ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (04/28/86)
> The relative addictive power of a drug has nothing to do with why the >government passes laws outlawing certain drugs. >tom keller ** Absolutely. Otherwise, cigarettes would be illegal. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (04/28/86)
>...That is a factual fallacy. Another one is that caffiene is not >addictive "to most people". Most regular users do, indeed, become >addicted to caffiene, both in the sense that they become dependent upon >its effects ("Sorry I'm slow -- I haven't had my morning cup of coffee >yet."), and find it difficult to adjust to life without it. It is not >as addictive as, say, nicotine. *** I confess, I was a caffiene junky. 10 to 15 cups a day, 3 to get started in the morning. I woke up feeling horrible, headaches, dizzyness, general lethergy. If I didn't get my coffee in the afternoon, I started having headaches and nausea. About the time I switched jobs I decided to quit "cold turkey" and spent two weeks "drying out". I don't drink coffee anymore. An extreme case, but shows how one can be addicted to caffiene. (Boy, it's a *lot* easier to get up in the morning now!) I should point out that the addiction is *physical*. I had physical symptoms of withdrawal when I didn't get my cup on time. Anyone who thinks smoking is not dangerous should watch my mother try to smoke and drive at the same time. If she has to shift in a corner, the car zigs because she doesn't have enough hands to hold onto the wheel. Again, an extreme case. Lots of people smoke and drive successfully, or the freeways would look like junk yards. But the distraction is still there. This is what makes this whole drug testing thing so silly. The idea is not to avoid hiring people that are doing addictive dangerous drugs, but to avoid hiring people that are doing addictive dangerous *illegal* drugs. The motivation is political, not practical. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
suhre@trwrba.UUCP (04/29/86)
In article <287@gumby.UUCP> mading@gumby.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >In article <1239@dual.UUCP>, hav@dual.UUCP writes: >> In article <108@gumby.UUCP>, I write: >I know of very few alcoholics who only have only one drink a day, so their >drinking is damaging their health. If you limit yourself to one drink per day, you are not an alcoholic. >It is a fact that marijuana stays >in the bloodstream for nearly a month, so one hit of marijuana will keep you >high for an entire month. I don't know much about marijuana, but the "users" that I have had contact with did not demonstrate that they were high for a month after smoking. This does not mean that there are not some trace elements detectible in the blood- stream. > > Eric Mading > Computer Science Department > UW-Madison > >The standard disclaimer applies. Usual disclaimers. Maurice {decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (04/29/86)
> I would like to also add some things about drug testing. Shortly after >writing the article, someone here in the computer science department sent me >a letter via mail that stated that he felt it was ok to hire someone who was >on LSD. I would like to say that the government makes drugs illegal based on >their addictive power. Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and speed are illegal >because these drugs are addictive to most people. Alcohol and caffiene are not >addictive to most people so they are legal. It is a fact that marijuana stays >in the bloodstream for nearly a month, so one hit of marijuana will keep you >high for an entire month. Since this would keep an employee under its influencethis long, I would not hire anyone who smokes pot. > > Eric Mading > Computer Science Department > UW-Madison > >The standard disclaimer applies. The scary thing about this stuff is that there are people in power who have the same misinformed viewpoint as Eric here. If you have never tried any type of illegal drug, then I suggest you talk to someone that has. The notion that you are high for a month from one hit of pot shows a monumental lack of knowledge. And alchohol is responsible for more time and money lost in this nation than all illegal drugs combined and multiplied by ten. If I were the president of some company, I'd hire people that do their job well. That means I would hire intelligent people. If their performance decreased to an undesirable point, then I might ask if there is some problem that is affecting their work. In fact, I would rather hire someone who has a knowledge of drugs and their affects, better education equals better drug awareness. If you want to judge people, then judge them on the work they do for you, not on whether their morals are the same. dave
ron@brl-sem.UUCP (04/30/86)
> There is only one way alcohol can improve your health; that is, if you > average only one drink a day. Possibly, possibly not. Totally unfounded statement. > Alcoholism is a disease that someone is born with; it is often heredetary. Perhaps. I don't believe this either. The problem is that once someone has developed a habitual behaviour it is near impossible to eradicate it. You can force yourself into abstinance or rationing, but the habit is still there. This is something that psychiatrists admit that there is currently little hope for. The best they do is help people cope with the habit. -Ron
cda@ucbentropy.UUCP (04/30/86)
> I would like to say that the government makes drugs illegal based on >their addictive power. Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and speed are illegal >because these drugs are addictive to most people. Alcohol and caffiene are not >addictive to most people so they are legal. It is a fact that marijuana stays >in the bloodstream for nearly a month, so one hit of marijuana will keep you >high for an entire month. Since this would keep an employee under its influencethis long, I would not hire anyone who smokes pot. > > Eric Mading > Computer Science Department > UW-Madison > Do you also believe that our senators and representatives think only of your best interests and don't care how much money they make? I have yet to read anything indicating that LSD is addictive, nor have I ever met anyone who was addicted to it, though I knew lots of people who took lots of it. Nicotine is supposedly more addictive than heroin - why isn't it illegal? People have been known to die from alcohol withdrawal, but even the most hardcore marijuana users will suffer from nothing worse than insomnia if their supply is suddenly cut off. Caffiene most definitely is addictive to most people: most caffiene addicts will suffer headaches if they suddenly cut off their caffiene intake. Lead stays in the body much longer than a month and causes mental retardation: would you not hire anyone who has ever lived near a freeway? charlotte allen
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (05/01/86)
In article <287@gumby.UUCP> mading@gumby.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: > > I would like to say that the government makes drugs illegal based > on their addictive power. Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and > speed are illegal because these drugs are addictive to most > people. I have never heard any evidence that LSD is addictive, except that it can be fun. But so can books, movies, sex, and computers. Do you call these addictive? I think that there would be less of a drug problem in this country if the schools would tell kids the truth about drugs. Instead, they try to make every drug sound like the ultimate in evil. This may prevent some people from trying drugs, but I suspect it causes more trouble in the long run. If someone tries a drug and finds out that it is not like they said it was in school, that person may then decide that *everything* they said in school about drugs was wrong, and then try bad drugs, such as heroin. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/03/86)
In article <151@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: > > The relative addictive power of a drug has nothing to do with why the > >government passes laws outlawing certain drugs. > >tom keller > ** > > Absolutely. Otherwise, cigarettes would be illegal. > > Ron Do you remember prohibition? Well, It didn't work. Besides, there's nothing really wrong with some moderate drinking. The reason cigarettes are not ill- egal is that a prohibition on smoking would never work. We could have a prohibition on public smoking and most smokers would obey it. While drug laws could not be enforced in private, they must be enforced in public, and that's why I support drug testing. In fact, in most places in America, it is illegal to consume alcohol in public, except for bars and restraunts, where I feel that public smoking can be allowed, if facilities are provided for nonsmokers that are equivalent to the facilities for smokers. I now change my original position. The relative addictive power of a drug is not the only factor that makes it illegal. It also is made illegal based on its danger and public opinion about the drug. Most people object to LSD, cocaine, speed, angel dust, and marijuana. Most people don't object to alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene. Eric. > -- > Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) > seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc > > Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: > "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/03/86)
> I confess, I was a caffiene junky. 10 to 15 cups a day, 3 to get > started in the morning. I woke up feeling horrible, headaches, > dizzyness, general lethergy. If I didn't get my coffee in the > afternoon, I started having headaches and nausea. About the time > I switched jobs I decided to quit "cold turkey" and spent two weeks > "drying out". I don't drink coffee anymore. An extreme case, but > shows how one can be addicted to caffiene. (Boy, it's a *lot* easier > to get up in the morning now!) I should point out that the addiction > is *physical*. I had physical symptoms of withdrawal when I didn't > get my cup on time. > Just because you are a caffinaholic doesn't make caffine bad or illegal. Most people are not caffinaholics. It might just be that you have a physical condition that makes you addicted to caffiene, just like alcoholics have a physical condition that makes them addicted to alcohol. > Anyone who thinks smoking is not dangerous should watch my mother > try to smoke and drive at the same time. If she has to shift in > a corner, the car zigs because she doesn't have enough hands to hold > onto the wheel. Again, an extreme case. Lots of people smoke and > drive successfully, or the freeways would look like junk yards. But > the distraction is still there. > I strongly feel that smoking is dangerous, not only to smokers, but to non-smokers who are present where a smoker is smoking. That is why I won't hire smokers. There is no law that says that what I'm doing is illegal; I don't have to provide an area for smokers, I can designate the entire office as a no-smoking area. I also feel that it should be illegal to have a lit cigarrette or cigar in the front half of any motor vehicle, just like it should be illegal to have an open container of alcohol in the car. Smoking while driving is just as dangerous as driving while under the influence of alcohol. Eric Mading. > idea is not to avoid hiring people that are doing addictive dangerous > drugs, but to avoid hiring people that are doing addictive dangerous > *illegal* drugs. The motivation is political, not practical. > > > Ron > -- > -- > Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) > seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc > > Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: > "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/03/86)
> In fact, I would rather hire someone who has a knowledge of drugs and > their affects, better education equals better drug awareness. > But do you have to use drugs to have a knowledge of durgs? NO. And I would rather hire someone with a knowledge of drugs and their affects, because then they would know to stay off them.
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/03/86)
In article <633@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, cda@ucbentropy.UUCP writes: > > I would like to say that the government makes drugs illegal based on > >their addictive power. Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and speed are illegal > >because these drugs are addictive to most people. Alcohol and caffiene are not > >addictive to most people so they are legal. It is a fact that marijuana stays > >in the bloodstream for nearly a month, so one hit of marijuana will keep you > >high for an entire month. Since this would keep an employee under its influencethis long, I would not hire anyone who smokes pot. > > > > Eric Mading > > Computer Science Department > > UW-Madison > > > Nicotine is supposedly more addictive than heroin - why isn't it illegal? Nicotine is more addictive than heroin and cocaine put together. And it should be illegal. Eric Mading Computer Science Department UW-Madison Disclaimer: I feel that this article should not have a disclaimer, even though these views are not necessarly those of UW-Madison.
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/03/86)
In article <2090@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > In article <287@gumby.UUCP> mading@gumby.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: > > > > I would like to say that the government makes drugs illegal based > > on their addictive power. Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and > > speed are illegal because these drugs are addictive to most > > people. > > I have never heard any evidence that LSD is addictive, except that it > can be fun. But so can books, movies, sex, and computers. Do you call > these addictive? > > I think that there would be less of a drug problem in this country if the > schools would tell kids the truth about drugs. Instead, they try to make > every drug sound like the ultimate in evil. This may prevent some people > from trying drugs, but I suspect it causes more trouble in the long run. > > If someone tries a drug and finds out that it is not like they said it > was in school, that person may then decide that *everything* they said > in school about drugs was wrong, and then try bad drugs, such as heroin. > You have some good points there. The reason they make every drug sound like the ultimate in evil is that the teachers are using their personal bias when they tell us that every drug is the ultimate in evil. Besides, there are drug pushers who make every drug sound like the ultimate in good, so the only way the school can balance them out is to make every drug sound like the ultimate in evil. Now while I feel that I can't prove that LSD is addictive, someone obviously will someday. And I do consider books, movies, sex, and computers addictive, but these are addictive positively. Drugs and criminal behavior are addictive negatively. > Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) (05/05/86)
>Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and speed are illegal >because these drugs are addictive to most people. Alcohol and caffiene are not >addictive to most people so they are legal. > > Eric Mading > Computer Science Department > UW-Madison As I'm sure many people will point out, LSD is not addictive. Taking it over long periods of time can cause flashbacks, but it is not addictive. There are conflicting reports on marijuana. Caffeine, like most stimulants (amphetamine, nicotine, etc.) is highly addictive. Alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco are legal because they are older drugs that people were taking long before anyone got the idea to outlaw certain substances. -- "The laws of nature don't work if there's nobody looking" Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/05/86)
In article <884@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >> In fact, I would rather hire someone who has a knowledge of drugs and >> their affects, better education equals better drug awareness. >> >But do you have to use drugs to have a knowledge of durgs? NO. And I >would rather hire someone with a knowledge of drugs and their affects, >because then they would know to stay off them. Considering that Eric stated that (a) one hit of marijuana gets you high for a month, (b) caffeine is not addictive, (c) marijuana is very addicitive, and (d) LSD is very addictive, I would contend that he is hardly the person to be telling us where people should get about knowledge of drugs. He could use some basic education himself, free from propaganda. For example Marijuana is not addictive, nor is LSD, with the normal exceptions about peculiar individuals, such exceptions existing for every drug in existence. Caffeine is addictive, in the normal sense of the word. People become reliant upon it for basic daily acts, and quitting has withdrawal symptoms and cravings. It is not, by any means, the most addictive drug, but it sure beats the heck out of marijuana or LSD, which do not generate chemical dependencies. Another concept he might think about is that his (putative?) employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If he wishes to regulate off-hours activities of his employees, he should state so at hiring. If he wishes to invade their privacy with drug tests not engendered by syspicions raised by on-the-job performance, he is (I belive -- there has been no legal resolution of this question) invading their right to privacy just as surely as if he had conducted a search of their houses without court warrant. More so, maybe, since my body is certainly more personal and private than where I happen to lay my head down to sleep at night. While we're at this, Eric has changed his mind, due to arguments posted on the net, about his statement that drugs are made illegal due to their addictive properties, which is clearly false. I admire people who are open to re-evaluating their opinions upon presentation of evidence. However, his resolution of this is less than appealing. Citing Prohibition, he states that making tobacco illegal would not work. This is proably true. However, he says that the less popular a drug, the more properly it is made illegal. Two counter-arguments come to mind. (1) Eric's argument about Prohibition is reasonably compelling. Why doesn't it apply to marijuana, cocaine, and other popular illegal recreational drugs? It sounds like it does to me. Marijuana has been illegal for over 50 years. Has it disappeared? Is it possible that its illegality actually *contributes* to its popularity? (Hint: This is a rhetorical question) (2) If only one person in the country likes drug X, but drug X, as used by that individual, causes no harm to those around that person, or serious harm to that person, should drug X be made illegal because it is unpopular? What *should* the popularity of a drug have to do with whether it is legal? I would argue none -- the popularity of an action which causes no public harm should have nothing to do with its legality. (The definition of public harm may be the only issue here -- certainly definitions will differ.)
chabot@amber.DEC (05/07/86)
Urinalysis doesn't distinguish between habitual and a recent one-time use. (Reference: see last week's New Yorker magazine's article on baseball.) Furthermore, the urinalysis for marijuana use gives false positives if melanin is present. The wise will not confuse physical addictions such as caffeine, nicotine, and methadone, with psychological addictions that some people may experience (for example: alcohol, pornography, usenet). L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-3d!chabot
licsak@hsi.UUCP (05/08/86)
> > Alcoholism is a disease that someone is born with; it is often heredetary. > > Perhaps. I don't believe this either. The problem is that once someone > has developed a habitual behaviour it is near impossible to eradicate it. > You can force yourself into abstinance or rationing, but the habit is still > there. This is something that psychiatrists admit that there is currently > little hope for. The best they do is help people cope with the habit. > > -Ron Alcoholism was defined as a disease by the AMA in 1955. It is NOT a behavioral habit. What is learned can be unlearned. Alcoholism is being physically addicted to a drug and the symptoms of withdrawal are very much the same as withdrawal from any other drug, such as heroin. And, yes, there is more evidence to the theory that alcoholism can indeed be heredetary. If it was a behavioral habit, everyone who regularly attends "happy hour" after work, or regularly drinks at parties, would soon become alcoholics. No one knows for sure, yet, why some drinkers become alcoholics and others don't. The same as why some people are cancer victims and others aren't. Don -30-
dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) (05/09/86)
> > I would like to also add some things about drug testing. Shortly after > >writing the article, someone here in the computer science department sent me > >on LSD. I would like to say that the government makes drugs illegal based on <insert misinformation here> > >high for an entire month. Since this would keep an employee under its influencethis long, I would not hire anyone who smokes pot. > > > > Eric Mading > > Computer Science Department > > UW-Madison I would just like to say that if one hit of pot keeps you high for one monthe I know a lot of people who would be a lot richer right now. All the money they had been wasting just because they didn't realize that they were still high. Alcohol is non-addictive, huh? Please explain that to me when I have a one in four chance of inheriting this non-addiction genetically. Some of the members of my family have the ability to metabolize alcohol in to a form of morphine( I do believe that is addictive). Don't tell me that my chances of becoming addicted relate more to my home environment (psychological) than my genes (physical) because I have not lived with any of these people for any length of time. I hope that I would never run into an employer who is as misinformed as you because I wouldn't want to work for them either. Debra Spang ihlpg!dms
showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) (05/09/86)
In article <886@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: > >Now while I feel that I can't prove that LSD is addictive, someone obviously >will someday. Research has _proven_ LSD to be non-addictive. -- "Rock and roll is the ultimate inside joke" Mr. Blore, Exorcist to the Stars {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/12/86)
> > I would just like to say that if one hit of pot keeps you high for > one monthe I know a lot of people who would be a lot richer right now. > All the money they had been wasting just because they didn't realize that > they were still high. > It's true; one hit of pot gets you high for a month. You don't feel it; just like you could be under the influence of alcohol and not be drunk, but be unfit to work or drive. > Alcohol is non-addictive, huh? Please explain that to me when I have a > one in four chance of inheriting this non-addiction genetically. Some of the > members of my family have the ability to metabolize alcohol in to a form > of morphine( I do believe that is addictive). Don't tell me that my chances > of becoming addicted relate more to my home environment (psychological) > than my genes (physical) because > I have not lived with any of these people for any length of time. > Alcohol is non-addictive to most people. Some people like you are addicted to alcohol and therefore you can't drink. Your chances relate more to genes than enviorment for this disease, like alcoholism. It's possible that alcoholics are alcoholics because their body turns alcohol (a non-addictive drug in itself)into morphine (an addictive drug).
gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (05/12/86)
In article <923@puff.UUCP>, mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: > It's true; one hit of pot gets you high for a month. You don't feel it; > just like you could be under the influence of alcohol and not be drunk, but > be unfit to work or drive. I don't know why I'm bothering to do this, but... The effects of THC are well documented. Although the THC residue collects in the fat cells, and can be detected for a month or more after use, the EFFECTS of the THC wear off after 4-8 hours, depending on the dose. There is nothing, in any of the publications that I have read, that says that one could be unfit to drive/etc after that 4-8 hour period. It is illegal to drive under the influence of THC in most states, but unless you get in an accident and have blood taken, there is no easy way for the police to catch you. It's also interesting to note that any of the commercial urine tests will fall apart under a court challenge due to their uncertainess. Also, any of the tests can be foiled by the addition of 5 grams of salt to your urine sample, or an even smaller amount of bleach or drano. The test for THC is a simple yes/no assay, and if you taint the urine sample enough, the test cannot even assay it as urine, and returns a "no" result. Andy Disclamer: The ideas and opinions expressed above have nothing to do with MIT, the Visible Language Workshop, Cambridge, or even myself. My terminal just gets into these moods sometimes, and... -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Visible Language Workshop | | gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu, gerber@athena.mit.edu | | UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber decvax!mit-eddie!mit-athena!gerber | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
lanin@csd2.UUCP (Vladimir Lanin) (05/12/86)
>It's possible that alcoholics >are alcoholics because their body turns alcohol >(a non-addictive drug in itself)into morphine (an addictive drug). While I have no comment on the rest of the article (or entire issue), I would like to get more information or references on this amazing phenomenon of turning ethyl alcohol (a very, very simple organic molecule) into morphine. It has been a while since Organic Chem 1, but I think morphine has at least one ring with several side groups and contains nitrogen. Perhaps you meant that endomorphins are released under the influence of alcohol? In either case, I'd like to know more about it. Vladimir Lanin lanin@nyu-csd2.arpa ihnp4!cmcl2!csd2!lanin
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/13/86)
In article <1486@udenva.UUCP>, showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) writes: > In article <886@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: > > > >Now while I feel that I can't prove that LSD is addictive, someone obviously > >will someday. > > Research has _proven_ LSD to be non-addictive. > Research has also proven that LSD is a hallugenic drug. It should not be tolerated. I could not hire anyone who uses LSD as that person might have hallucinations on the job and make a big error that would cause major problems.
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/13/86)
> > It is illegal to drive under the influence of THC in most states, but > unless you get in an accident and have blood taken, there is no easy > way for the police to catch you. > What if you drive erradically? What if you run a red light? or a stop sign? A cop would pull you over and if he smelled marijuana in the car, he would give a test for marijuana. You don't even have to be in an accident. If you tested positive for THC, you would be arrested for driving under the influence of drugs (which is what DWI is). > It's also interesting to note that any of the commercial urine tests > will fall apart under a court challenge due to their uncertainess. > Also, any of the tests can be foiled by the addition of 5 grams of > salt to your urine sample, or an even smaller amount of bleach or > drano. The test for THC is a simple yes/no assay, and if you taint > the urine sample enough, the test cannot even assay it as urine, and > returns a "no" result. > > Andy > I would have these urine/blood tests kept under guard to insure that there is no tampering with the samples. Yes, these guards would even watch you pee and make sure that you don't add anything to the urine. I have one very good reason for using drug testing and refusing to hire smokers.That is money. If I hired a drug-free (except for alcohol, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medication, and caffiene) work force, my insurance rates would go down and each employee would have a lower health insurance deduction. This equals higher take-home-pay in two ways (I could and would pay a higher salary and there would be a lower deduction for health insurance). Also, research has shown the dangers smokers inflict on non-smokers and the dangers of smoking, not just to human health. Smoking is a fire hazard. If a smoker leaves his cigarrete or cigar still lit in his ashtray and doesn't put it out because he is going to smoke it later and forgets about it, the cigarrete or cigar would continue to burn shorter on the live end and, as anyone who has had a science course can tell you, the end that goes in your mouth would get heavier and fall out of the ashtray and on the carpet. This would cause a fire. As a result, fire insurance rates would be increasing. If I didn't hire smokers, I could keep my fire insurance rates down.
dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) (05/14/86)
> >It's possible that alcoholics > >are alcoholics because their body turns alcohol > >(a non-addictive drug in itself)into morphine (an addictive drug). > Did I post this? > It has been a while since Organic Chem 1, but I think morphine has > at least one ring with several side groups and contains nitrogen. > Perhaps you meant that endomorphins are released under the influence > of alcohol? > In either case, I'd like to know more about it. > > Vladimir Lanin > lanin@nyu-csd2.arpa > ihnp4!cmcl2!csd2!lanin OKAY OKAY! This is what happens when you listen to what your Mother tells you. Anyway to all of you who are wondering- Counselors at two different Alcohol treatment centers that my mother had my then teenaged brother and sister in told her this ridiculous story about morphine. After all the heat I got about this I phoned her and asked her the deal. She know thinks the original explanation *may* have been about endomorhpins, which is at least plausible. I don't wish to give her as a possible source of info. I remember hearing that one of the main reasons some drugs (or activities ie running) are addicting is because they cause the release of endomorphins that results in either an decreasing abilitity of the body producing its own, therefor the withdrawal symptoms of pain etc., or an higher and higher level of endomorphins to generate a *good* feeling. ANYWAY Please forget the original posting, it was inthe heat of the moment after reading that garbage about alcohol being non-addictive and knowing the pain my two youngers went through I lost all control of my keyboard. Respectfully, Debra Spang ihlpg!dms
gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (05/14/86)
In article <930@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >I have one very good reason for using drug testing and refusing to hire smokers.That is money. If I hired a drug-free (except for alcohol, prescription drugs, >over-the-counter medication, and caffiene) work force, my insurance rates would >go down and each employee would have a lower health insurance deduction. This >equals higher take-home-pay in two ways (I could and would pay a higher salary >and there would be a lower deduction for health insurance). Also, research has >shown the dangers smokers inflict on non-smokers and the dangers of smoking, >not just to human health. Smoking is a fire hazard. If a smoker leaves his >cigarrete or cigar still lit in his ashtray and doesn't put it out because he >is going to smoke it later and forgets about it, the cigarrete or cigar would >continue to burn shorter on the live end and, as anyone who has had a science >course can tell you, the end that goes in your mouth would get heavier and >fall out of the ashtray and on the carpet. This would cause a fire. As a >result, fire insurance rates would be increasing. If I didn't hire smokers, >I could keep my fire insurance rates down. Mr. Madding, you are still using the same warped logic that Alcohol is an "OK" drug but pot isn't. Alcohol abuse kills THOUSANDS, perhaps MILLIONS more people than THC abuse does. With your "save on insurance" logic, here are some more good ideas that I'm sure you'll come up with to "save" money: * Don't hire homosexuals, they'll get AIDS and die, driving up insurance rates and costing more money. Oh, yes, and we'll have to give a lie-detector test to everyone we hire to SEE if they are gay. * Don't hire Black people, on the average they live shorter lives, and might die in the middle of an important project. * Don't hire women, they can get pregnant and miss work, causing high costs to the company. This is a free country, and we are allowed to choose what we want. You can choose who to hire -- if you don't take government contracts, you can hire whom you choose. I certainly don't want to work for you, though. The feeling of opression and stagnation that would pervade your company would surely be its downfall. I'm not advocating the use of ANY drugs, in general, ALL drugs are bad, and have a detrimental effect on job performance. But you've got to erase the media brainwashing which says "Alcohol is a GOOD drug. Caffine is a GOOD drug. Nicotine is a GOOD drug. THC is an EVIL drug. LSD is an EVIL drug." If I had to hire someone, I would look at their past job performance, their physical appearence, and try to judge their emotional stability. What they choose to do in their free time is none of my business. If their leisure-time activities conflicted with their job performance, I would certainly let they know that they were not doing well. I wouldn't, however, stick my nose into their business. andy -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Visible Language Workshop | | gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu, gerber@athena.mit.edu | | UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber decvax!mit-eddie!mit-athena!gerber | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/14/86)
In article <287@gumby.UUCP>, mading@gumby.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >It is a fact that marijuana stays > in the bloodstream for nearly a month, so one hit of marijuana will keep you > high for an entire month. Since this would keep an employee under > its influencethis long, I would not hire anyone who smokes pot. Hey, Eric, that must be some *baaaaaad* pot! Where can I get some? One toke keeps you high for a week? *Woooooowwwwwwwwwwww, man!* :-)
fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) (05/15/86)
In article <> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >In article <1486@udenva.UUCP>, showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) writes: >> In article <886@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >> > >> >Now while I feel that I can't prove that LSD is addictive, someone obviously >> >will someday. Does that mean you would fire anyone using Trojans or Encares because someone will find them addictive someday? >> >> Research has _proven_ LSD to be non-addictive. >> >Research has also proven that LSD is a hallugenic drug. It should not be >tolerated. ^^^^^^^^^^ LSD should not be tolerated? LSD should not produce a tolerance? People don't have a tolerance for LSD? >I could not hire anyone who uses LSD as that person might have hallucinations >on the job and make a big error that would cause major problems. Bad grammar. A run-on sentence with no punctuation. Trite phrase, ie. "make a big error". Overuse of indefinite articles. "I could not hire anyone who uses LSD. Anyone who uses LSD might have hallucinations on the job. Having hallucinations while working creates errors. Making errors on the job would cause major problems." By the way, Eric, I could not hire anyone who cannot express ideas logically, cannot spell, does not know grammar, and does not know how to properly word a sentence. Andrew Jonathan Fine
suem@ihlpf.UUCP (Sue McKinnell) (05/15/86)
> > Alcohol is non-addictive, huh? Please explain that to me when I have a > > one in four chance of inheriting this non-addiction genetically. > > > Alcohol is non-addictive to most people. Some people like you are addicted to > alcohol and therefore you can't drink. Once again you are misusing the English language. The original poster did not say he drank, just that genetically he could become an alcoholic **IF HE DRANK**. Addiction means that the person addicted is a user of a substance and suffers withdrawal symptoms if he tries to stop using the substance. The original poster is not addicted to alcohol, he is liable to become so if he drinks. I think you need either a refresher course in English or to read your postings more carefully before flooding the net. (Is it obvious that I find this person irritating?) -- Sue McKinnell ...!ihnp4!ihopb!suem IH 6N226 x5313
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (05/17/86)
> I have one very good reason for using drug testing and refusing > to hire smokers.That is money. If I hired a drug-free > (except for alcohol, prescription drugs, > over-the-counter medication, and caffiene) work force, my insurance rates would > go down and each employee would have a lower health insurance deduction. I have one very good reason for hiring anyone who can do the work I want done, regardless of how they manage their personal lives. That is money. If people like you want to set up a bunch of spies and tell your employees what they can and can't do to themselves, then I'll win big. I'll treat my people like responsible adults instead of children, and they'll give me what I want because I give them what they want. And as word gets out, not only will you have to pay your people more to keep them, but I'll have my pick of the cream of your crop as they leave.
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (05/17/86)
In article <188@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes: >It's also interesting to note that any of the commercial urine tests >will fall apart under a court challenge due to their uncertainess. >Also, any of the tests can be foiled by the addition of 5 grams of >salt to your urine sample, or an even smaller amount of bleach or >drano. The test for THC is a simple yes/no assay, and if you taint >the urine sample enough, the test cannot even assay it as urine, and >returns a "no" result. > > Andy Tampering with samples is something that the people who like to give these tests are well aware of. That's why the proposals or contracts calling for drug testing like to specify *supervised* urine samples. You don't bring it in from home, you don't even step into a cubbyhole and take your time to produce the sample in privacy. No, you step into a cubbyhole with a technician who watches carefully to make sure you aren't dropping anything in it or substituting anything. So besides the issues of (1) inherent invasion of privacy in the basic idea; and (2) dubious accuracy of the tests; we should add (3) additional invasion of privacy involved in collecting the sample. When's the last time you tried to urinate into a beaker under supervision? -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
franka@mentor.UUCP (05/19/86)
In article <188@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes: >In article <923@puff.UUCP>, mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >> It's true; one hit of pot gets you high for a month. You don't feel it; >> just like you could be under the influence of alcohol and not be drunk, but >> be unfit to work or drive. > >I don't know why I'm bothering to do this, but... > >The effects of THC are well documented. Although the THC residue >collects in the fat cells, and can be detected for a month or more >after use, the EFFECTS of the THC wear off after 4-8 hours, depending >on the dose. There is nothing, in any of the publications that I have >read, that says that one could be unfit to drive/etc after that 4-8 >hour period. > Maybe Mr. Mading is confused about this due to the large number of fat cells in his head... Seems to me, the guy could take one hit and be high for centuries. Frank A. Adrian "Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the net..." P.S. Of course, any opinions in this posting are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
robertv@tekla.UUCP (05/19/86)
In article <930@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: > >I have one very good reason for using drug testing and refusing to hire smokers.That is money. If I hired a drug-free (except for alcohol, prescription drugs, >over-the-counter medication, and caffiene) work force, my insurance rates would >go down [...] > If I didn't hire smokers, >I could keep my fire insurance rates down. Rate schedules please !!!???? I could be that your insurance rates would NOT go down ... that insurance companies would just make MORE money. Rob Vetter (503) 629-1291 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!tekla!robertv "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/19/86)
In article <923@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP writes: >> >It's true; one hit of pot gets you high for a month. You don't feel it; >just like you could be under the influence of alcohol and not be drunk, but >be unfit to work or drive. This is ridiculous. Define "high". >Alcohol is non-addictive to most people. Some people like you are addicted to >alcohol and therefore you can't drink. Your chances relate more to genes than >enviorment for this disease, like alcoholism. It's possible that alcoholics >are alcoholics because their body turns alcohol (a non-addictive drug in itself)into morphine (an addictive drug). Keep 'em coming, Mr. Mading, you're a funny guy. --MKR
dnelson@joevax.UUCP (Dorothy Nelson) (05/20/86)
In article <930@puff.UUCP> (Eric Mading) writes: > Also, research has > shown the dangers smokers inflict on non-smokers and the dangers of smoking, > not just to human health. Smoking is a fire hazard. If a smoker leaves his > cigarrete or cigar still lit in his ashtray and doesn't put it out because he > is going to smoke it later and forgets about it, the cigarrete or cigar would > continue to burn shorter on the live end and, as anyone who has had a science > course can tell you, the end that goes in your mouth would get heavier and > fall out of the ashtray and on the carpet. This would cause a fire. As a > result, fire insurance rates would be increasing. If I didn't hire smokers, > I could keep my fire insurance rates down. Oh, Eric, Eric, Eric. Tell the good folk at home what you *really* mean. CO testing would mean excluding anyone who smoked, had a smoking spouse, or had a lot of friends who smoked. This means seriously "butt"ing into personal lives, not just the workplace. Aren't you the one with the cute little statement that if the wife smoked, the husband should *demand* that she stop because, after all, it's the hubby that tells the wife what to do and not the other way around? Try the USSR. They *love* to regulate personal lives. On a lighter (hee hee) note Eric sweets, your postings make my day. You are more fun than 210 Ginsu knife commercials. -- Cosmique Muffin (Dorothy)
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/22/86)
In article <929@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP writes: >In article <1486@udenva.UUCP>, showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) writes: >> >> Research has _proven_ LSD to be non-addictive. >> >Research has also proven that LSD is a hallugenic drug. It should not >be tolerated. I could not hire anyone who uses LSD as that person >might have hallucinations on the job and make a big error that would >cause major problems. Alchohol is hallucinagenic. In other words, when under the influence of alchohol, one sees, feels, or hears things that would not be seen, heard, or felt if not under its influence. LSD is also hallucinagenic in this way. When under its influence, one sees, feels, or hears things that would not be seen, heard, or felt if not under its influence. When not under the influence, there are no such affects. Therefore, a user of LSD who does not work under its influence will not have hallucinations on the job. An irresonsible user (of any drug) may, indeed, have job-affecting problems, but there is nothing unique about LSD in this regard. (The much-touted "flashback" is a myth; it has never been experienced by any person of my acquaintance who has used LSD (anecdotal evidence), nor has any scientific study been able to discern such a phenomenon.) I have not heard any person contend that an employer who has reasonable cause to suspect that any drug is interfering with an employee's performance should *not* be allowed to take steps. Mr. Madding, you continue to operate with prejudices and myths as facts. Since you are addressing hypothetical issues, as far as I can tell, this is only sad. Should you some day be in the position to hire or fire people, it will become more than sad. It will become an interference in the privacy of your employees without any reasonable cause. Please inform yourself before you get in such a position. Ken Arnold
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/22/86)
In article <168@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) writes: >Tampering with samples is something that the people who like to give these >tests are well aware of. That's why the proposals or contracts calling for >drug testing like to specify *supervised* urine samples. You don't bring >it in from home, you don't even step into a cubbyhole and take your time to >produce the sample in privacy. No, you step into a cubbyhole with a technician >who watches carefully to make sure you aren't dropping anything in it or >substituting anything. > So besides the issues of (1) inherent invasion of privacy in the basic >idea; and (2) dubious accuracy of the tests; we should add (3) additional >invasion of privacy involved in collecting the sample. When's the last >time you tried to urinate into a beaker under supervision? > > -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ... not to mention that some people's muscles lock up and prevent them from urinating when under pressure. For some people this is only occasional, but for others it is a serious psychological problem. So what do you do when someone tries to give a sample, can not, and claims they have such a block? Do you really refuse to hire someone because they cannot urinate in stressful situations? Oh, I almost forgot. What about slight of hand? Magicians pretty routinely pull tricks with liquids. In order to guarantee that a stream of yellow liquid is coming from the person, not from some tube up their sleve, you would have to insist that clothes around the hands in use and the genitalia be completely removed (and the skin would have to be inspected in case it was fake), and the urination would have to be visible clearly from the person watching. For males this isn't too hard, but how do you propose to watch a female urinating that closely? Have glass toilets and look up through them from below? You guys try this for a while. See how much fun it is. Then report back. Ken Arnold
licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) (05/23/86)
> > I have one very good reason for using drug testing and refusing > > to hire smokers.That is money. If I hired a drug-free > > (except for alcohol, prescription drugs, > > over-the-counter medication, and caffiene) work force, my insurance rates would > > go down and each employee would have a lower health insurance deduction. Your reasoning would be fine except that you could someday be faced with this: A crew of drug-free employees that may include an active alcoholic, an addict inadvertently hooked on prescription sleeping pills, an addict of a nasal spray you can buy over the counter, and an employee suffering with high blood pressure from too much caffeine. Your insurance rate savings would be nil due to lost time. Hire the best people you can find to do the job, smokers or not. You'll soon know the type of employee they'll make. There is no "drug free" employee by your definition. Don in New Haven -30-
glenn@c3pe.UUCP (06/03/86)
In article <9857@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP>, arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) writes: > user of LSD who does not work under its influence will not have > hallucinations on the job. An irresonsible user (of any drug) may, > indeed, have job-affecting problems, but there is nothing unique about > LSD in this regard. (The much-touted "flashback" is a myth; it has > never been experienced by any person of my acquaintance who has used > LSD (anecdotal evidence), nor has any scientific study been able to > discern such a phenomenon.) I have not heard any person contend that The much-touted flashback is pretty similar to something that does happen. Some people do "see things" while not under the influence of LSD, but it is my understanding (admittedly not firsthand experience) that this is not quite like "tripping". Most psychdelics, such as LSD, mescaline, etc., seem to work more by distorting sensory inputs or not filtering input that is normally filtered, more than by creating false input out of the air. (Note: "seem to") The "flashback" effect is likely a result of the mind/brain having learned how to do these tricks w/o the LSD*. It happens most often when one is tired. Drug free individuals also have been known to hallucinate when tired. (Perhaps "druggies" just recognize it more easily when they see it?) As a matter of fact, my first hallucination resulted from six straight (pardon the pun) hours of playing soccer. By the end, the soccer ball had grown a tail which had information encoded in it. I was also barely standing. It is true that the "flashback" is not what legend would have it, according to what *I* have seen anyhow (and that's *not* a statisticaly convincing sample, so if you know otherwise, join in), but neither is it totaly mythical. I also suspect that"flashbacks" hurt one's performance no more than does daydreaming, but I have nothing with which to back this up. I'm trying to learn how to see these things the hard way ... without doing LSD to get me there. Wish me luck. (This isn't because I'm moraly opposed to drugs, but just because it seemed a fitting challenge.) D. Glenn Arthur Jr. ..!seismo!dolqci!hqhomes!glenn (*Conjectur)
elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) (06/10/86)
In article <929@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >In article <1486@udenva.UUCP>, showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) writes: >> In article <886@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >> > >> >Now while I feel that I can't prove that LSD is addictive, someone obviously >> >will someday. And while your at it, why not have then prove that we should return to the Dark Ages, and believe what ever our leaders tell us... >> >> Research has _proven_ LSD to be non-addictive. >> >Research has also proven that LSD is a hallugenic drug. It should not be tolerated. I could not hire anyone who uses LSD as that person might have hallucinations on the job and make a big error that would cause major problems. Research has also proven that lack of sleep cause hallucinations, and poor reflexs. So why not make all your employees live in dorms with 10pm bedtimes. Also a long commute makes employees more likely to be ill and cost you MONETY, so don't hire anyone who live more then 15 minutes away. Mr Mading, it may surprize you to learn but your 'future employees' are humans, and not cattle to be prodded, tested, branded, and herded. They deserve to be assumed innocent till proven guilty, and free from invasions of privacy. Those rights out weight a companys desires for more productive employees. Employees are not slaves they have a right to a private life. If you can detect their drug use by there quality of work, or actions, then fire them (or have them arrested), but you have no right to intrude in anyones private life. Part of the 'cost' of living in a 'free' country is that things are not as "safe" as life in a police state. Why are hallugenic drugs so bad? I would imagine that the ratio of use to injury for LSD (excluding bad batchs) is proably less then that for drinking. Most government are under pressure from various religious group to make 'sinful' (ie:enjoyable, or mind altering drugs illegal). I for one, would rather be more free, then more safe... Brad Falk Fnord! qantel!proper!elric
elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) (06/10/86)
In article <930@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >I would have these urine/blood tests kept under guard to insure that there >is no tampering with the samples. Yes, these guards would even watch you >pee and make sure that you don't add anything to the urine. Is this for real? > >I have one very good reason for using drug testing and refusing to hire smokers.That is money. If I hired a drug-free (except for alcohol, prescription drugs, >over-the-counter medication, and caffiene) work force, my insurance rates would >go down and each employee would have a lower health insurance deduction. This >equals higher take-home-pay in two ways (I could and would pay a higher salary When the day comes that people will trade personal freedom for another few dollars a week, I lose faith in man. I hope you do start a company so, I can have the pleasure of boycotting it... Yea! You lock youself in cages of fear, then complain that yea lack freedom... qantel!proper!elric >and there would be a lower deduction for health insurance). Also, research has >shown the dangers smokers inflict on non-smokers and the dangers of smoking, >not just to human health. Smoking is a fire hazard. If a smoker leaves his >cigarrete or cigar still lit in his ashtray and doesn't put it out because he >is going to smoke it later and forgets about it, the cigarrete or cigar would >continue to burn shorter on the live end and, as anyone who has had a science >course can tell you, the end that goes in your mouth would get heavier and >fall out of the ashtray and on the carpet. This would cause a fire. As a >result, fire insurance rates would be increasing. If I didn't hire smokers, >I could keep my fire insurance rates down.
elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) (06/10/86)
In article <168@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) writes: >In article <188@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes: >>Also, any of the tests can be foiled by the addition of 5 grams of >>salt to your urine sample, or an even smaller amount of bleach or >>drano. The test for THC is a simple yes/no assay, and if you taint >>the urine sample enough, the test cannot even assay it as urine, and >>returns a "no" result. >> > >Tampering with samples is something that the people who like to give these >tests are well aware of. That's why the proposals or contracts calling for >drug testing like to specify *supervised* urine samples. > When's the last >time you tried to urinate into a beaker under supervision? I think I would be so nervious I would probaly end up urinating on the supervisor...... :> (Evil Grin) >
licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) (06/11/86)
> Why are hallugenic drugs so bad? I would imagine that the ratio of > use to injury for LSD (excluding bad > batchs) is proably less then that for drinking. > Most government are under pressure from various religious group to > make 'sinful' (ie:enjoyable, or mind altering drugs illegal). > > I for one, would rather be more free, then more safe... All right! Spoken like a true druggy. Keep doing your "hits". Drop a little more! Be yourself! Want some "crack?" Enjoy yourself. Just don't come back whining on the net because you can't remember what you just said, or that your about to lose your job because your motor reflexes are so screwed up! You'll have more freedom than you ever wanted, because it won't be long that you'll be thinking of killing yourself. You'll do society a favor because they'll no longer have to take care of you. -- Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak Health Systems International New Haven, CT 06511 "I'm the person your mother warned you about"
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (06/12/86)
In article <367@hsi.UUCP> licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) writes: >> Why are hallugenic drugs so bad? I would imagine that the ratio of >> use to injury for LSD (excluding bad batchs) is proably less then that for >> drinking. >> >> I for one, would rather be more free, then more safe... > >All right! Spoken like a true druggy. Keep doing your "hits". Drop a little >more! Be yourself! Want some "crack?" Enjoy yourself. Just don't come back >whining on the net because you can't remember what you just said, or that >your about to lose your job because your motor reflexes are so screwed up! > >You'll have more freedom than you ever wanted, because it won't be long that >you'll be thinking of killing yourself. You'll do society a favor because >they'll no longer have to take care of you. > > Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak Can you say "hateful"? I knew you could ... Do you drink? I pay quite a bit in taxes and lost resources because of people who drink. Should drinking be banned? Just because somebody else's recreational drug is different than yours is no reason to speak hatefully of them and wish them dead. When you calm down a bit and want to look at facts, I'd be perfectly happy to point out that the drug currently causing the most need for "taking care of" people who suffer under its ill effects is *alchohol*, followed closely by tobacco. Everything else is lower down by orders of magnitude. But until you are interested in thinking instead of hating, there isn't much point in saying any such thing, is there? Ken Arnold
marco@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (the wharf rat) (06/13/86)
In article <367@hsi.UUCP>, licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) writes: > > Why are hallugenic drugs so bad? I would imagine that the ratio of > > All right! Spoken like a true druggy. Keep doing your "hits". Drop a little [...] <many exxagerations about the evils of altered states of conciousness deleted> Well, I don't know.... Have you ever read Huxley's _Island_ ? Or heard about the Native American Chuch ? Properly used, these substances can be a "short-cut" to what has been refered to as the transcendental experience; a state of mind that otherwise takes much practice and training to achieve at will. Marijuana, a mild hallucinogen, has a long history of use to help poor laborers work long hours at menial work, like sugar cane picking. (I mean it makes the time pass more pleas- antly, I guess). Now, mankind has been attempting to alter its conciousness since pre-history. These substances present an oppurtunity to do so in a (YES!) non-physically harmful manner. It is easy to document that in terms of physical damage, LSD,THC,et.al., are less harmful than say, alcohol. "You're either *on* the bus or *off* the bus", W.rat p.s.- hey,remember "Turn on,tune in, and drop out " ? #include <disclaimers re: not condoning drug use, employers vs. my opinions,etc.>
carl@proper.UUCP (06/16/86)
In article <367@hsi.UUCP> licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) writes: >> Why are hallugenic drugs so bad? I would imagine that the ratio of >> use to injury for LSD (excluding bad >> batchs) is proably less then that for drinking. >> Most government are under pressure from various religious group to >> make 'sinful' (ie:enjoyable, or mind altering drugs illegal). >> I for one, would rather be more free, then more safe... >All right! Spoken like a true druggy. Keep doing your "hits". Drop a little >more! Be yourself! Want some "crack?" Enjoy yourself. Just don't come back >whining on the net because you can't remember what you just said, or that >your about to lose your job because your motor reflexes are so screwed up! > >You'll have more freedom than you ever wanted, because it won't be long that >you'll be thinking of killing yourself. You'll do society a favor because >they'll no longer have to take care of you. I support peoples' rights to take drugs if they want, as long as it does no harm to other people. I support the right to kill yourself if you want, as long as you take noone else with you that doesn't want to go. Does that mean that I'm going to take acid, go out, and ram Andy Scott Beals head-on in a stolen hotwired 4x4? Just because someone supports something doesn't mean that they happen to do it. Look at the "recreational" people stress in front of certain drugs. People who know much about using it know enough not to endanger others. (Reminds me of an acquaintance who was very careful when driving due to pot ingestion. Not *one* accident. Last time he was hit by a car was when he'd quit for a good while. Says something, no?) Carl Greenberg
elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) (06/17/86)
In article <367@hsi.UUCP> licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) writes: >> Why are hallugenic drugs so bad? I would imagine that the ratio of >> use to injury for LSD (excluding bad >> batchs) is proably less then that for drinking. >> Most government are under pressure from various religious group to >> make 'sinful' (ie:enjoyable, or mind altering drugs illegal). >> >> I for one, would rather be more free, then more safe... > >All right! Spoken like a true druggy. Keep doing your "hits". Drop a little >more! Be yourself! Want some "crack?" Enjoy yourself. Just don't come back >whining on the net because you can't remember what you just said, or that >your about to lose your job because your motor reflexes are so screwed up! > >You'll have more freedom than you ever wanted, because it won't be long that >you'll be thinking of killing yourself. You'll do society a favor because >they'll no longer have to take care of you. > > >-- > > > Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak > Health Systems International > New Haven, CT 06511 > > My my, aren't we uptight... First: I am not a druggy, I rarely take drugs or drink, but I believe when I do chose to drink beer, smoke pot, or have some peyote (I prefer natural drugs, you can trust the purity better), that is my business and not my employer's. I value my job enough that I do not take drugs, or drink before or during work. Our company doesn't care whay you do on your time off, they just expect you to be ready to work when you step through the door, that is fine with me. I am none the worse for my drug use, I have excellant reflexs, and a high IQ (even if my spelling and grammar is bad, I think faster then I type). Why are people so scared of mind-altering drugs like LSD? Why has most research into then been so heavy controled? Maybe there is more to them, then what the government propaganda(sp?) machines tell us. If you don't like drugs, don't take them, but leave me the freedom to ingest/smoke what I choose. If I am wrong, and I die, my loss, not yours. I don't need to be protected from myself. Brad Falk Lunatic Labs Alternate Reality Investigation Dept. (Divsion 25) > "I'm the person your mother warned you about"