johnm@auscso.UUCP (11/03/87)
I agree with Shawn. Even if I was for legalization, I don't think it can
be done. The organized elements that deal the stuff are just too powerful.
I haven't read "Underground Empire" yet, but it is in line on my bookshelf
to be read. Don't ask me what to do about those elements that we aren't
already trying, because I don't have the answer to that. So now, we have
to go on the reality that the stuff isn't going to be legalized. Which
leads back to a previous post of mine, that we have to hit the dealers at
the pocketbook. Which is, nail the user. Help him quit (assuming he is
addicted) or make him see what the stuff can do to him (prison time,
working with addicts, etc.). Regardless of what some of you think, drug
use (illegal) is a MAJOR problem facing our society. The dealers corrupt
government officials all over the world, kill people, etc. The problem
isn't laws against drugs (even if it is, that is a moot point now) it is
the organized elements who deal it. For those of you who think that the
killing is brought on by narcotics agents, I say bulls**t. You have
hardcore Colombian dealers who would rather shoot someone than break their
leg. My hat is off to those agents who risk their lives (and their families
lives because drug dealers love to go for the family) every day to try
to stem the tide of illicit drugs into this country. So instead of blaming
them for everything, how about supporting them. Who knows they might save
your life someday.
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john
\johnmtedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (11/05/87)
->I agree with Shawn. Even if I was for legalization, I don't think it can ->be done. The organized elements that deal the stuff are just too powerful. ->I haven't read "Underground Empire" yet, but it is in line on my bookshelf ->to be read. There is one good argument for keeping drugs illegal. Evidently drug sales have been supporting the Contras, and the underground right-wing shadow organization that developed after Carter kicked a lot of operations people out of the CIA.
mading@puff.UUCP (11/07/87)
In article <21617@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: > > There is one good argument for keeping drugs illegal. Evidently drug > sales have been supporting the Contras, and the underground right-wing > shadow organization that developed after Carter kicked a lot of > operations people out of the CIA. I have read quite a lot about the Contra-coke connection, and I believe that that was invented by those who want drugs legalized to confuse the opposition and divide them so they can go in and conquer. I believe that perhaps the Contras themselves have been selling drugs to support them- selves, and the left-wing media is inventing a link to the CIA to dis- credit Reagan's efforts to eliminate drugs from America. I first saw this story in January in our Universtiy's commie rag. At first I thought this was true, but it seems that has been the only place I saw it until the Iran-Contra hearings last summer. Eric Mading.
robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (11/08/87)
In article <1230@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: > >I have read quite a lot about the Contra-coke connection, and I believe >that that was invented by those who want drugs legalized to confuse the >opposition and divide them so they can go in and conquer. I believe that >perhaps the Contras themselves have been selling drugs to support them- >selves, and the left-wing media is inventing a link to the CIA to dis- >credit Reagan's efforts to eliminate drugs from America. I first saw >this story in January in our Universtiy's commie rag. At first I thought >this was true, but it seems that has been the only place I saw it until >the Iran-Contra hearings last summer. > >Eric Mading. Now, I don't like have any particular affection for communists, but I don't like mindless, head-in-the-sand, my-country-right-or-wrong, gee-isn't- Reagan-a-neat-guy, reactionary, religious zealots like yourself, either. I suggest you take a look into the Christic Institute (you know, that infamous front for the world communist conspiracy--hell, they even have the nerve to sue that bastion of Americana, the KKK!) suit against the "secret team." They have well documented evidence that good ol' boys in The Company have been selling drugs to AMERICANS since before the Bay of Pigs in order to finance their politically unpopular escapades around the globe. They've sold Mexican pot, Columbian coke, Turkish hash, Laotian heroin, Afghani opium, and whatever else was handy. Go ahead, Eric, be a man. Do some reading. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) (11/08/87)
In article <1230@puff.wisc.edu>, mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: >I have read quite a lot about the Contra-coke connection, and I believe >that that was invented by those who want drugs legalized to confuse the >opposition and divide them so they can go in and conquer. I believe that >perhaps the Contras themselves have been selling drugs to support them- >selves, and the left-wing media is inventing a link to the CIA to dis- >credit Reagan's efforts to eliminate drugs from America. I first saw >this story in January in our Universtiy's commie rag. At first I thought >this was true, but it seems that has been the only place I saw it until >the Iran-Contra hearings last summer. Eric, you seem to "believe" quite a lot! The allegations have been around quite a long time. The "discrediting" aspect is particularly interesting. Reagan accused the Sandinists of coke-dealing a few years ago in a news conference. The chief of the DEA contradicted his Commander in Chief before the day was out, saying there was no evidence of such activity. Several peace activists in Costa Rica were mailed packages of cocaine recently, evidently in an attempt to get them locked up. The suspected source of the mailings was the Contra political wing. Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC) BRING BASEBALL BACK TO WASHINGTON!
hilda@kaos.UUCP (11/08/87)
In article <1230@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: > >I have read quite a lot about the Contra-coke connection, and I believe >that that was invented by those who want drugs legalized to confuse the >opposition and divide them so they can go in and conquer. I believe that >perhaps the Contras themselves have been selling drugs to support them- >selves, and the left-wing media is inventing a link to the CIA to dis- >credit Reagan's efforts to eliminate drugs from America. I first saw Poor od Prez! To tell the truth, I think that the conclusive proof of this theory proves (or would prove - this is a sad capitulation, but I can't name and number my sources) not that drugs should be legalized, but that running a war behind the back of Congress isn't worth it. -Hilda
ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) (11/09/87)
In article <21617@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >There is one good argument for keeping drugs illegal. Evidently drug >sales have been supporting the Contras, and the underground right-wing >shadow organization that developed after Carter kicked a lot of >operations people out of the CIA. Hmmm, since we are into story telling here goes: There are those left wing radical splinter groups who have been working for various undercover commie agencies with the goal of making drugs legal which will hopefully have the desired result of destroying the youth of this country which in turn will make for an easy takeover of this nation and preserve all the material goodies in tact for the victors. ray
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (11/10/87)
In article <4050@sol.ARPA> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: >Hmmm, since we are into story telling here goes: >There are those left wing radical splinter groups who have been working for >various undercover commie agencies with the goal of making drugs legal which >will hopefully have the desired result of destroying the youth of this >country which in turn will make for an easy takeover of this nation and >preserve all the material goodies in tact for the victors. Jeez, this is great. We get to watch the creation of a whole comic book right before our eyes! Why not get real, Ray? If you're going to spin tall tales, that's probably fine, but if you're going to expect us to accept them as fact, you'd better do a little substantiation. And Reader's Digest doesn't count as an "authoritative source", sorry. -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) (11/13/87)
In article <316@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > >Why not get real, Ray? If you're going to spin tall tales, that's probably >fine, but if you're going to expect us to accept them as fact, you'd better >do a little substantiation. And Reader's Digest doesn't count as an >"authoritative source", sorry. >---------------- >Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Hey, what's the probnem. If the left-wingers can have fun spinning tall tales of conspiracy why can't the right-wingers? And since the left-wingers are having so much fun with their conspiracy tales about how the CIA and most right-wingers secretly keep the drug traffic flourishing, and substantiation would be too much trouble for them and not nearly as much fun, I felt I shouldn't have to substantiate my tales either. ray
HPX@PSUVMA.BITNET (The Mad Arab) (11/14/87)
[Doubly quoted stuff from Michael Farren I'm not quarreling with deleted.]
>Hey, what's the probnem. If the left-wingers can have fun spinning tall tales
>of conspiracy why can't the right-wingers? And since the left-wingers are
>having so much fun with their conspiracy tales about how the CIA and most
>right-wingers secretly keep the drug traffic flourishing, and substantiation
>would be too much trouble for them and not nearly as much fun, I felt I
>shouldn't have to substantiate my tales either.
>ray
What?
I'll assume that you mean by that that you intend to spout completely
unsubstantiated rubbish, and don't care that you provide no substantiation?
I personally at least make attempts to make sure that my statements are
supported by sources. My articles draw from DoJ documents, books, and other
sources. I put some effort into my articles.
I resent that you disagree with me and admit that you have absolutely no
grounds for disagreeing but are merely spinning tall tales. I'll remember
this when reading your articles in the future. You've thrown all credibility
to the wind.
I'm not saying you had much to begin with, though.
-------
cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu ". . .I'm all for law and order. I only
cok%psuvma@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet wish they worked better." Gahan Wilson
cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp
[and various and sundry other The Mad Arab posting from HPX
foul things]
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (11/15/87)
In article <4191@sol.ARPA> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: > >Hey, what's the probnem. If the left-wingers can have fun spinning tall tales >of conspiracy why can't the right-wingers? And since the left-wingers are >having so much fun with their conspiracy tales about how the CIA and most >right-wingers secretly keep the drug traffic flourishing, and substantiation >would be too much trouble for them and not nearly as much fun, I felt I >shouldn't have to substantiate my tales either. The difference, Ray, is that I *can* substantiate my statements, if I care to take the time, effort, and net bandwidth to do so. Can you? I haven't seen you even *claim* to be able to, so far... -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) (11/18/87)
In article <4191@sol.ARPA> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: >And since the left-wingers are >having so much fun with their conspiracy tales about how the CIA and most >right-wingers secretly keep the drug traffic flourishing, and substantiation >would be too much trouble for them and not nearly as much fun, I felt I >shouldn't have to substantiate my tales either. If you wish to aquaint yourself with the facts about CIA's role in drug smuggling, I suggest you look at Christics (sp?) Institute lawsuit against the US Gov't, or at the questioning of the current director of CIA (forget his name) in regards to his interaction with Ollie North while at the helm of FBI (both Iran-Contra and confirmation hearings are of interest). The CIA's use of South American drug king-pins as their "contacts" is nothing new. If you recall, CIA owned the air carrier comany where Hussenfuss was working (and whos plain he was flying when he got shot down over Nicaragua); and, if you remember, that same company has been implicated in flying in massive amounts of drugs from South America and having CIA and Ollie North protect them from prosecution (the latter episode floated up in Iran-Contra hearings). No substance, eh? Sometimes it helps to have more diverse (and honest) sources of information than Network TV News and front pages of Times/Mirror rags, Ray. -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
HPX@PSUVMA.BITNET (The Mad Arab) (11/18/87)
In article <4272@sol.ARPA> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) rants: In article <25088HPX@PSUVMA> HPX@PSUVMA.BITNET (The Mad Arab) writes: <[Doubly quoted stuff from Michael Farren I'm not quarreling with deleted.] < <>Hey, what's the probnem. If the left-wingers can have fun spinning tall tales <>of conspiracy why can't the right-wingers? And since the left-wingers are <>having so much fun with their conspiracy tales about how the CIA and most <>right-wingers secretly keep the drug traffic flourishing, and substantiation <>would be too much trouble for them and not nearly as much fun, I felt I <>shouldn't have to substantiate my tales either. < < <>ray < <What? < HUH! <I'll assume that you mean by that that you intend to spout completely <unsubstantiated rubbish, and don't care that you provide no substantiation? <I personally at least make attempts to make sure that my statements are <supported by sources. My articles draw from DoJ documents, books, and other <sources. I put some effort into my articles. < >I've not seen one tiny bit of proof that the right wingers of this >country support the drug traffic as some left wingers have claimed. >Circumstantial evidence is not proof and would get thrown out of any court. >But YET you lefties claim these lies are true. So much for your sources and >your source's sources and your source's source's sources. You seem to have lost touch with reality. Completely. You assume that everyone who posts disagreeing with you proposes that a right-wing conspiracy exists. I have never said any such thing. My reference was a DoJ document entitled "Mescaline." (DoJ, if you have managed to live in the United States for any length of time, and have even the vaguest, most foggy knowledge about the government, stands for "Department of Justice.") This article admits that an illegal drug, mescaline, is completely harmless, and even has medicinal properties. The penalty for its possession can be five years in prison. Lest you think I am just making this up, I'll give you its Library of Congress call number. Then you can go to the library and check it out (if you actually want to have your beliefs challenged). Here it is: COK at PSUVMA (The Mad Arab ) (that's me) writes: [Some flames of Eric Mading deleted; I think they're pretty good myself.] >When you get to the library, look up this document: > >Mescaline (US Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Los Angeles >Division, 1986). This document is Library of Congress Call Number: >Doc Us J 24.2:M 56/3. It is 11 pages long, and 28 cm in length. It is >probably in a binding along with a set of similar documents, so you will >probably have to check out the entire mess, or read the one little document >in the library itself. End of me quoting myself. [Stuff from me I'm not disputing deleted.] "You lefties." I like that one. Would you believe I'm a registered Republican? ------- cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu ". . .I'm all for law and order. I only cok%psuvma@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet wish they worked better." Gahan Wilson cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp [and various and sundry other The Mad Arab posting from HPX foul things]
ray@rochester.UUCP (11/19/87)
In article <345@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: <In article <4191@sol.ARPA> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: <> <>Hey, what's the probnem. If the left-wingers can have fun spinning tall tales <>of conspiracy why can't the right-wingers? And since the left-wingers are <>having so much fun with their conspiracy tales about how the CIA and most <>right-wingers secretly keep the drug traffic flourishing, and substantiation <>would be too much trouble for them and not nearly as much fun, I felt I <>shouldn't have to substantiate my tales either. < <The difference, Ray, is that I *can* substantiate my statements, if I <care to take the time, effort, and net bandwidth to do so. Can you? <I haven't seen you even *claim* to be able to, so far... <Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness True, maybe you can provide concrete evidence. And then again, maybe you can't. But if you want anyone to believe far flung stories, you'd better take the time to substantiate such stories otherwise people will consider them as nothing more than fairy tales and political sour grapes. Remember, anyone can say they could prove anything if they wanted to and had the time to. I'd suggest you find the time. As far as my story goes, I wrote it as a fairy tale and cannot prove any of it. ray
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (11/23/87)
In article <4371@sol.ARPA> ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes: >True, maybe you can provide concrete evidence. And then again, maybe you >can't. But if you want anyone to believe far flung stories, you'd better >take the time to substantiate such stories otherwise people will consider >them as nothing more than fairy tales and political sour grapes. >Remember, anyone can say they could prove anything if they wanted to and had >the time to. >I'd suggest you find the time. >As far as my story goes, I wrote it as a fairy tale and cannot prove any of >it. So what you are saying is that I have to substantiate my statements, but yours are lies, so you don't? Sorry, folks, I don't think I want to deal with a madman. From this point, ray frank is on my KILL list. If you want substantiation of any points I make from now on, please feel free to e-mail me. If your name isn't frank, you'll get a reply. -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"