falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (09/13/86)
> Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being > staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased > military spending? The amount of propaganda I've read in the past two > weeks is enough to flood the conscious stream of the average ignorant > american. I have yet to see any accurate analysis of the problem. > > I think it's a diversion, a chance to make the american collective > conscious focus on a problem other than the ones the government > should be concentrating on, and a chance to obtain more authority. > It would be ridiculous to consider this anything less than a political > manuever. Most of the problems associated with drugs are due to fact > that they are illegal. > > Again, I resent that the government sees fit to protect me from > myself. Their efforts would be better spent documenting the effects > of drugs *ACCURATELY*. The current propaganda is such a wave of > distortion it makes me want to puke. Reagan is a buffoon. I can't > believe what I'm seeing. If this administration weren't so real, it > would be a comedy of errors. > > I guess this means trouble in River City, that's with a capital T, > which rhymes with P, and that stands for Pool. Dirty Pool. > > John Williams > > decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams > > PS. Just another case of profiteering in law enforcement. > > PSS. I do not use illegal drugs. I think all of these observations are true. What I find most disturbing of all is that (in California at least) the government is CONFISCATING land used to grow marijuana. That sounds awfully draconian to me. It reminds me of how the church used to expand its wealth during the Inquisition; by confiscating the property of heretics. A lot of well-to-do but politically weak people were tried for heresy in those days. What also bothers me is the media reports on how dangerous drugs are. They give you all sorts of death rates, and violent crime statistics and so forth, but if you look at them in any detail, you see that these come about *because* of the illegality of drugs. The crimes are almost exclusively due to the "underground" nature of drug dealing. A dealer who gets ripped off can't go to the law for redress, so he resorts to violence instead. This was demonstrated quite well during prohibition which gave us the worst crime wave in history. When prohibition was repealed, the problem vanished as quickly as it had been generated. The government uses a kind of circular logic here. They make drugs illegal, anybody who does drugs is suddenly a criminal, and the government gets to justify it's repression by saying "look at all the crime this drug causes". Now, there are some drugs that *deserve* to be outlawed, at least to sell. I refer to the *very* adicting and debilitating ones such as Heroin etc. I'm not even sure I disagree with the new unbelievably harsh sentences for people who push in schoolyards. But some drugs are so completely harmless that to make them illegal is political repression, pure and simple. In the Child's Garden of Grass, the authors say that alcohol is the official State Drug and marijuana isn't. That about sums it up right there. Marijuana is by *far* the less harmful of the two (alcohol is a neurotoxin, it can cause permanent brain damage, death from overdose, permanent liver damage and is highly addicting). Marijuana laws are nothing more or less than persecution of people who's lifestyles and politics are offensive to conservative lawmakers. p.s. I'm forwarding this to net.rec.drugs and talk.politics.misc. Followups should go there. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems falk@sun.com sun!falk
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (09/15/86)
In article <7222@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: > ... What I find most disturbing of >all is that (in California at least) the government is CONFISCATING land >used to grow marijuana. That sounds awfully draconian to me. It reminds >me of how the church used to expand its wealth during the Inquisition; by >confiscating the property of heretics. The law authorizing the seizure of land used for drug cultivation has been on the books for two years now but so far it has proved quite ineffective. It seems to be going the way of other draconian laws adopted by hysterical legislatures: juries in rural Northern California are refusing to convict, given that a guilty verdict would sanction the taking of their neighbor's land. (It's a Federal law, by the way.) ----- Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gabor
rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (09/16/86)
>> Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >> staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >> military spending? The amount of propaganda I've read ... > >What also bothers me is the media reports on how dangerous drugs are. A recent ABC interview showed a young, clean cut, all-american manager saying "Yes, I believe in manditory drug testing in the workplace", and a punk with a mohawk saying "... as long as it doesn't affect your work performance." Sorry folks, but I know more yuppie types that would fail tests for drugs (including alcohol), than punks. I have the feeling that we are indeed being manipulated by major propoganda ploy. -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
maxg@tekig4.UUCP (Max Guernsey) (09/17/86)
In article <7222@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: >Now, there are some drugs that *deserve* to be outlawed, at least to sell. >I refer to the *very* adicting(sic) and debilitating ones such as Heroin etc. I disagree, all drugs should be available to anybody. Someone who gets involved with the *very* addicting and debilitating drugs soon becomes an ex-social problem and if we're lucky they won't add to the gene pool either. Max Guernsey maxg@tektronix.UUCP
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/17/86)
> In article <7222@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: > > ... What I find most disturbing of > >all is that (in California at least) the government is CONFISCATING land > >used to grow marijuana. That sounds awfully draconian to me. It reminds > >me of how the church used to expand its wealth during the Inquisition; by > >confiscating the property of heretics. > > The law authorizing the seizure of land used for drug cultivation has been > on the books for two years now but so far it has proved quite ineffective. > It seems to be going the way of other draconian laws adopted by hysterical > legislatures: juries in rural Northern California are refusing to convict, > given that a guilty verdict would sanction the taking of their neighbor's > land. (It's a Federal law, by the way.) > > ----- > Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gabor There's nothing terribly unusual about confiscating land used for drug cultivation -- in principle this is no different from confiscating boats, cars, and weapons used in drug trafficking. (These items have been subject to confiscation by the government for a very long time.) Aside from the separate issue of whether the government should be trying to prohibit drug trafficking, many of the property owners along the North Coast of California are absentee. As the law now stands, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove that he WASN'T growing marijuana to keep his land. Clayton E. Cramer
gnome@oliveb.UUCP (Gary) (09/18/86)
> Xref: hplabs net.followup:2153 talk.politics.misc:124 > >>> Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >>> staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >>> military spending? The amount of propaganda I've read ... > > Sorry folks, but I know more yuppie types that would fail > tests for drugs (including alcohol), than punks. I have the > feeling that we are indeed being manipulated by major > propoganda ploy. > Rob Vetter Not only is it a good way to ride the media wave into public office, the "war on drugs" may have a very high casualty count. I'll be there, dressed in black, when they bring home our civil rights in a body-bag. So far, what I have heard suggested is - 1) 'Relieving' the laws governing formerly "inadmissible" evidence. "You do NOT have the right to remain silent..." 2) Encouraging children to turn-in their parents for using drugs. "Hey, Johnny! You wanna really get back at your Dad? Take this baggie home, drop it in his dresser drawer, and call the cops! They won't mess with YOU again!" 3) Negating all disputes between employers who want to run drug tests and employees that don't. The Employer gets the nod. If you don't piss in the jar, in front of the Personnel Screening Supervisor, you can be fired. "I am NOT a number!! -- I'm a vial of piss!!" 4) Set up special prosecution branches at the state level for dealing with "this explosive problem". Kind of like looking for impartiality from the Meese Commission -- when you're Hugh Hefner. IE: If Johnny DOES "drop a baggie" on you, kiss your ass goodby! 5) Stop and search ALL passengers coming into the country from any suspicious country. Strip searches not excluded. For this, they want to use the army..."Be all that you can be -- Ok, mister, pull down yer pants!" Casper Weinberger thinks using the army would be a big mistake. Plus a whole lot more!!! Why is this election year filled with more stupidity than usual? It will never dawn on them that the reason why there is N billion dollars worth of drugs coming into the country is because there is N billion dollars worth of DEMAND in the country. So, instead of stopping the problem where it counts (with the people using drugs) by way of drug treatment programs, they are going to waste hundreds of millions of dollars searching sailboats off Florida and paying paranoid public officials to rewrite the laws that govern your life. Just like Prohabition, drugs will just get real expensive, "special" cops will bust-down lots of doors, and a lot of people will get thrown in prison or killed (you decide which is worse). I think they should have to apply the "drug killing death penalty" to all of the people that are involved in fatality drunk-driving accidents. If they are going to go after mind-altering drugs, why should they discriminate? "Boy! Writing-up this anti-drug attack plan is really tough -- let's break it off and go to O'Callahan's..." Gary HASA (repacking cans of worms a speciality) Heathen Division
falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (09/18/86)
> > Sorry folks, but I know more yuppie types that would fail > > tests for drugs (including alcohol), than punks. I have the > > feeling that we are indeed being manipulated by major > > propoganda ploy. > > Not only is it a good way to ride the media wave into public office, A friend of mine used to be a New York State lobbyist. She was working the summer they passed the bong law in NY. She said that the politicians had voted for it to keep their conservative constituancy happy. She was amazed at the hypocrisy of it all, since about a third of the legislature smoked dope themselves. > 2) Encouraging children to turn-in their parents for using drugs. > "Hey, Johnny! You wanna really get back at your Dad? Take > this baggie home, drop it in his dresser drawer, and call the > cops! They won't mess with YOU again!" This has been happening quite a lot lately. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems falk@sun.com sun!falk
scw@locus.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods) (09/18/86)
In article <937@tekig4.UUCP> maxg@tekig4.UUCP (Max Guernsey) writes: >In article <7222@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: >>Now, there are some drugs that *deserve* to be outlawed, at least to sell. >>I refer to the *very* adicting(sic) and debilitating ones such as Heroin etc. Actually Heroin is 'hardly' addicting at all, it was developed as a 'NONADDICTIVE' form of Morphine as an analgesic (which it is very good at, unfortunatly political considerations disallow its use even for terminal patients). Herion's major advantages over MS (Morphine Sulfate) are (1) Lower dose for a given level of pain killing, (2) Higher max dose, (3) Lower toxicity and (4) Lower addictiveness. Herion is said (I can't remember where but I believe it was in a Medical Journal) to be about as addictive as Nicotine (that is it's about the same to kick Heroin as Cigaretts). On the other hand there are drugs which are 'Addicting and debilitating' I refer specificly to the new 'designer' drugs, some research has shown that 'synthetic heroin' can produce the onset of Parkinson's in as few as 10 hits. >I disagree, all drugs should be available to anybody. Someone who gets >involved with the *very* addicting and debilitating drugs soon becomes >an ex-social problem and if we're lucky they won't add to the gene pool >either. "Consider it evolution in action." - Jerry Pournell. <scw> Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...!{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!scw ARPA:scw@locus.UCLA.EDU
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/23/86)
In article <273@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: >BTW, I believe the drug discussion merits its own talk group, as it >will become a major focus in the months and years ahead. I'd like it >not to get lost amid the other political, legal, social, and medical >topics. I agree. I hear that 3 *BILLION* $$ has now been pledged to this holy crusade against pushers dealers and smugglers. I am also concerned about efforts to censor sexual entertainment and music lyrics, but I'm not sure how big that effort will still be after the November elections. The "drug war" apparently is not going to just evaporate, with that kind of funding. And many of the subscribers to this network may soon be pressured into (or threatened with loss of job) "voluntary" participation in unreliable drug tests with little or no assurance of rational and humane response to the results (assuming the result is positive and is not false, is there a drug treatment program without a lengthy waiting period? Will the victim .. er, I mean convict .. be subjected to harrasment if not fired outright? And remember, some of these tests respond to Advil and other legal drugs). This could be you and me, not "them", not just army recruits and air traffic controllers and senators and doctors. Lots of companies will be tempted to use urinalysis, based on wishful- thinking about its accuracy. This is not just a hypothetical moral issue, this is a major threat of ruined lives and careers, a serious issue *even if the drug tests were infallible*. Further discussion is very appropriate. Some on drug testing (reliability, ethics if it *were* reliable, alternatives that check actual alertness, current legal and union challenges ... etc); some on legalization, some on drug war as smoke screen, some on identifying what representitives and senators lean for and against various measures, ... and more. What to call it? I suggest: 'talk.drugwar' (or dwar, for short?) (talk, or net??) I sort of like 'net.repression', but that is a bit *too* slanted toward my own perspective. Likewise 'witch-hunt', 'smokescreen','folly' (I think Prohibition was called "Willard's Folly" or some such?), etc. Please note that my followup line is to net.news.group; edit it if you wish to respond to drug topic rather than to group creation. - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: "Cocaine is God's way of telling you you've got too damn much money" (... I think by Robin Williams, in his act).