rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/24/86)
In article <20976@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <374@necntc.UUCP>, gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) writes: >> [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said >> that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have >> turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that >> regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so >> why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same >> effect? > > The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of >words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile. Thank you ray, I couldn't have said it better myself. >You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were >raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs. >Does some moral code >of ethics exist out there that would prevent someone from selling alcohol to >minors but would alow the selling of illegal drugs to minors? No, but there is much more profit selling drugs to minors than selling alcohol. Besides, there is much more repeat business :-). Anyone can sell them alcohol, but they have to trust their pusher. >I think you've >been led astray by some of your siblings' high-school-age friends. Even if >this were true, what is your point, that we should alow kids to have alcohol >so that they will use less drugs? Actually ray, this is an accurate representation. The more illegal or difficult to get a drug is, the more fashionable it is with the kids. It used to be that pot was the "In Drug" or hashish. Today, coke is it! :-). Probably due to the reduction in prosecution of marajuana laws. It's like a traffic ticket in many states now. > Now my point. If drugs are made legal, kids will have even easier access to >them, just as they currently have easy access to alcohol. Just as they have >always had easy access to alcohol. This is true, but more than likely, they will want some new "in drug" like heroin, morphine, or strikenine. >But a more frightening point is that >these legal drugs will now be cheap. A kid could spend his lunch money on >some drugs and be wacked out for days. A kid can do that right now. He can spend two bucks on a bottle of Ny-Quill or some other "cold remedy" and be zonked for a week, depending on what he used, and he wouldn't even need an I.D. Remember the days of "coke and aspirin", and I'm not talking about cocaine. Remember around '65 when smoking banana peels was "in". It does work (very strong stuff), but never really caught on because there was no "margin". >Can you imagine a 'pack of coke' >costing the equivelent of a pack of cigarettes with enough 'blast' to last >the day? The next time you are driving by a school play ground, please >observe all the kids in the area smoking. Take a good look at what they are smoking. Grass is now "kid stuff" for elementary and Jr. High School kids. >Also realize that it is against >the law for minors to purchase tobacco products, but there they are, smoking >away, with no one admonishing them for it. Actually, smoking is sort of a "separator". This is when the rebels who start smoking are separated from the "good kids" who put them down. Later, the rebels are the ones selling the "good kids" drugs. I knew some "nerds" who made their own cloroform, but couldn't give it away until the "cool pusher" decided it might make a nice "side market". >So here we have a regulated legal >substance with kids having absolutely no problem obtaining it. So much for >your theories on regulation and legalization. > >ray If there is anything to my comments, you know what makes sense? Get the DEA, organized crime, smugglers, and the media all hyped up about the evils of "pla-see-bo" (use another name of course). Get daily newspaper reports, heavy legislation, stiff criminal penalties, and get the rock stars to write songs about it. In fact, have the DEA pose as "big time" pushers and do the distribution. Just to add credibility, the DEA could "bust" the pushers and simply transfer them to other cities. Wanna bet the kids would be paying $20 a hit for sugar? :-). At least when they outgrow the need, they would have a better chance of quitting. They might also have a better chance of surviving. Believe it or not, something very much like this was done with nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and this was the "in drug" for almost two years. Imagine, there were teenagers paying two bucks a pop for one good whiff of laughing gas! When emil nitrate started filtering in, the "pushers" would say that the emil was just "laughing gas" and they had the "real thing". Unfortunately the scam was exposed and the new "in drug" was cocaine. rex
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/26/86)
> Remember around '65 when > smoking banana peels was "in". It does work (very strong stuff), but > never really caught on because there was no "margin". > It was a joke. I even tried it. I felt pretty stupid when I read that it did not work. Of course I was not as stupid as the legislators who were conidering restricting the sale of bananas to minors. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382