likely
to be nothing more than an increase in violent and property crime by drug
users.
The only way to fight drugs is by attacking the demand.� This means tough
penalties against users and strong discipline in schools, as well as private
efforts, especially by parents to keep their kids from using drugs.� The
problem with drugs is not that people are selling them.� Someone who deals
in drugs may be an unsavory character, but fundamentally he is nothing more
than a businessman who is entering a market to meet a demand.� Any effective
anti-drug strategy must emphasize that users are accountable for their
actions and are not innocent victims of the drug dealers.
�
Message: 57612
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Question?
Subject: Westfall's 57598
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 16:47:58
Is cocaine fine IF CONSUMED IN MODERATION?
�
Message: 57613
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Question?
Subject: Daryl/wine
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 21:03:04
������� Isn't it easier to make grape juice, a whole lot easier?� Do you
think that perhaps the process started out with some grape juice going 'bad'
and fermenting?� Someone was thirsty or thrifty and drank some and ole' saw
what it did to their minds and there have been alcoholics ever since.� It
isn't made now or wasn't made then for any other reason than to get high.
������� And yes Daryl, marijuana, hash-hish and heroin, peyote and mushrooms
as well as alcohol for getting soused was just as common back then as it is
today.� Oh, I forgot cocaine.� Only then it was LEGAL and was used by the
people as they saw fit.
�
Message: 57617
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl 1 of 3
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 21:15:21
���� In your last set of messages to me you made many innuendos as to my
character.� I couldn't resist replying in kind.� I am weak, so what?
���� Well my brother, it is another day and I see I have more messages
that need to be answered, written by you.
��� What words of yours did I take out of context?� I answered you as I
understood you.� And there you go on that "Let's legalize everything"
trip.� You just do not understand that my freedom ends where your nose
begins.� You can drink milk right in front of me and I haven't the right
to arrest you or knock it out of your hand.
���� By the way, can single people who have no families do hard drugs or
would the undertaker become the victim?
���� You ask, "Why legalize some things and not others?"� Daryl, knock,
knock, anybody home?� Think.� It is a fact of life that some things are
illegal while other are legal.� By your logic, turning this statement
around, "Let's make EVERYTHING illegal", makes no sense.� Neither
statement fits or shows any logic whatsoever.� Somehow I don't expect you
to see it as you've brought that very same point up last week.�
���� You said it yourself, crack is addicting and those addicts, as well
as heroin users, will do anything to get their next fix.� Burglary,
murder, robbery, it doesn't matter, you said.� Agreed.� The police will
never, never, be able to put an end to its being imported or its use.�
Therefore look forward to a continuing crime wave well into the next
century.� Also expect many more prisons, all filled to capacity.� Sounds
like a Christian Plan.� I couldn't see your Christ having people arrested
Message: 57618
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl 2 of 3
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 21:16:03
for smoking pot and put in prison and this includes even the politicians
being jailed.
���� Under the proposed legalization plan, the huge profits, whatever did
not fall into the politicians pockets, would be used for Drug Education.�
Right now, there are no profits for the establishment, just debts.� And
the taxpayers are hit hard.� $20 grand for each inmate per year according
to the latest Government survey.� Don't you realize that for every pusher
that gets popped, there are many willing to take their place?� When you
hear of a shipment of drugs being confiscated, you can bet your bottom
dollar that hundreds of shipments got through.� If every citizen in the
United Stated were deputized, drugs would still get through and still be
used by the masses.� You cannot take away from people what they want.�
���� Drug usage is also a form of protest by our youth.� Same as rock 'n
roll and fast dancing.� These young people see through the hypocrisy of
this world and rebel against it.� If the establishment says don't do
this, you can again bet your last dollar they will.� Resentment of
authority plays a big part in all this.� If the establishment showed
a good running system, both fair and equitable where a person would be
proud to be a part of, then crime would diminish.
�
Message: 57619
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl 3 of 3
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 21:16:43
�
���� Here it is like apartheid.� The South African Government made it
illegal for a black family to own enough land to support themselves on.�
Thus they were able to get cheap labor and put people in the mines.�
It is basically the same here.� Children growing up recognizes these
things and go against society in anyway they can.� Looking to a job at
McDonalds is not what they have in mind.� Crime is created by the
politicians.
���� You may not be a racial bigot but you are a bigot in the sense that
you support legislation that makes it a crime to do something that is not
harmful to others.� In fact, you've never tried drugs of the type we are
talking about, therefore I can say that your judgement is biased and you
tend to believe all the establishment crap that is printed.� You probably
believe the tests done on rats in the sixties where marijuana was used,
causing brain damage to the little critters.� It later came out that the
rats had their brains taken out of their skull, then THC was injected
directly into their gray matter, the rats died after suffering massive
brain damage. -Rod
Message: 57581
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Westfall's 57557
Date: 03/15/89� Time: 17:06:13
�
Whether something is illegal is not what determines whether I have the right
to do it.
�
Message: 57622
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Drug News
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 22:13:03
Sensible News: The government finally admits that it cannot prevent people
from using drugs by arresting smugglers and dealers because
there are just too many of them. The huge demand causes new
������ sources of supply to pop up faster than they can react, and
������ prices continue to drop as supply gets better and better.
������
�� Silly News: Now the government says it can prevent people from using
drugs by going after the 'users' themselves. You know, the
������ 'users', those folks who are so determined and large in
������ number that they were able to finance the winning side of
������ the 'War On Drugs' (even though the losing side was taxing
������ everyone in the country).
�
� Future News: The government finally admitted that going after 'users'
������ was a big mistake. Public respect for the law has been
������ practically wiped out, the justice system's ability to deal
������ with real criminals is diluted even further, and drug use
��has become harder to detect due to changes in the ways drugs
������ are packaged and used. The government now says that it must
crack down on the drug smugglers and dealers instead because;
they are much fewer in number, they are easier to spot, and
they are not as hard to convict since juries won't identify
������ with them so much. And around we go again.........
�
Message: 57623
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Taranto/Drugs
Date: 03/16/89� Time: 22:14:52
�
�� You ended your message with, "Any effective anti-drug strategy must
�emphasize that users are accountable for their actions and are not
�innocent victims of the drug dealers."
�� If you took this admirable attitude a little further couldn't you say
�that anti-drug crusaders are accountable for their actions and are not
�innocent victims of the drug users? It is essentially the crusader's
�demands that others live according to their rules which make drug use
�such a serious problem in the first place. Nearly every major problem
�associated with illegal drugs stems from that illegality, rather than
�from the drugs themselves.
�� Nobody dies in gun battles over supplies or distribution rights for
�alcohol anymore. Nobody has to risk death by consuming alcohol of unknown
�strength or quality anymore. Nobody has to live in a neighborhood where
�alcohol sellers encourage underage people to start drinking anymore.
�No longer does anyone have to live under the thumb of an alcohol crime
�syndicate or the corruption of police and the courts which they created.
�All these problems and more still exist with regard to drug use, simply
�because of the crusaders' lust for the power to control others.
�� Yes, let us hold users 'accountable for their actions'. If they choose
�to partake of some substance or other and harm no other person, then
�let us not hunt and trap them like murders for it. Let us hold them
�accountable for any harm which they actually do, but not for bruising
�the crusaders' egos by ignoring them.
�� See You Later,��� Dean H.
�
Message: 57625
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 57612/James
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 00:05:28
James, cocaine is ingested for one purpose, and one purpose only. Some may
claim that it helps their productivity at work, or makes them more alert,
but that is all bullpuckies. Being that cocaine is consumed solely for the
purpose of altering the regular functions of the mind and body, I would have
to say that NO, cocaine is NOT fine consumed in ANY amount.
�
Message: 57626
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Opinions Vs. Fact
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 00:11:52
It is so easy to say in an argument, "well, yes they did create wine solely
for the purpose of getting drunk" or "marijuana[SIC], hash-hish[SIC] and
heroin, peyote and mushrooms as well as alcohol" were as common in Biblical
times as they are now, without providing one scintilla of evidence. However,
to someone who is determined to cut through the pea-soup foggy-mindedness of
"opinions-stated-as-fact" argumentation, it isn't worth a burnt corn
tortilla. Especially when such "opinionated facts" come from the same source
that attempts to state that Christ was a homosexual with a penis fixation.
[A general post directed at no one in particular]
�
Message: 57627
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Silence Be Broken
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 00:28:06
�
I said I would not continue this discussion with you. Well it's hard not to
when you claim to knock on my head and find nobody home. Well, Roddy ol'
pal, sorry to burst your bubble, but I did make the mistake of trying
marijuana once (at the urging of an older sister). Luckily, it produced no
effect upon me at all (with the exception of a nagging headache), and I have
never laid hands upon a single narcotic drug since. Here's a question for
ya, Rod. What would be the benefits of making narcotic drugs legal? We're
talking individual benefit as a citizen, not profit-wise. In a situation
such as this you have to weigh the good against the bad. What restrictions
would be imposed upon the places in which you could toke/shoot up/snort?
Would these narcotic drugs be purchased as an item from a pharmacy, or would
it be on the impulse rack next to the horoscope books and the Weekly World
News in the 10-items-or-less lane? How would we go about keeping newly
legalized drugs like crack out of the hands of impressionable youth? Would
it be any more effective than the laws against teen alcohol or cigarette
consumption (that are a joke in themselves). What would the government do,
to keep my future son or daughter from coming into possession of a vial of
legalized 100%-pure-no-additives-or-preservatives crack? Teaching begins in
the home, but it is impossible for parents to hover over their children 24
hours a day (that is, without giving the kid a complex). And how close to a
reality do you REALLY think this is? If the government can take Premiere
"cigarettes" off the market for being a drug-delivery system (delivering
nicotine, the same drug obtained by smoking the actual leaves), what makes
you think that they are going to give the okay to legalize drugs?
�
Message: 57628
Author: Zelda Pulasika
Category: News Today
Subject: Wine
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 00:49:35
�
�Mr. Westfall, wine is ingested for one purpose, and one purpose only. Some
may claim that it helps their productivity at work, or makes them more
alert, but that is bullpuckies. Being that wine is consumed solely for the
purpose of altering the regular functions of the mind and body, I would have
to say that NO, wine is NOT fine consumed in ANY amount.
�
Message: 57630
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Westfall
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 04:34:35
�
The government did not force R.J. Reynolds to remove Premiere cigarettes
from the market. They were withdrawn due to poor sales.
�
Message: 57631
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Alcohol
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 04:38:43
Actually, in Arizona it is legal to drink alcohol in your yard. The law
prohibits consumption "in a public thoroughfare."
�
Message: 57632
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 05:47:00
�
Yes Ann,I was actually thinking it over and giving consideration to the
arguments for legalization, but in the final analysis it makes no more sense
than does the legalization of murder or any other crime.� That we have a
very serious problem is all too obvious. Just as obvious is the premise that
there are no pat answers to the problem. Just as with the gun problem, while
I can advocate personal gun ownership, and can subscribe to the premise that
when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, I still cannot see the
dope dealers running around conducting their territorial disputes with
weapons that should never get into their hands in the first place. The fact
is that drugs are the number 1 killer in this country, either directly or
indirectly. We have a frightening proportion of our children and young
people, the only hope of our future, going down the tubes due to the abuse
and misuse of drugs. Legalization of the product will not stop this, any
more than repeal of prohibition stopped the kids from getting older people
to buy booze for them. You are absolutely right in saying that I offered no
viable alternative or workable solution to the problem, but then, neither is
legalization. That is being supported by people who simply have not thought
through all the consequences of such an action, and in good conscience I
cannot support nor condone such a move. Until tighter reins can be put on
the manufacture and/o/or import of dangerous drugs, I'm afraid the war must
continue and intensify. I do not, however, agree with the local police
policy of coming down harder on the end of the chain, the user. That seems
to be totally futile and pointless.
�
Message: 57635
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/#57596
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 06:30:01
�
There is nothing wrong with daisies in the back yard, riding bicycles to
work and thinking like Rod! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57636
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/drugs
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 07:04:39
�
Your posts on not legalizing drugs doesn't make sense at all. Why would
drugs be advertised any more than hard liquor is now? I can't remember the
last time I saw a whiskey commercial on TV. Can you?
Re: kids getting hold of booze, cigarettes and drugs - yes, there is a
percentage that do and always will. But legalizing it would get the pushers
off the street corners - the ones that urge the kids to 'be cool' and take
it! This is the only way a pusher can advertise his wares.
One thing you forget - there are literally hundreds of thousands of drug
users in the U.S.A. and they will continue to use it regardless of how awful
and sinful YOU think it is! This IS NOT going to go away! There is NO Way it
can be curbed, crushed or just disappear with the profit that is made from
t. The same with drinking, cigarettes and gambling. Mankind has been doing
those things since he's been here. We might as well be making a profit as a
nation than give it to the pushers that become millionaires in their
dealings. All that profit could go into the social security fund so it'll be
here when you get old and need it or to balance the national debt. This
isn't going to go away Daryl! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57637
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Answer!
Subject: drugs
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 08:18:56
�
Shoot them all. no more drugs!
�������� Love you all
�������� Ralph
Message: 57638
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: Premiere "cigarettes"
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 08:47:34
������� According to a couple of smokers I know, they tasted awful.� I do
know they smelled like burning plastic.� They didn't emit smoke, but the
smell was bad enough.
-Alan
�
Message: 57639
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Answer!
Subject: Crimes
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 08:51:09
������� Murder should not be legalized because it involves an unwilling
participant, the murdered.� Drugs only affect the user.
������ Sure, a user may commit other crimes.� He should be punished for
them, just as any other person should be.� Whether or not he used drugs is a
non-issue.
�
Message: 57640
Author: David Roe
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: ASU LIBRARY INFO.
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 10:23:01
�
� One of the oldest known drugs, cannabis was acknowledged as early
as 2700 BC, in a Chinese manuscript. Throughout the centuries it has
been used both medicinally and as an intoxicant. The major psychoactive
component of this drug, however, was not identified until the
mid-1960s; this ingredient is tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as
THC. At present, other cannabinoids explored.� Psychoactive compounds
are found in all parts of the male and female plant, with the greatest
concentration in the flowering tops. The content of these active
compounds varies greatly from plant to plant, depending on genetic and
environmental factors.
�
Historical Perspective
� Humans have used drugs in various forms since prehistoric times.
Primitive humans ate plants such as mushrooms, which had physiological
effects. The ancient Romans and Greeks practiced a well-developed
MEDICINE, using various plants and waters therapeutically. ALCOHOL,
OPIUM, and the derivative of the hyoscyamus plant were used as
ANALGESICS and SEDATIVES. The ancient Egyptians used opium for pain,
castor oil for� worms, and animal blood, viscera, and burned sponge to
treat goiter, which probably was a curative because of its iodine
content. By the 16th century physicians were employing colchicum for
gout, as is done today.�������
-David, P.S.� Hope this helps.
�
Message: 57642
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zelda
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 11:27:13
Certainly original, aren't we? I would agree with you that wine or any other
alcoholic beverage is unsuitable at work. However, try and tell me that a
glass of wine with a good Italian dinner is intended to alter one's sphere
of reality. I will await a genuine response with truly original thoughts on
the subject.
Message: 57643
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick/57630
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 11:29:36
I'd check into that, Nick. RJR agreed to remove them from the shelves, not
only because they were found to be a drug-delivery system rather than a
cigarette, but that research found them to taste "beyond nasty." But they
WERE found to be a drug-delivery system, and something like that placed on
the market without FDA approval is not an incredibly bright thing to do.
Message: 57644
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick/57631
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 11:31:01
Though a back yard certainly is not considered a public thoroughfare, a
front yard usually faces (and is almost always in close proximity to) a
public street, which is a public thoroughfare.
�
Message: 57645
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Drugs
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 11:37:15
(Huge sigh of relief) FINALLY, someone who is thinking rationally on the
subject! And so you agree with me that legalizing drugs in itself is on par
with legalizing murder in the sheer asinine nature of the consideration.
When you place the pros and cons on the scale, the cons are likely to break
the scale! Of course the drug users are going to support something like
this. It will make it easier and cheaper for them to get what they want. BUT
IT'S NOT going to make crime go away, AND IT'S NOT going to take the stigma
away in the eyes of kids. Anyhow, how would it look, in the face of the
"JUST SAY NO" campaign, for the government to turn around and say, "Ok,
kids, now all these drugs that we have been telling you not to use? Well,
we're gonna LEGALIZE them now, but just because their legalized and just
because Uncle Sam is making money off of it, still...don't do 'em, 'kay?"
Yeah, right.
(Handshake Paul)
Y.F.I.C.,
Daryl
�
Message: 57647
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Double Sigh
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 11:43:11
Ann, if you think a single pusher can sweet talk a bunch of kids into trying
drugs, think of how many the media could sweep in. Looking for liquor ads?
Billboards. Beer ads on TV. Rolling Stone. Spin. Cream. Circus. Just about
any youth magazine you can think of with the exception of the 16s, Tiger
Beats, and Teen Screams. M-T-V. Pop radio. Rock radio. Open your eyes, Ann,
they are there. And what is the difference between hard liquor and beer or
wine coolers? A kid really doesn't care about what will get him drunk. The
teenage alcoholics who rely on hard liquor, I would imagine, are in the
minority. Beer and wine coolers are the "hip" young adult liquor beverages
now. And enough of them will get a kid kneeling before the porcelain altar
in no time.
�
Message: 57648
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Alan/Drugs
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 11:45:23
Whether or not he used drugs is a non-issue? Drugs alter a person's
perception of reality. Drugs will cause a person to do things that he/she
would not normally do sober. And when you've got that craving for a drug,
and no money to obtain that drug with, what do you think you're going to do?
Just sit there, and twiddle your thumbs until someone throws you a $20?
�
Message: 57651
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 16:42:13
I see you've gone from self-pity to self-righteousness.
�
Message: 57654
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul/Daryl
Date: 03/17/89� Time: 22:30:10
�
Paul and Daryl:
����� Since its all the same to you whether a person uses an illegal drug
����� or commits a murder, remind me never to party with you guys.
����
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
�
Message: 57678
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Daryl
Date: 03/18/89� Time: 14:21:07
����� It appears that Misters Westfall and Savage, both of the
Christian persuasion, are taking like views of the current drug and
gun debate.� They are going against James Taranto, Dean Hathaway, Ann
Oudin, Alan Hamilton and myself.� If only they had the capacity to
think for themselves instead of listening to the little fairies inside
their heads.� Or if they rid themselves of the mish-mash they read in
their religion book, they may even become contributing members of this
society instead of helping it remain in the dark ages.
����� If only they understood that this nation is predominately of the
Christian faith and saw the wholesale corruption they may realize that
their system of beliefs not only do not work but has a retrograde
effect.� It seems logical to me that a Christian would think that
since the majority are of that faith our nation would be smooth
running.
����� But in fact just the opposite is true.� And with the closed
minds that these two typical Christians display it appears that our
nation will continue to be screwed up for some time to come.
����� It is good that people are recycled because if that were not so
there would still be wholesale murder of those who had the nerve to
say that Planet Earth was not the center of the Universe.� And I could
easily envision Paul and Daryl setting laws from their bigoted
beliefs, causing pain and injury at their discretion.
next
�
Message: 57679
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 03/18/89� Time: 14:21:56
����� Daryl stated that he tried pot once and it gave him a headache.
Because it apparently disagreed with him, it is his thinking that it
should be illegal for everyone.� His logic is if it wasn't good for
Daryl then no one should have it.� Way to go Daryl.
����� And because Paul is not a gun collector or fancier then guns
should be limited.� He is not broad enough to see the dangers that lie
in only the government having weapons.� If we could convince him there
is a real plot, by several countries south of the border, to overthrow
this nation then perhaps he would fight for our rights instead of
allowing them to be taken away, a step at a time. (So the lax among us
may not notice and one day wake up to find that our slingshots are
being taken away.)
����� I don't know if such a plot exists but judging from history I
would say that it is a real possibility.� But this isn't the only
reason for bearing arms.� It has been said many times that a nation of
people without effective arms is at the total mercy of their
politicians and believe me, there isn't a politician I know of that I
would trust. - Rod
�
Message: 57680
Author: Daryl Westfalll *NOTE:� This is a fake message ***
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Brevity 1
Date: 03/18/89� Time: 17:03:04
Some people on this system are TOO NMAD LONG-WINDED.� Rather than make their
point in a CONCISE manner, they RANT and RAVE, ON AND ON AND ON.� They think
they're CLEVER, but they're not, so NYAH, NYAH, NYAH NYAH NYAH.� I cannot
stress ENOUGH the importance of stating one's opinion CLEARLY, CONCISELY,
and RATIONALLY.� Those who don't are simply marble-heads.� Look at it this
way.� Some most profound things you can say are simple, three-word sayings.
"Jesus loves you."� "Praise the Lord."� "Go to lleh."� "Daryl Westfall is
great."� Some of you dunderheads will no doubt jump all over me because the
last one is more than three words.� Four, to be exact.� Well, EXCUSE ME!
You are just attacking my character.� ISN'T THAT ORIGINAL?� Boy, I am just
SO IMPRESSED that you can INSULT me.� I don't think I want to continue this
discussion, since all you are going to do is INSULT and ATTACK me.� Next
thing I know, I'll be called a GEEK again by that crypto-fascist JT, or that
ZOMBIE Roddy will be calling to legalize EVERYTHING, including drugs,
speeding, child pornography, and even MURDER.� After all, either everything
is legal or everything is illegal.� Where do you get off saying ONE thing
should be legal while ANOTHER should be illegal?� That's DISCRIMINATION!!!
And discrimination is ILLEGAL!� This message is directed at no one in
particular.� ANOTHER complaint.� Some people on this system are TOO GNAD
SHRILL and SELF-RIGHTEOUS.� They think they know EVERYTHING.� Well let me
tell YOU something, buddy boy.� Only GOD knows everything.� To suggest
otherwise is BLASPHEMY.� All you SELF-RIGHTEOUS types will BURN in LLEH for
ETERNITY come JUDGMENT DAY.� Mark my WORDS!� That's why you guys have to
MELLOW OUT.� I mean, after all, we're only HUMAN, and we have to be able to
�
Message: 57681
Author: Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Brevity II
Date: 03/18/89� Time: 17:12:34
ADMIT that we are SINNERS who make MISTAKES.� So stop being so
SELF-RIGHTEOUS because self-righteousness is EVIL.� You know, I had vowed
not to continue ARGUING with you, but I cannot resist the TEMPTATION any
longer.� Therefore I will CONTINUE and will just have to SUFFER through your
SLANDEROUS PERSONAL ATTACKS directed against POOR LITTLE ME.� I will just
have to CONSOLE myself with the knowledge that I am going to HEAVEN and you
are going to LLEH to BURN for ALL ETERNITY because YOU'RE self-righteous and
I'M NOT.� I cannot stress ENOUGH the importance of BREVITY and CLARITY in
writing messages on this system.� Rather than DRONING ON and ON about
NOTHING, you should simply GET TO THE POINT.� I can't afford to WASTE MY
TIME reading a lot of NONSENSE posted by BANANA-BRAINS who can't ORGANIZE
their THOUGHTS effectively.� REDUNDANCY is another problem.� YES, REDUNDANCY
IS ANOTHER PROBLEM.� How many TIMES do I have to TELL you not to REPEAT
yourself?� Be concise, rather than RANTING and RAMBLING.� Be COHERENT and
avoid REDUNDANCY.� And don't just COPY my messages.� That's NOT very
ORIGINAL.� I look FORWARD to hearing some REASONABLE responses from
INTELLIGENT people who have ORIGINAL thoughts that they can EXPRESS CLEARLY.
STOP with the SELF-RIGHTEOUS personal ATTACKS.� Just LEAVE ME ALONE and quit
hassling POOR LITTLE ME.� State your points CLEARLY, and don't LEGALIZE
EVERYTHING.
�
Message: 57684
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl Love/last
Date: 03/18/89� Time: 20:07:56
������� Thanks for being brief.
Message: 57685
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 03/18/89� Time: 20:18:58
������� As far as a way to distribute drugs once they become legal I would
suggest a hard look as Amsterdam.� There you can go into a tobacco shop that
displays the marihuana leaf logo, and purchase what you need.� You cannot
smoke, roll or even display drugs on the street but there are many bars that
you can go into and do your thing.� Kids cannot purchase drugs there.
Holland has a great economy and strong social services.
������� As for prostitutes there is a section in the city that one can visit
and choose.� Child molestation is practically non-existent except for a few
visiting Americans each year.� And the incidence of rape in that place is
practically nil.�
������� Drugs have been legal there for longer than ten years and thus far
nothing bad to show for it.� People there do not burglarize houses or mug
people for drug money.
������� As (redundant) I've stated before I honestly believe there are a lot
of BIG people involved in making drug profits and therefore keep them
illegal.� When you talk about billions of bucks each year profit you ain't
talking peanuts.� Politicians are people too.
������� Hope I didn't bore you, dear sweet Darly.� And you were just joking
about others being self-righteous, right?� You were poking fun at yourself,
I assume?
������� BOB loves you and pukes on your boots.� (this is the BOB's way of
showing the utmost affection for those who worship HIM.)
����������� -Rod
�
Message: 57688
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: DRUG CHATTER
Date: 03/18/89� Time: 22:39:02
���� Whoever said it is the addicts clamoring for legalization - that notion
is just plain silly.� About as silly as saying all Christians are
close-minded.�
���� If the government started legalizing drugs tomorrow, that would not
send a message of "Its o.k. to do drugs now" -- that would only be true if
EVERYTHING permitted by law was obligatory.� What it boils down to is this -
This is America.� In this country, we are supposed to have the freedom of
choice.� If people choose to destroy themselves, as sad it may be, that's
their right.� Whether they choose to work themselves into the ground & end up
having a nervous breakdown, or take drugs (any drug, including alcohol) in
excess.� It's their body, and their life.� Drug use IS a victimless crime -
a "victimless crime", by definition, is a crime in which there is no
potential for filing police charges.� That is, the action (of using the
drug) only brings direct harm to the person acting.� Now, Paul mentioned the
family as "victim".� True, the user's family may go through anguish (and may
not, depending on the drug and frequency used), but that user is ultimately
responsible to him/herself, not his/her family, friends, etc.� About $10
billion was spent last year on enforcement of drug laws.� This money could
be used much more productively.� Drug users could be helped more effectively
if drugs were legal.� Case in point - if you were hooked on cocaine today,
would you seek help knowing full well you could end up under arrest?� If
cocaine was legalized, wouldn't the decision to kick the habit be that much
easier knowing you'd be getting help.� Jailing drug "offenders" isn't a
solution, and in fact only perpetuates the problem.
�� If I want to do drugs in the privacy of my own home, why should the
government be able to tell me I can't?� Let's suppose for a moment -� Let's
say some wild-eyed liberal atheist congressman presented a bill that said
the Bible was dangerous to the well-being of the people, and should be
banned to PROTECT Americans.� Especially the children (which always makes
for a good emotional appeal).� Let us say further that this bill passed.
Faced with a jail sentence if caught, would you still keep and read your
Bible?� And, would you be pissed if the government started telling you what
you could & could not mentally digest (meaning the teachings in the Bible)?
You certainly wouldn't think the Bible to be dangerous, but not everyone
would agree....� And whether or not it is dangerous is not the point - the
point is - it is your right to choose.� That's what it's all about.
���� You're not going to save the world by keeping drugs illegal.� Like I
said before, I'd feel safer knowing these drugs were clean - kids and adults
are going to use them regardless of the legality - each user thinks he'll
be the one who won't be caught (that's human nature).� Or won't be the one
to get the cocaine cut with draino.� If drugs were legalized, gangs wouldn't
have the $$$ or the need to carry around AK-47s.� Drugs is big business, you
know?� If drugs were legal, and a large-scale program was implemented that
basically said, "Yes, you can take so-and-so drug, but this is what will
happen" without the scare tactics now used (both in the gross exaggerations
of drug use results in some cases, and the consequences of JAIL), kids &
adults would be more prone to listen.� Illegality only makes it more worth
getting to some.�
�
Message: 57690
Author: Alan Finney
Category: Answer!
Subject: Crimes
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 03:28:02
"Murder should not be legalized because it involves an unwilling
participant, the murdered."
��� I think it can safely be argued, that the victim of murder IS a willing
participant.� After all, you can't get shot if you don't stand there and
take a bullet.� Furthermore, people get what they give.� I mean, if someone
is murdered, they MUST have done something wrong to their killer.
I think people must be held responsible for their actions, and this
certainly includes those who are murdered because of their behavior and/or
appalling ineptitude.
Message: 57691
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann!
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 05:42:21
Your "facts" are so full of holes as to be totally ridiculous!
Families of drug abusing teenyboppers can just pick up and leave? I'm sure
that if your kid was hooked on crack that's just what you would do, right?
Send him or her off to school or the local detention center, and while they
were there, pack up, sell the house and move without leaving a forwarding
address or a trace. Sure you would!
�Legalization would eliminate the need for crime to feed the drug habit?
Like hell it would! The kids who are getting hooked on garbage now would
still get it, much the same way they get booze now, and they would still
find ways to get the money for drugs, even though they have no visible
source of income.
�Finally, if you don't think that your and my tax dollars are going into
rehabilitation programs, you just don't know where your money is going! And,
since legalization will NOT reduce the number of addicts, neither will it
reduce the need for rehabilitation centers, nor the need for government
support of those centers. Actually, of all the drug rehab programs in
operation today, I think the only one not supported by government funds is
Teen Challenge. (Which, by the way, just happens to be the most
successful, according to a government survey.)
Methinks that thou speaketh before thou thinketh the problem through.
Message: 57692
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/bigotry
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 05:45:04
Compared to your ignorance, my bigotry is as a drop in the ocean.
Message: 57694
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 09:08:48
Those have got to be the dumbest arguments for legalization I've ever heard.
It is indisputable that legalization would send a message that drug use is
morally permissible.� In addition to its other functions, the law serves as
a guide to what society regards as morally acceptable conduct.� To many
people, the distinction between legality and morality is unclear at best.
You then take on the claim that drug use is not a victimless crime because
it often leads users to break their obligations to their families.� Your
reply to this is simply to brush the argument aside.� "That user is
ultimately responsible to him/herself, not his/her family," you state.
I will admit that the question of whether and to what extent the government
should enforce family obligations is a problematical one, but your response
-- to simply deny that such obligations exist -- is disingenuous and
unsatisfactory.
You then claim that legalization would make it easier for addicts to seek
treatment.� They are, you claim, reluctant to seek treatment because they
fear punishment.� I would like to see you offer some empirical evidence to
support this claim.� In any case, I don't believe that rehabilitation
centers typically turn their clients over the the police, so if addicts do
have this fear, it is entirely unwarranted.
You then imply that doing drugs is the moral equivalent of reading the
Bible.� That is ludicrous.� Surely you are not so doltish that you cannot
distinguish between reading a book and injecting or ingesting substances
that impairs the mind.� (If that is what you are claiming, then why not
just argue that drug abuse is protected by the First Amendment?)� It is a
clever metaphor (by your standards, anyway) but a worthless one:� Drug use
is no more equivalent to reading the Bible than it is equivalent to murder.
I am not sure whether drugs should be legalized.� But your pro-legalization
arguments make the most convincing case I've yet heard against legalization.
Message: 57697
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Drugs
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 09:34:26
������� It would be safer for children to steal pot from their parents
than alcohol.� The effects of alcohol are more damaging than marihuana.� If
the child cannot find alcohol or pot then, because of the basic desire to
get smashed after duress, the child will then get out the paint thinner,
glue or something from the medicine cabinet.� Do you doubt this Paul?
������� Humans have been using substances that makes them 'high' since
pre-historic times.
����������� Rod
�
Message: 57699
Author: Mildred Stuckstedd
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: DRUGS
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 09:57:53
������� What if the entire family took drugs?� What if they were a wealthy
family and did not need to steal?� Who would the victims be?�
�
Message: 57700
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/drugs
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 11:41:01
You're just like Daryl - lots of talk and no answers.
You can bet your sweet 'Bippy' that if one of my little teeny boppers were
on hard drugs they'd go to a detention center and if they wouldn't take
them, then we'd throw them out on the street! When I married my husband, my
oldest daughter (16) came to live with us a few months later, She was on
speed and it was ruining her life. My husband took her over - said she was
most welcome to our household IF she got off drugs and made an effort. She
didn't until he was ready to literally throw her out on the street. She must
have thought it over, because she gave them up! SHE - not us, was responsible
for herself. At that age, it's time to start taking over one's life. On the
other hand, we also eventually got my 14 year old son - we LET him grow his
marijuana in secluded places in our big yard. The stipulations were - he
only used it at home - did not sell or give it away and if he was caught and
put in a home - it was his problem! That we would lie like hell and say we
didn't know he had the stuff growing. The outcome --- he had more fun
fussing over those plants than he ever did smoking them - he had more
respect for us because we didn't sit there with booze in our hands and
telling him how awful grass was. (Which it isn't!) If we hadn't� done
this, we knew perfectly well he'd still get it some place - go other places
to smoke it and would probably still grow it too. He never did really get
in to it - wasn't using it at all by the time he was 16 and got married at
17 and now has 4 kids and none of them are into drugs of any kind including
himself. True story. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
Message: 57701
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Peter/your drug post
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 11:44:06
Those were great! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57703
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JT
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 16:53:52
���� I never said doing drugs was the moral equivalent of reading the Bible.
What I was doing was drawing a parallel - If I want to read the Bible in my
home, that is my right.� If I want to take drugs, that should also be my
right.� Why should the government be allowed to come in my home, and tell me
what I can and cannot put in my body?� I would only be "hurting" myself, and
not treading on anyone else's rights.� Right?
���� As far as family obligations go, I never denied such obligations
existed.� I'm just saying such obligations shouldn't be legislated.� Take
care of yourself, take care of your own.
���� BTW - the mag should be appearing in a Tower near you this week or
next.
�
Message: 57704
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 17:22:04
Your "parallel" between drugs and the Bible is absurd.� In the first place,
no one is claiming that drugs should be illegal because the government has
unrestrained power to regulate people's behavior in their own homes.� You
seem to be adopting a Westfallian argument:� either everything you do in
your home is legal, or nothing is.� Of course, one would then ask, why
shouldn't I be able to commit murder or rape, provided I do it in the
privacy of my own home?� Also, the use of drugs in one's home is only a
small subset of the behavior that is proscribed by drug laws.� Even if you
had offered a valid argument, would this imply that since Bibles may be sold
commercially, drugs should be also? That since Bible-reading on public buses
is legal, so should pot-smoking? That since one may read the Bible and then
go out for a drive, it should likewise be permissible to shoot up heroin
before driving?
I accurately characterized your statement about family obligation, and your
further clarification has done nothing to change this.� You replied to the
argument that drug abuse is not a victimless crime because drug abusers
neglect their family obligations by simply brushing aside the question of
family obligations.� If you don't believe the person who is betrayed is a
victim, then you do not believe, in any meaningful sense, that the betrayer
had an obligation.
Message: 57707
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 20:02:53
Re:� "a hard look as Amsterdam"
How does Amsterdam control DWI's?� Is there some kind of test to determine
if someone is high on pot?
�
Message: 57708
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 21:44:42
Everyone rides bicycles.
�
Message: 57709
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Michael/Scuze Me?
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 22:13:32
I would hardly endeavor to call myself righteous [Ps 143:2]. To do that
would be, well, would be self-righteous! *grin*
�
Message: 57710
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/57657
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 22:21:53
Tormented forever, tormented forever Eternal punishment,
tormented forever
�
Message: 57711
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/3 Points
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 22:36:21
1. The families can choose to leave this obviously debilitated fellow
�� family member alone to suffer by himself. Well, if you have absolutely
�� no sense of family unity or no hint of conscience whatsoever, perhaps
�� you could indeed do just that. For me to do something like that to a
�� family member involved in drugs (that is, leave) would cause serious
�� scars on my conscience for the rest of my life. I cannot speak for you,
�� or how your conscience would play upon you in such a situation, but
�� judging by your post, you consider leaving a drug-dependent family
�� member, indirectly crying out for help, out in the cold, as a a viable
�� "solution."
2. Drug programs are around because of the illegal status of street drugs?
�� Then what are all these prescription-drug addicts doing in these same
�� rehabilitation centers? The drugs that they are taking are perfectly
�� legal, and were probably prescribed to them by their own doctor. So, you
�� assume that legalizing narcotics will make this all go away? Fuzzy logic
�� at best.
3. Did I actually see you call the drug addict a VICTIM? Yes, indeed I did!
�� Certainly he is a victim (most likely) by his own bad decision) BUT HE IS
�� A VICTIM NONETHELESS. Which blows a gaping hole in your (and Rod's)
�� "conclusion" that the selling and abuse of narcotics is a victimless
�� crime.
����������� ....NEXT?
�
Message: 57712
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/U Asked 4 It
Date: 03/19/89� Time: 22:48:12
Q. Would legalizing drugs put the drug dealers, big and small, out of
business?
A. NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. In fact, if nothing else, it will
�� merely shift the drug selling into the hands of the free enterprise
�� system. Drugs would be easier to obtain than ever before. The dealers
�� would no longer be underground types. With the legitimization of narcotic
�� drugs, the "dealers" would be above-ground, "respectable" businessmen and
�� salespeople. You see, anyone that is involved in the selling of any
�� item to the public is called a dealer. By opening up my record business,
�� I am going to become a dealer. In a greatly different business, yes, but
�� still a dealer. So, in keeping with the wording of your question, the
�� legalization of narcotic drugs would not eliminate dealers (big or small)
�� from the marketplace.
2. Would legalization save the nation money? I doubt it. More money will
�� be needed to beef up the law enforcement agencies to prepare for the
�� increased amount of drug-related disturbances that are to be expected.
�� Not everyone is going to be "turning on" and "feeling groovy." Some are
�� going to be "stringing out," "whacking out," and "spacing out." Deny it
�� all you want, but in the same breath, deny the high percentage of
�� narcotic drug usage in those arrested for criminal offenses of all sorts.
3. Would imports stop? Nope. Tropical climes are still the best for growing.
�
Message: 57713
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 00:35:32
������� Don't forget, the United States Government made ready many drug
rehab centers for the vets returning from Viet Namn.� There were not needed
as the drugs were no longer used by the majority.� Drug usage, tobacco
and alcohol included, goes up during times of stress.
������� I would say that the correct answer to the drug problem this nation
faces is to work on eliminating the cause of the stress.� Drug usage will
abate itself.
������� In the meantime the drug war should soon be called off before we
all go broke.� The alcohol prohibition was not won and neither will this one
be.
���������������� Rod
�
Message: 57715
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/Holland
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 00:40:28
������� I will have to do some research on that subject.� I'll get back to
you.� Do their auto tires have wooden wheels?
�
Message: 57717
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 02:31:00
Re:� "Do their auto tires have wooden wheels?"
Only those bought with "wooden" nickels.
�
Message: 57718
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: open containers
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 04:59:06
�
Try driving around town with an open container of an alcoholic beverage in
your hand, and you may find yourself enlightened on this point.
�
Message: 57719
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/kids
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 06:13:16
Yep Rod. You're right. Kids have been using substances since pre-history.
What a wonderful argument for making drugs legal and easier to get! While
we're at it, we must remember that kids have committed suicide and
fratricide since the old days too. (Remember Cain and Abel?) So let's make
that legal too, and maybe we ought to join the punk rockers and acid groups
that sing of the wonderful release from pressure and euphoria that suicide
gives them, and encourage them to go and O.D., or shoot themselves, or jump
off a high building. What the heck! It will help our overpopulation problem
too!
Why� don't you go back to the 60's where you belong, and crawl back to
Haight-Ashbury and bury yourself in a cloud of pot smoke! You are a great
example of why they call the stuff dope!
�
Message: 57721
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/your kids
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 06:23:39
�I don't think that you realize just how lucky you are! In more ways than
one. Since you apparently don't there's not much point in telling you, or in
continuing this discussion, since it will obviously go nowhere.
Of course, the thought never occurred to you , rather than sit in front of
your kids with a drinkie poo in your hands and tell them they could grow
marijuana just so you could continue with your own vices, you could have set
the better example of abstinence, and of showing them that life is possible
and perfectly fulfilling without the spectre of substance abuse hanging over
your heads. No, I didn't think so. Oh well.
�
Message: 57722
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/more drugs
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 07:41:05
�
Re: "Leaving a drug dependent family member" - It would depend on the
person. If the user does not show any signs of helping themselves or wants
to, then I would not stick around unless I WANTED to! You are also under the
false idea that all drug users are addicts! Not so any more that all people
that drink are alcholics. But regardless of what you say - the bottom line
is the person that misuses drugs are responsible for themselves.
Yes! The drug addict is a victim of his own abuses. But you are mincing
words here in order to appear that your winning this conversation! You are
not because you have only disagreed with us that want to legalize it and
have not came up with any sort of answer yourself. If there IS A BETTER way
to stop drug lords/pushers/trapping kids into a life of crime - I'm
certainly interested in hearing it. I did not make a snap decision when I
thought the answer might be legalizing it. I saw that the way it is now is
not going anywhere. Too much money involved for it to do a bit of good.
So I'm still waiting for your solution(s?). And with a open mind and ears!
�������� -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57724
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/last
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 08:04:48
"I could have shown a better example of abstinence"? Hahahahaha! Leave it to
a moralist to think that drinking is a sin. I enjoy drinking and it does not
harm me the way I do it. I do not need it - I like it - it's here, it's
legal - I'm an adult - and a free American. I eat steak with a lot of fat
too and Winchell's doughnuts! Should I have given up the latter (abstinence)
to show my son the 'right way' to be/live/eat?
"Spectre of substance abuse hanging over your heads"? My lord Paul. Isn't
that a bit heavy with dramatics? You ought to be a preacher - I've heard
those words many times in my life from righteous moralists. I even believed
them once. I know better now.
Of course life can be perfectly fulfilling with out booze, cigarettes,
drugs, and Winchell's doughnuts - but it can be too WITH all those things.
That is something you seem to forget. You have chosen the 'row you want to
hoe' - I have chosen mine. My garden flourishes too but please refrain from
trying to tell me how my row should be hoed! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57725
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/imports
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 08:11:40
Re: imports - of course it would stop most import of drugs. If they were
cheaper and safer here - why would there be any profit made off of imports?
The same goes for your reasoning that it grows better in tropical chimes! So
what? We have tropical areas ourselves - Florida and Hawaii for instance.
There could also be green houses.
I would like to see marijuana legalized to the extent that you can grow it
for your own use in the back yard. The government could forget trying to
curb that aspect of it and save even more money. They could also sell it at
a very low price (after all, it's a prolific weed!) to deter people from
trying to sell what they grow. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57726
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul & Daryl
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 09:10:37
A question: Which one of us that are for legalizing drugs has ever said,
suggested or hinted that murder and rape should also be legalized then?
Just show me the post(s) - if you can't, please get off it!
�� -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57727
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul & Daryl again
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 09:12:18
A question: Can you not see the difference between someone who willingly
takes drugs and someone that goes out and murders and rapes someone against
their will? -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57728
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Stress/Drugs
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 10:16:08
Eliminating stress sounds like another REAL feasible plan. Yeah, TRY it
sometime. In this fast-moving world, stress is unavoidable in many cases.
Wait; I have an idea...let's LEGALIZE it! ...Oh, you mean it's NOT illegal?
But people are continually under it's grasp anyhow? Pity.
�
Message: 57729
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/57716
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 10:19:00
Bob, you're trying to reason with Rod. Not productive, trust me. Ever try
beating your head against a brick wall? Hurts, doesn't it? (grin)
�
Message: 57730
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Drugs
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 10:25:06
Ann, I see that your mind has been made up, and that you don't wish to be
bothered with facts. What's the point in continuing the discussion? Open
minded, indeed. [I will bite my tongue at this point, for what I wish to say
would probably not make for profitable conversation.]
�
Message: 57731
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/57726
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 10:34:26
Ann, what we are trying to show you is that you are being a hypocrite. To
back the legalization of one source of income for organized crime, and not
all the others (to get them out of the business) is mugwumpdom at it's
finest. To legalize drugs to hurt organized crime's income is like picking
up several grains of sand from a vast beach. Organized crime has their
fingers in just about everything! If you are going to sit on the fence with
your "pet issue" waving your "IT'LL ELIMINATE CRIME!" banner, you are
fooling no one but yourself. Perhaps the real reason you want to legalize
marijuana is purely self-serving behind that big red paper thin banner.
�
Message: 57732
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/57727
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 10:47:31
�
Can you see a difference between someone who is raped against their will,
and someone who is taking drugs because his body is dependent upon them and
not of his free will? VICTIMS, Ann, they are BOTH VICTIMS. Ok, say it was a
brother of yours. Strung out, wondering where he is going to get his next
fix. He knows his life is messed up, but he can't help it anymore. The drugs
have taken over his life. He can't think clearly anymore. He can't hold a
job because he's either doped up or going through withdrawal symptoms. He
tells you he doesn't need any help, but it's the drugs talking, not him. He
no longer controls his life and what goes on around him. The drugs control
every facet of his life. The drug-dependent brain can't even retain a
rational thought anymore. His self-esteem is shot. His self-value is no
more. He doesn't feel that his life is worth ****. AND YOU TELL ME THAT
SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS TOLD YOU THAT HE DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP THAT YOU ARE
NOT GOING TO HELP HIM? HEAVENS, ANN, NOT ONLY ARE YOU SELFISH ENOUGH NOT TO
HELP HIM EVEN THOUGH HIS DRUG-FRIED MIND DOESN'T THINK IT NEEDS HELP, BUT
YOU WANT TO MAKE THE DRUGS *EASIER* FOR HIM TO GET? Certainly, let him drug
himself to death. Who cares? He's only your brother, and YOU don't run his
life. Who cares if he's family, he's made his decision, and he should deal
with it by himself. You obviously have better things to do. Sure, he's a
victim, but it's not like he's been RAPED or KILLED or anything like that.
JUST BECAUSE HE'S A WALKING ZOMBIE DOESN'T MEAN HE'S A *REAL* VICTIM, OR
ANYTHING. I mean, if we make drugs legal, perhaps he will see the error of
his ways and straighten himself out! Yeah, that's it! Hey, bro! JUST SAY NO,
okay? Uh, that's if you want to, if you don't want to, then GREAT! [slam]
�
Message: 57734
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Savage
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 16:48:03
Stop being such a teetotalitarian.
�
Message: 57735
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: WESTFALL
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 16:53:43
I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS SUGGESTING THAT DRUG LEGALIZATION WOULD STOP
ORGANIZED CRIME.� WHAT IT WOULD STOP, HOWEVER, IS A GOOD DEAL OF
UNORGANIZED CRIME.� THIS IS SIMPLE ECONOMICS.� THE RISK OF CRIMINAL
PENALTIES IS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR DRUG DEALERS, AND, LIKE ANY
BUSINESS EXPENSE, IT IS PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER.� THAT IS WHY DRUGS ARE SO
EXPENSIVE.� BECAUSE DEMAND FOR DRUGS IS RELATIVELY INELASTIC (AND BECAUSE
DRUG USERS ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW, AND THUS ARE LESS WORRIED THAN YOU
OR I MIGHT BE ABOUT BEING CAUGHT COMMITTING A CRIME), MANY USERS COMMIT
CRIMES IN ORDER TO RAISE DRUG MONEY. LEGALIZATION WOULD LARGELY ELIMINATE
THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE THE PRICE OF DRUGS, OBVIATING THE NEED
FOR ADDICTS TO STEAL.
Message: 57737
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Daryl
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 17:21:17
������� You two are the biggest, most self-righteous, closed-minded bigots
that ever came down the pike.
������� By the way, Daryl and Paul.� Dean Hathaway had some EXCELLENT posts
concerning drug legalization.� Why didn't you answer them?� Oh, I see, you
couldn't.� I totally understand.� You can't even answer JT's points
Summary on drug issue:� No one has the right to legislate morality.� But it
seems that closed-minded bigots do so anyway.� They can usually be spotted
because they have their heads 'where the sun don't shine'.
������� Paul, you used to be the biggest bigot on this board but now you have
company in the name of Daryl Westfall.� If this intelligence you both are
showing is caused by your deity then I must say that IT would be a bigot of
the first class.� A closed-minded, filthy, scummy, drip.� -Rod
�
Message: 57738
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Taranto/Drugs
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 17:54:15
� I do not accept the idea that it is a legitimate function of government
to protect the citizen from himself where no fraud or coercion are involved.
� If I did accept that idea I would still not accept the idea that drug
use can be effectively dealt with by arresting users.
� If I did accept all of the above I would still be against the policy
because it would put impossible demands on the law enforcement and criminal
justice systems at a time when they are already unable to deal with the
problem of violent repeat offenders.
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
�
Message: 57739
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul/Drugs
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 17:55:33
Paul: Using your definitions for 'victims' of drug abuse we could easily
����� build a case for outlawing practically every activity imaginable.
����� You started by calling the person who uses the drug a crime victim
����� and then went on to include everyone who might be harmed, annoyed,
����� or taxed as a result of that activity. Using this kind of thinking
����� we would all be in prison. Drug abuse is a victimless crime because
����� it does not involve fraud or coercion, as long as the user has freely
����� chosen to do it. If fraud or coercion result from it, such as property
����� crimes committed to pay for drugs, then that is a separate issue, just
����� as it is a separate issue if someone commits a theft in order to
����� finance the purchase of motorcycle for example. When you think of
����� the huge amounts of drugs being consumed, it should be obvious that
����� the stereotype of drug users as non-productive people who routinely
����� rob and steal can not be accurate. If that picture were true for the
����� average user we would all have been robbed blind and murdered long
����� ago.
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
�
Message: 57740
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hathaway
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 19:57:17
I believe an argument can be made against drug legalization based on
libertarian principles.� The notion that any activity is permissible that
does not involve force or fraud presupposes that man is a rational being.
I do not believe, for example, that most libertarians would argue against
institutionalizing the mentally incompetent -- that is, people whose mental
condition leaves them incapable of caring for themselves or renders them
dangerous to themselves and others.� Libertarians may take issue with others
(or with each other) as to where the line should be drawn or how stringent
should be the burden of proof.� But if it is agreed that someone is
incapable of rational thought, I don't think most libertarians would
disagree in principle that to assert that he has a right to liberty is at
best meaningless and at worst pernicious.
The question, then, is this:� If the capacity for rational thought is a
precondition of the right to liberty, does the right to liberty include the
right to ingest substances that diminish or destroy the capacity for
rational thought?� I think a strong argument can be made that it does not.
As for the practical consideration you raise, I have not suggested that the
solution to the drug problem is "jailing users," and I don't know that
anyone has.� The solution is more likely found in lesser sanctions, such as
the denial of various government privileges (drivers licenses, for example)
to those who fail drug tests, public exposure of drug users (as Bill Bennett
recently proposed), and increased use of drug tests by private employers.
There should also be more discipline in schools and, yes, more education as
to the effects of drugs.� It is clear that the drug problem can only be
solved if we're willing to apply a little imagination to it.� Stock,
boilerplate answers like yours and Paul Savages's are the reason the war on
drugs has so far proved un-winnable.
�
Message: 57742
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JT
Date: 03/20/89� Time: 21:09:48
������� Interesting thought ...... "...does the right to liberty include the
right to ingest substances that diminish or destroy the capacity for
rational thought?"
������� They say that one man's right ends at the end of the other man's
nose. If one can not rationally think out his/her next course of action,
they stand a good chance of infringing on the other person's right to
'happiness' or whatever.
������� So, who has the greater right? The person wanting to ingest a
substance that will alter his/her rational thought OR the person wanting to
enjoy his/her 'happiness'?
�
Message: 57743
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: TARANTO
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 00:02:16
���� Why shouldn't I be able to commit murder or rape in my own home?� I'll
u why - Because I'm not murdering & raping myself.� Those are actions
committed on another person.
���� As far as drug use in public goes - if the use were legal, the abuse
should be handled much in the same way the abuse of alcohol is handled now.
Driving under the influence of ANY drug (whether it be pot or booze) is a
crime.
Message: 57744
Author: David Roe
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: rape
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 01:33:47
������� Hey, I raped myself before.� Could I be arrested?
�
Message: 57746
Author: Woodrow Smith
Category: Tales & Tall Stories
Subject: Spirit Departure
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 02:09:35
Mr. Albert Sykes reports the following experience: "I was sitting having
biscuits with some friends when I felt my spirit leave my body and go make a
telephone call.� For some reason, it called the Moscowitz Fiber Glass
Company.� My spirit then returned to my body and sat for another twenty
minutes or so, hoping nobody would suggest charades.� When the conversation
turned to mutual funds, it left again and began wandering around the city.
I am convinced that it visited the Statue of Liberty and then saw the stage
show at Radio City Music Hall.� Following that, it went to Benny's Steak
House and ran up a tab of sixty-eight dollars.� My spirit then decided to
return to my body, but it was impossible to get a cab.� Finally, it walked
up Fifth Avenue and rejoined me just in time to catch the late news.� I
could tell that it was reentering my body, because I felt a sudden chill,
and a voice said, 'I'm back.� You want me to pass those raisins?'"
�
Message: 57747
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 06:47:02
�Would you like to differentiate for us between the drug pusher (or sales
clerk if drugs were legalized) who puts a substance in a kid's hands that
alters his mind to a point of suicide ("Look at me! I can fly!" as he jumps
off a building) and the murderer who puts a gun to the kid's head and pulls
the trigger? The results are the same, no matter how you want to pretty them
up to support your position.
�
Message: 57749
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Taranto
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 07:06:08
�I have repeatedly said that there are no pat "boilerplate" solutions to the
drug problem. Granted, I do have some ideas on the subject, and harsher
penalties for the distribution chain is a prime one, but I agree with you
that discipline and education are probably some of the most effective
weapons existent. They are not without some built-in problems of their own
however. Discipline in the schools? How is a teacher or school administrator
to discipline children, when any attempt to do so is to invite a lawsuit by
ignorant, sue-happy parents? How much more time are school systems to spend
on drug education at the expense of the three "R"s, only to be frustrated by
peer and parental pressures and laxity?
�Exposure of drug users and employers' tests may be good, but the ultimate
dismissal and resultant unemployment would only increase the possibility of
criminal activity, once the user loses his source of legitimate income. To
say that viewing drug users as unproductive is to stereotype is to deny the
facts in evidence that this is usually the case. While there undoubtedly are
some productive members of society who occasionally use drugs, there can be
no denying that drugs are addictive, (crack, for instance, is referred to as
instantly addictive), and, once addicted, a person's usefulness is
adversely affected, to say the least.
�While legalization MAY take a few dollars out of the coffers of organized
crime, it will not make narcotics less addictive, nor will it negate the
need for addicts without visible sources of income to resort to criminal
activity to support their addiction.
�
Message: 57750
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/#57726
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 08:10:20
Your quote: Perhaps the real reason you want to legalize marijuana is purely
self-serving behind that big red paper thin banner"??? Sorry! I do not
understand that statement fully - especially about 'red paper thin banner'!
I DO understand that it is sarcasm of course and it's obvious you are
misunderstanding me. I DO NOT want to legalize marijuana because I want to
use it! I thought I had made it clear in many posts that it doesn't agree
with me. But I do not think that other's should be denied using it. I know
it is not as bad as drinking, so why NOT legalize it. Perhaps a lot of
alcholics will use it instead. Marijuana is the most 'over rated' drug
around! Unless someone totally over indulges in it, it will not do as much
harm as booze will when taken moderately.
Re: Organized crime - of course I know it will not be eliminated if drugs
are made legal. But it will sure take a big bite out of their profits. I am
concerned with the little pushers - the guy on the street! The people that
would ordinarily hold down factory jobs and be useful to their families and
society. Instead, they make lots of big bucks pushing drugs - getting the
young started on the stuff! Why would they hold a factory job when they can
make triple the money on expensive drugs? AND the addicts themselves - if it
were legal, they wouldn't need a life of crime to feed their habit! Also,
some of the hard stuff could be used legally in the medicine world. That is
one of the real shames here - it can't be used on patients dying in horrible
pain! I'm NOT saying this is a perfect answer to the problem but what we are
doing or not doing now is failing and always will. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57751
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/my brother!
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 08:27:53
But you see Daryl, that's exactly what you are saying really -- "Just say no
brother" because that's all we have to offer right now! Your description of
a drug addict was right - that's the way they can turn out. He is a ZOMBIE
that can't control his own life at that point and does need help. In the
beginning, it WAS his choice and no others. Now, he has no choices.
Re: my personal reaction to this if it was my brother (BTW I do not have a
brother) ---- First, if he was living with us and started taking drugs, we'd
kick him out if he didn't stop. (not marijuana) If he got to the stage to
which you described, we'd take him back in - try to steer him into
rehabilitation and give him all the help we could. We'd give him money to feed
his habit (within reason of course) and may even buy it illegally for him!
At this point, he is sick regardless of what is making him sick. He will
probably die young(ish). This can and does happen with drinking too. But
you see, my point is - my brother is an addict and it's illegal! Nothing
stopped him! But perhaps he started at 13 years old - got started by some
friend of his that urged him to 'have a little fun' - the one that sells it
at great profit and the ONLY way he is making that great profit is by
getting people hooked. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
P.S. If my husband was dying of cancer horribly, I'd certainly purchase
heroin for him regardless of the risks. I'd expect the same from him.
�
Message: 57752
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: News Today
Subject: In the paper
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 08:51:24
These are a few little tid-- bits the U.S. Attorney General Thornburg said
this morning in the paper regarding drugs:
"The war on drugs will be won on the battlefield of values"
"This is a battle in which everyone in the United States must enlist if
we're going to win it"
"An outraged community is going to say to the drug user that their behavior
will no longer be tolerated"
Whew! What fighting words they are!!! But I can't figure out what I'm
supposed to do as a member of a community?! Am I for instance, going to the
local high school (where I know that drug use is the norm) and face those
drug using turkeys and tell them a thing or two? Should I stand on the
street corner - handing out pamphlets on the horrors of drug use? Should I
picket in front of the school? Should I lug around a big heavy cross on my
back and preach to them that Christ died for their sins, so repent?
Battlefield of values?? Sounds like some patriotic war song. Or better yet,
a politician's 'gobble - dee - gook' speech! What nonsense! And the funny
part about it is - It's been done before - time and time again with hardly a
dent! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
Message: 57753
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Taranto/Drugs
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 13:46:40
But can we in our right mind truly eliminate one evil by legalizing another
greater evil? (Recreational drug use, not the drug itself, though in this
day and age they walk happily hand in hand.)
�
Message: 57754
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Ex-Christian
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 13:51:25
The problem is, anyone can call themselves a Christian. However, whether
someone decides to tack the name on for convenience and go on doing what
they're doing, or truly dedicate their lives to serving the Lord, confuses
only us lowly humans. God can tell the difference, and trust me, these
"Christians of Convenience" have already received their reward in full.
[Matthew 6:1-4]
Message: 57755
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 13:58:40
Whether you decide to smoke, toke, shoot, and snort your way to oblivion is
not my decision. You have decided that you are happy in your happy little
drug-clouded quasi-reality, and darned if I am going to stop you. But what
about our children? What about those whose minds haven't been infected yet?
Look, you are going to continue to buy drugs whether they are illegal or
not, and nobody (short of the law) is going to stop you. I think that if any
body wants to corrupt their mind with drugs, it is a decision that they are
going to make whether the law says they can or not. The way things are now,
I am quite satisfied with. Personally, I cannot understand the foggy logic
that people try to use to justify their desire for the freedom to destroy
themselves. You wanna know what the problem is, Rod? THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT
HERE THAT CARE. Now you may find that to be a problem, but...
�
Message: 57756
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James/57749
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 14:05:07
You made some good points in that message, James. Arresting the user (unless
that user has committed a crime) accomplishes little. However, the points
that you brought up are good ones. It may point out to the drug user that
the only doors that are closing on him/her via drug abuse are not just those
that he/she is closing on him/herself.
Message: 57758
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 16:34:31
Well, you have invalidated your own analogy.� Since the Bible is not treated
legally the same way alcohol is, then drugs are not equivalent to the Bible
if they are to be treated as alcohol is.� You will have to come up with a
better argument.
Message: 57759
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Savage
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 16:38:35
As I have pointed out, the economics of the drug trade are such that an
anti-drug strategy cannot center on efforts directed against suppliers of
drugs.� There is, I suppose, a moral argument to be made for including such
efforts along with efforts against users.� But if our goal is to minimize
the use of illicit drugs, we must concentrate on efforts against the users.
As for education, it would be absurd to further neglect the "three R's" in
the name of devoting more time to drug education.� In fact, better education
in academic fundamentals would itself help stop drug abuse by giving kids
some sense of purpose.
Message: 57760
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: WESTFALL
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 16:42:38
YOU ASK WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO LEGALIZE A GREATER EVIL (I.E., DRUG USE)
IN ORDER TO STOP A LESSER EVIL (I.E., PROPERTY AND VIOLENT CRIME BY ADDICTS
TO SUPPORT THEIR HABITS).� THIS IS A MISLEADING QUESTION.� WHAT WE SHOULD BE
ASKING IS TO WHAT EXTENT THE LEGALIZATION OF DRUG USE IS GOING TO INCREASE
SUCH ACTIVITY, AND TO WHAT EXTENT IT IS GOING TO STOP VIOLENT CRIME.� IT MAY
BE THAT DRUG USE WOULD NOT INCREASE APPRECIABLY UNDER LEGALIZATION BUT CRIME
WOULD DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY, IN WHICH CASE THE ARGUMENT FOR LEGALIZATION IS
QUITE POWERFUL INDEED.� OR IT MAY BE THAT DRUG USE WOULD GO WAY UP BUT CRIME
WOULD REMAIN ABOUT THE SAME.� IN THIS CASE, OBVIOUSLY, DRUGS SHOULD NOT BE
LEGALIZED.
Message: 57762
Author: Mike McCarter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: MSG#57761
Date: 03/21/89� Time: 19:13:16
I LIKE THAT LAST MESSAGE. VERY MOVING, HAS SPIRIT, LAUGHS, CRIES.
I GIVE IT 3 STARS!!!
�
Message: 57764
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/22/89� Time: 05:05:30
Once again your position is as full of holes as Swiss cheese, but it is
probably pointless to show you the credibility gaps. However, for the sake o
discussion:
1. Those "little pushers" who, if it were not for the profits realized in
peddling poison would hold down factory jobs. HA! The pusher types are
stereotypical ne'er do wells who, if they weren't dealing drugs would "eke
out" a living doing other laborless things such as fencing stolen goods,
stealing themselves, pimping for a few "ladies" or some other nefarious
occupation.
2. The addicts, most of whom have no visible means of support since their
addiction prevents them from holding down a real job, would not suddenly
find honest work if dope was legal. They would still have to rob, steal and
kill for their next fix.
�3. As to those "poor, suffering souls" who are dying agonizing deaths from
cancer or whatever, the medical profession has and uses plenty of pain
killing drugs, including hallucinogens, to make the last days or hours of
these people as comfortable as possible. THey don't need crack, meth or
any other street drug to do their thing.
Why do you insist on hanging on to lame duck alibis for legalization that
have never held water better than a sieve? Probably because there is no real
justification for it.
Message: 57765
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 03/22/89� Time: 06:12:54
Why are you always right and everybody else is wrong?
��������� Ralph
Message: 57766
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/drugs
Date: 03/22/89� Time: 07:43:44
Perhaps you are right Paul - the pushers would just go on to other things
like becoming pimps - the addicts still would not work at a honest living.
But a lot would be eliminated if drugs were legal -- all I'd hope for. The
pusher that lures children into drugs for one. The countries who grow and
ship the stuff would have to find other 'farming' to do. (Some little
countries - that is their main income) I don't profess that legalizing it
would cure everything - it may even make it worse, I don't know. I just say
it's worth a try because we're not getting anywhere the way things are!
There's 'BIG TALK' in the paper of punishing the users - even the casual
ones. But I don't see how that can be accomplished do you? If there's 1
pusher to every 100 users - how can we even begin to think of punishing the
user if we can't control the pusher now? I know it's been used as an example
MANY times - but remember what happened during prohibition? They finally ended
up legalizing it again because they were getting no where and people like Al
Capone were living like kings. He wasn't the only one either. Half the
people in the country were braking the law!
Re: using drugs in medical cases - in the last stages of cancer (some) the
drugs they use now do not cut the pain. Morphine is the main one that
is used and it is good only up to a point. Why on earth would you be against
using Heroin if it let them die peacefully and pain free? Morphine is
addicting too and what difference does it make if these people become
addicts? I'm curious as to your answer on this. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57767
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Last
Date: 03/22/89� Time: 10:53:59
You say that you don't know if legalizing it would make things better or
worse. Then why are you so blindly willing to make it legal? Ok, what if
things DID get worse? We'd just simply make them illegal again, right? I
don't think so. Your reference to the Prohibition was a prime example. To
legalize them COULD be going from bad to worse. In an offhand way, I would
say your statement agrees to that. To try and and instill a "Prohibition"
after legalization COULD make things even worse YET. James is right, we need
to use a little creativity in whatever finally comes about. To simply argue
the black/white point of legalization vs. status quo is too short-sighted.
If they WERE legalized, what ELSE would need to be done? If they aren't
legalized, what should we start doing right NOW? We can't just close our
eyes to the possible consequences and just say "OK, let's do it." We need to
open our eyes as wide as we can, and research all aspects and possible
outcomes.
Message: 57768
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 03/22/89� Time: 14:12:52
������� You are sick.� Your religion has damaged your brain.� You are also
blind.� Oh yeah, and you and a brick wall have a lot in common.
������� Dean Hathaway left a number of good, logical posts on drug
legalization but I bet you didn't see them.� The logic of them most probably
made your little mind go blank.� How convenient. -Rod
Message: 57769
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Taranto/#57740
Date: 03/22/89� Time: 16:28:51
�� You seem to have developed an unusual version of libertarian principles.
What you are prescribing is prior restraint against any activity which
could conceivable result in impairment. That is not a libertarian argument
(it is a totalitarian one). If drug use resulted in noticeable impairment
of a high percentage of people who used them, we wouldn't be having this
discussion because not many people would be using them. If the drugs were
legal the chances of that impairment would be much reduced from what they
are now anyway, since a manufacturer would take all reasonable steps to
prevent liability.
�� Since my position on drugs has never been tried, and it is the only one
I can see working out in the long run, I can't accept your statement that
mine is a 'stock' answer which is preventing the state from winning its war
on drugs (which is really a war on people). It is an answer based on
individual freedom and responsibility, but since it does not add to the
power of the state or fulfill the needs of the crusaders among us, it will
be ignored while the 'War On Drugs' piles up casualties in the form of
trampled freedoms and ruined lives.
�� See You Later
����� Dean H.
Message: 57770
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hathaway
Date: 03/22/89� Time: 16:45:11
Your premise appears to be that drug use does not impair the ability to
think rationally or to function as part of a community.� If this is true,
then opposition to drug use is simply a superstition and there is no
rational way anyone can disagree with you.� However, I think your premise is
clearly false.
Message: 57773
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ralph
Date: 03/23/89� Time: 05:04:54
I am not always right and everybody else wrong Ralph. While I agree with a
lot of people and a lot of opinions, I just happen to be vocal enough to
voice disagreement with those of different views. That's what the essence of
debate and discussion is all about. Bottom line, that's what BBSing is all
about. Wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed on everything?
Message: 57774
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/23/89� Time: 05:14:31
�Personally, I don't agree with the present emphasis on jailing casual
users. It's more an admission of defeat than anything. I think that more and
tougher drives against the distribution chains are necessary, and a few less
bleeding hearts on the judicial benches and in such organizations as the
ACLU would help also. Maybe what we really ought to do is what Sam Steiger
suggested a long time ago, and kill all the lawyers, since they are the ones
really making the big bucks in a lot of these cases, just as they are in
some other matters around town that are bleeding the taxpayers for their
benefit, but that's another subject entirely.
�As to the legitimate medicinal use of those drugs that are now illegal, I
understand that marijuana can be purchased legally by prescription for
certain problems. In the case of terminal cancer victims, I'm sure that if
the medical profession was convinced that heroin or other such drugs would
alleviate suffering any more than the drugs they now use, they would be able
to get those drugs through legal sources. Such hard evidence simply does not
exist however, and I'm sure that medical research is concentrating their
efforts on what they consider more important things. Like a cure for cancer,
for example.
Message: 57775
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Drugs
Date: 03/23/89� Time: 06:32:05
Prohibition has been over a number of years, why then is Moonshine
made? If drugs were legal someone would find something else to sell
that is not legal.
��� So just shoot them all
���Love all you legal people
Ralph
Message: 57776
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/drugs
Date: 03/23/89� Time: 08:33:10
I am not for 'blindly' legalizing it! I've thought long and hard on the
subject. The rest of your post was vague like 'research all aspects' -
'creative ideas' - 'possible outcomes' etc. I'm sure these statements are
going to put the fear of God into hard core drug users, pushers and other
countries. In the meantime, people are getting murdered, being lured into
drugs by pushers, getting rich, our taxes going way up fighting the problem,
while you are thinking of 'all aspects and possible outcomes! Don't you
think that every avenue has been well thought out by people that know a lot
more about it than you?
There are just two things that will end this mess - (1) - legalize it
(2) line them all up and use Ralph's advice! I prefer number one.
���� -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
Message: 57777
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/medicine
Date: 03/23/89� Time: 08:49:40
Our medical profession is both good and bad. They are behind regarding the
use of heroin and they WON'T use other countries as proof until they
research for YEARS themselves. England for instance uses heroin and I
would say that is 'hard evidence'! It is ILLEGAL here and can't even test it
without permission. Morphine is the hardest pain fighter we have - heroin
will not only take away the pain - it gives a person calmness, peace of
mind, takes away fear. The person can function even in the last stages of
cancer. Some have even been able to go home and die peacefully. A couple of
years ago there was a TV show shown on cable that was filmed in England.
They showed the people before and after taking heroin and there was no
comparison! They also didn't have to take it as often as morphine. Most, got
out of bed, went out side, looked at the birds, flowers, trees. It may have
been for the last time, but at least they did it. They didn't die horribly,
screaming out in pain. Now I'd say that's a step just as important as
finding a cure for cancer! Your right - they do use marijuana in some cases,
so I ask - why not heroin also? -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-
�
Message: 57778
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Politics
Subject: Drugs and the Law?
Date: 03/23/89� Time: 10:50:54
������� I have been offered drugs several times and I also know I can easily
get them if I wanted them...� I just say "No", they are illegal!
������� If they were legal, I would still say "No"!� So why not make them
legal and COLLECT billions in taxes from them instead of SPENDING billions
fighting them?� People who don't want drugs will still not want them no
matter what the law is... and people who do want to use drugs, get them
anyway despite the law!�� Look at the lives that would be saved if drugs
were legalized...� Lives of good people that would not use drugs regardless
of the law.� How many lives are lost each year trying to save drug addicts?
Is it worth it?� Hell no....
������� I say legalize drugs and tax the heck out of it and it will be safer
and still cheaper than the garbage now available.� Drug users that want help
will seek help and not be afraid of arrest and prosecution.� People of
painful diseases would be able to make the choice to buy good clean drugs
and die in a less painful peace... without wiping out the family bank roll.
Syringes and other supplies would be cleaner and available for drug users
and that would help in easing the spread of AIDS.� And last, the TAX
$dollars collected from drugs plus not having to spend billions in tax
dollars might put this nation in good health again.
������� Common $ense, if you ask me!�� (Good posts everyone on both sides)
������� See UU
�
Message: 57779
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Drugs
Date: 03/23/89� Time: 14:48:34
Ann heroin was legal on prescription, that was back in the early 40s. The
store I worked in had a supply that we were able to use, but the Dr.
did not prescribe so we turned our supply into the narcs. At that time
Narcs were secret service.
�
Message: 57780
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Post I
Date: 03/24/89� Time: 01:06:50
Personally, I don't care who uses drugs. As long as they stay off the road
and any place else where they can breach someone else's rights. Rod can toke
and smoke and choke all he wants, it makes no never mind to me. But if he
wants to buy drugs (which apparently he has no trouble doing now), he should
be willing to accept the consequences, were he to be caught, rather than wax
fanatic over how his rights are being trampled upon by those who really give
a ****. There is no way for me to stop someone from doing something (whether
rational or stupid) if they already have their mind set upon it. All I am
doing is voicing my opinions as to why I think it should be kept illegal.
Personally, it would be interesting to see what kind of person Rod would be
today were he never introduced to drugs. Toke away, Rod.
Post Office command:S
�
To send mail to operator use
First name:DARYL
Last name:WESTFALL
Send mail to Daryl Westfall:Yes
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
�1:������� Hey Mr. Westfall.� I haven't used drugs in over a year.� So why in the
�2:fuck do you continue to blow off about me using drugs?
�3:������-Rod
�4:Oh yeah, I almost forgot.� I love you.� You have a lot of wit.� It is just
�5:too bad that religion has fucked your mind.
Bulletin Board command:$RC
�
Message: 57791
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/57783
Date: 03/24/89� Time: 01:11:44
No, Rod. Turn it around. You're looking at the picture side.
�
Message: 57793
author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sysop (Cliff?Sandy?)
Date: 03/24/89� Time: 04:47:22
�I will have to agree that there have been some excellent posts written by
those on both sides of this discussion, but we apparently are at another of
those unmarked crossroads at which no-one is willing to concede the right of
way. We have not seen any minds changed, nor anyone giving an inch in the
matter, and probably won't, but it has been an interesting debate. Maybe
it's time to move on to something else.
Message: 57804
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JT
Date: 03/24/89� Time: 16:50:14
����� It can be argued that if illegal drugs cause brain malfunctions
in individuals then from a Libertarian stance they could be kept
illegal.� This opposes the well known Libertarian Party stance
that drugs should be made legal.� This is nonsense.
����� Watching television for more than an hour a day or eating too
much chocolate or drinking lots of coffee can cause brain malfunction.
There are probably very few veterans of wars who do not have some sort
of stress related brain malfunction.
���� Society itself causes brain malfunction.
����� I would argue that smoking marijuana is a pressure release for
everyday stresses and without it our society would be much worse off.
I know for a fact that it is safer than using alcohol.� There are
probably no completely sane people on this planet.� I think that if
and when an individual finds sanity they make arrangements to 'check
out' as quickly as possible.� -Rod