COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark to the masses) (12/06/87)
For several months, I've been posting and reposting an article concerning
mescaline: a drug even the DoJ admits is harmless. There are NO known cases
of it harming ANYONE, period. Despite this, people have continued arguing
against legalization of drugs and such. Not a single person EVER responded
to my argument on this ground. Is this because giving ground on ONE
illegal drug and admitting that perhaps the government isn't always right
would undermine all your arguments against legalization? I've not seen a
single response to my article which actually dealt with mescaline. The
first response it got was John Meaders' flame stating that I am a "dirtball,"
I condone "dirtballs," and that anyone who uses drugs is a "dirtball."
If the government is completely wrong in illegalizing a drug, and
continues to enforce this drug's illegality, and admits it is wrong, then where
do you anti-legalization people stand?
If this is not a convincing argument for at least the legalization of some
illegal drugs, what is?
If it IS a convincing argument, and you continue arguing against legalization,
the only thing you are is clever villains engaging in sophistry of epic
proportions.
I await 'responses,' but don't expect them. I doubt any of you have the
courage to face the truth.
[Note: Placing words in all caps {CAPS} is a very clumsy attempt at
italicization. I do not intend words in all caps to be interpreted
as all caps words. All caps in ordinary writing is trite and overstated,
but it is the nearest thing to italicization I have on this keyboard.]
-------
cok%psuvma@psuvax1.bitnet "I'd love to, m'lad, but this fine Havana
cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp magic wand is a bit too short to grant
cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu wishes with." Jackeen J. O'Malley
hilda@kaos.UUCP (Hilda Marshall) (12/06/87)
In article <26903COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark to the masses) writes: >For several months, I've been posting and reposting an article concerning >mescaline: a drug even the DoJ admits is harmless. There are NO known cases >of it harming ANYONE, period. Despite this, people have continued arguing >against legalization of drugs and such. Not a single person EVER responded >to my argument on this ground. Is this because giving ground on ONE >illegal drug and admitting that perhaps the government isn't always right >would undermine all your arguments against legalization? and, later, >If it IS a convincing argument, and you continue arguing against legalization, >the only thing you are is clever villains engaging in sophistry of epic >proportions. Well, I'm not an "anti-legalization dude", but I'll have my say here. Firstly, the government's strategy in whipping up anti-recreational-drug hysteria is dependent upon suppressing or downplaying facts such as the one you cite. LACK OF INFORMATION (which is much worse than lack of workable italics!:-)) is the fastest and most reliable method of cooking up a boogeyman, second even to the mysterious conjuring of stuff like "Marijuana use has been proven to lead to heroin use". For a thing to inspire irrational terror, it must LURK, not parade down the street with printouts flying. When the boogeyman's name is "drugs", it's not too hard for the average American to remember or spell (despite all the "durgs" that have been turning up in net.news). It's a hell of a lot easier to exclude the commercially profitable ones from the category entirely (e. g. alcohol) than to try to explain that some of this monster's scales, when properly prepared and used, can weaken potentially harmful barriers and provide hours of exciting fun for young and old. And if legalization is as slippery a slope as the anti-legalization folks seem to think it is, what would widespread legalization do to the profit margin of a trade currently consisting largely of hazardous-duty pay? Why, they'll be clamoring for even MORE taxes! Another fine mess that bumbling bigmouth Ollie got us into. So these villains are not indulging in sophistry. They are simply applying the principles of mass psychology and economics. -Hilda
berryh@udel.EDU (John Berryhill) (12/10/87)
The UofD is one of Uncle Sam's official document repositories, but the way they have things set up here, it is tough to find something unless you already know exactly what you want. Is the Mescaline document that you refer to a NIDA, NIH, HEW (before the split), or what? If you have the exact reference (like DoJ K-8374-mumble-8347) I'd really appreciate reading it. I have been reading alt.drugs on and off, so forgive me if you posted it already. I was able to find a NIDA document on Psilocybin that sounded much the same. However, whenever they report on a drug that isn't really all that bad, they throw in a standard bullshit section that says something like, "it MIGHT cause birth defects, genetic damage, hairy palms, etc." Of course, studies on these effects haven't been done, but they thought they'd throw it in anyway because they didn't have anything else bad to say. Anyway, I'd like a copy of a US doc. that actually doesn't have something bad to say about a particular illegal drug. Thanks in advance, # | John Berryhill berryh@udel.huey.edu | 96 E. Main Dept. of Electrical Eng. | Newark, DE 19711 Newark, DE 19716 | (302)453-1261 (302)451-8091