cok@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (10/27/87)
[Note: the line eater managed to get most of this article before it arrived at
my insignificant part of the country. No great loss; I get the general idea.]
At Puff, the Magic Eric writes:
>Families were chickening out of their problems
>and filing for divorce in record numbers. Unemployment and inflation were at
>record highs. And then Ronald Reagan, out great president, found the trouble
>maker--illicit drugs. Forigen nations were sending drugs to America so that
>they could get us fucked up on drugs and invade our country and overthrow our
>fine government. But with help from the US Army and the DEA, drugs were cleaneout of South American countries, and our nation was
I don't recall even Reagan making such a statement. You're saying Columbia and
Brazil are attempting invasion?
[Stuff deleted which is pretty much a restatement of Eric's usual opinions:
"Anyone who supports drug use is either a drug addict, a drug pusher, or
crazy." He suggests that anyone who would give their children a choice about
drug use is probably a drug addict. See the original article. Also, see
"The most disgusting story I've ever heard." This is a great example of Eric's
writing.]
>Eric Mading.
>University of Wisconsin-Madison Computer Science Department.
>
>Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of
>the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Thank the gods!
Eric's entire argument is based on the ideas that all illegal drugs are
harmful; all drug dealers are amoral bastards who'll knife you in the back
for a sawbuck; any law, no matter how stupid, ought to be obeyed; Nancy Reagan
is an authority on drugs, and knows what she's talking about.
I think I'll describe a typical government anti-drug law.
This is the law concerning mescaline. All my data about the drug and the law
come from the U. S. Department of Justice report on Mescaline. This should be
available in any large library with a collection of Department of Justice
documents. I can't remember the exact document number, but as of today, it is
the only USDJ document expressly concerning mescaline.
Remember when reading this that this document was published by a government
body engaged in a "War on Freedom--um, Drugs." The USDJ would have every
reason to lie about and overexaggerate the deleterious effects of the drug.
This is not Timothy Leary speaking, but the people who are trying to take
your rights away.
[Some chemical information.]
The chemical name of mescaline is: 3,4,5 trimethoxyphenethylamine. This is
a member of a chemical family called the tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids.
It is a phenethylanine derivative, and a close chemical relative of the
hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline.
This might make sense to a Chem major. All I know is that that is the general
chemical information concerning mescaline.
[Mortalities caused by mescaline.]
There is not a single known death caused directly by mescaline. No one has
fatally overdosed on mescaline. I don't want to understress the effects of
this horrid drug, so I'll admit that the booklet does say that it is "possible"
that a diabetic "could" die if he took a massive dose of mesc.
[Ill effects of mescaline.]
Mescaline causes absolutely no impairment of mental function after a trip.
During a trip, however, there is some impairment of higher mental function and
performance on intelligence tests. However, the booklet admits that the main
reason for this is that people on a trip generally laugh in amusement or
otherwise refuse to participate in intelligence tests.
[Good effects of mescaline.]
Users of mescaline are never alcoholics; in fact, the use of mescaline makes it
unenjoyable for the user to drink alcohol. It can be used with good effects
in the treatment of alcoholism (a legal drug which kills more than any other).
Also, it has been used in the treatment of asthma and heart disorders.
Very little information is available about this, though, since the experiments
are no longer occurring.
[Punishment for dealing mescaline.]
Let's see. First the government lists all it's ill effects: none. Then it
goes on to list medicinal properties: lots. Then we come to the clincher.
You can be fined $50,000 and/or sentenced to jail for a term not to exceed
five (5) years for dealing mescaline. I am not sure about the fine; however,
I'm sure about the punishment for dealing; I know someone a friend of whom was
sentenced to five years for dealing it.
Nice government we have, eh?
Now, for more information on how the "War on Freedom" is helping you.
Mescaline, as the government itself admits, is completely harmless.
However, due to its illegality and the high demand for it, pushers (not
dealers--there is a difference) often cut mescaline with PCP, LSD, STP,
dexedrine, and other nasty substances which are dangerous.
Often what is sold as "mescaline" actually contains no mescaline whatsoever.
All thanks to Ronnie and Nancy Raygun's "War on Drugs."
Note: I am not a drug user, I am not a drug pusher, and I'm quite definitely
not insane. I wouldn't say the same for you, though, Eric.
johnm@auscso.UUCP (10/30/87)
Why do you complain about drug laws? If you want to see why we have
them why don't you ride with the police in your city during a deep night
shift in a "bad" part of town. When you see the "dirtballs" who have anything
to do with drugs you will understand why we have laws against them.
Why do you need chemicals to have fun? Can't you just "get high" on being
alive.
--
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
\johnmjwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (10/30/87)
In article <591@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >Why do you complain about drug laws? If you want to see why we have >them why don't you ride with the police in your city during a deep night >shift in a "bad" part of town. When you see the "dirtballs" who have anything >to do with drugs you will understand why we have laws against them. You must have missed all the articles explaining how these "dirtballs" are being SUBSIDIZED by drug laws. Or maybe you just wouldn't like these "dirtballs" no matter what, and support drug laws as a method of keeping them off the streets. This is EXACTLY the attitude which resulted in marijuana and opium laws; in those days, the "dirtballs" were blacks, hispanics, and Asians who were perceived as the main users of the drugs being banned. >Why do you need chemicals to have fun? Can't you just "get high" on being >alive. Who says that drug users *need* chemicals to have fun? One doesn't *need* to eat filet mignon to survive, but it's nice now and then. The same goes for art, literature, sports...just about any non-survival-oriented activity you care to name. Yes, it's possible to "get high on being alive", and I have the utmost respect for people who choose to lead their lives that way. On the other hand, you can get a hell of a lot higher on drugs. :-) To quote Jerry Garcia: "How gray life would be without psychedelics!" -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
hpx@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (10/30/87)
>Why do you complain about drug laws? If you want to see why we have >them why don't you ride with the police in your city during a deep night >shift in a "bad" part of town. When you see the "dirtballs" who have anything >to do with drugs you will understand why we have laws against them. >Why do you need chemicals to have fun? Can't you just "get high" on being >alive. >-- >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 > \johnm I think we've found a rival for Eric Mading's sheer stupidity. If you had bothered to read my article at all instead of just looking at the title and deciding to flame at random, you would have seen that I clearly stated that I am not an illegal drug user. Illiteracy is your first crime. The "dirtballs" you mention would perhaps not be violent Mafia-controlled thugs making money from what the government SHOULD be making money from if it weren't for drug laws. Also, I very much think that many people in alt.drugs will be offended by the fact that you characterize them as "dirtballs." OK. Fellow "dirtballs:" let's fill this moron's emailbox with flames. Also, as the Department of Justice asserts, mescaline does not cause violence or physical damage or anything which would justify a law against it. Why don't people as opposed to other people as you are just crawl into a hole and die somewhere? Pardon me for being a bit blunt, but I'm damn sick of hearing this sort of stupidity babbled forth as manifest truth. The Extremely Irritated Mad Arab BITNET: cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp
mading@puff.UUCP (10/31/87)
In article <591@auscso.UUCP>, johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) writes: > Why do you complain about drug laws? If you want to see why we have > them why don't you ride with the police in your city during a deep night > shift in a "bad" part of town. When you see the "dirtballs" who have anything > to do with drugs you will understand why we have laws against them. > Why do you need chemicals to have fun? Can't you just "get high" on being > alive. Mr. Meaders is absolutely correct! It is just sad that some intelligent netterswho want drugs like LSD legalized so they can use the drug without fear of goingto jail have no real life. If they were to die right now, few would mourn theirdeath because they never lived. As for me, who gets high on life without most chemicals, I will be missed when I pass on to heaven. That is because I am LIVING. Those who use drugs are not living, they are just EXISTING. There are those out there who are pro-legalization but do not use drugs. My question to them is WHY? They give arguments about keeping the jails from becoming over- crowded, and that legalized drugs would solve the drug problem. But will it? They say themselves that alcohol, a legal drug, does more harm than illegal drugs, why isn't it illegal? Well, think for yourself--most problems with drugs come from legal drugs, and decriminalization would just add to the problem. The real answer is low-cost treatment, education, and better enforce- ment of our borders to keep drugs out. Eric Mading Disclaimer: I don't speak for my University.
mason@Pescadero.UUCP (10/31/87)
>drugs, why isn't it illegal? Well, think for yourself--most problems with >drugs come from legal drugs, and decriminalization would just add to the >problem. The real answer is low-cost treatment, education, and better enforce- >ment of our borders to keep drugs out. Maybe the problem isn't caused by the *drugs*. Maybe it is caused by the *society*. If that is the case, legalizing or banning drugs isn't going to make the problem worse - or make it go away. The *real* answer is to figure out why the society is ill - why its members are self destructive. If I know something is harmful and I do it anyway, doesn't that show there is something wrong with the world in which I live? It seems the argument Eric is making is that getting rid of the drugs will solve the problem. Others point out most people don't abuse the drugs. Everyone will agree some people do abuse drugs. What we need to do is stop treating the symptom and treat the problem. Because if we don't do it now, it may be too late later. Tony Mason Distributed Systems Group Stanford University mason@pescadero.stanford.edu
hpx@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (11/01/87)
In response to <12331 LABREA>:
I'll agree that it's certainly a societal problem that people take PCP and
"crack" and the more destructive of illegal drugs. However, my article
concerned mescaline, which is proven to cause virtually no damage whatsoever
and is safely and legally used by certain of the American Indian tribes.
It is certainly not "self-destructive" to wish to use a virtually harmless
substance.
I think that in the whole you are right, though. I'm just grumbling about
a relatively minor point in the argument, and one which stems from the fact
that you were not directly responding to my argument, but indirectly through
Eric Mading's article.
rickheit@hawk.ulowell.edu.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <1184@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: >Mr. Meaders is absolutely correct! It is just sad that some intelligent >netters who want drugs like LSD legalized so they can use the drug without >fear of going to jail have no real life. If they were to die right now, >few would mourn their death because they never lived. As for me, who gets >high on life without most chemicals, Out of sheer curiosity, what chemicals do you use? You insisisted on the qualification, but didn't clarify it. (Yes, this _is_ a serious question. The flaming comes later.) >I will be missed when I pass on to heaven. Heaven. Ah. I see. I won't start flaming here, because I do know some Xtians who are real humans. (Wait--that _was_ a flame, wasn't it..sorry about that) >That is because I am >LIVING. Those who use drugs are not living, they are just EXISTING. HOW DO YOU KNOW? I know all caps are trite, but the question deserves them. How do you know drugs are bad, and that people who use them are so foul? Have you used any of them? Have you ever dropped acid or mesc? Ever taken opium or eaten a hashish brownie? Ever even just sat around with friends and passed around a bowl? If you haven't, if you're just creating opinions with no information, you have no call to be calling names. Before you start throwing your feelings around in such a bloody self-important know-all tone, you should know what you're talking about. If you don't want to risk your own body with experimenting, find a friend, someone you can trust, who has used drugs, or does use them, and ask them. Talk to them. With an open mind (which means, start listening as though you don't know _anything_ about the subject. Don't let _any_ existing ideas color anything or cut of any other ideas). I was considering considering flaming some of your other well-publicized opinions, say, concerning homosexuality, but all I can do is to tell you the same thing. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you act like an authority. Maybe you'll learn something new. If you want, I can send you a good recipe for hashish brownies. Lots of chocolate (my personal favorite psychodrug), produce a better buzz than alcohol without the hangovers or the bad breath, and just generally promote a nice, relaxed attitude. Great for parties. (followups to alt-flame, please.) Hail Eris! a lesser Power of Darkness UUCP: ...!ulowell!hawk!rickheit : USnail --> Erich Rickheit,KSC May you have the knowledge of a sage and : AT&T: 85 Gershom Ave, #2 the wisdom of a child-Principia Discordia : 617-453-1753 Lowell, MA 01854
mojo@reed.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <591@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >Why do you complain about drug laws? If you want to see why we have >them why don't you ride with the police in your city during a deep night >shift in a "bad" part of town. When you see the "dirtballs" who have anything >to do with drugs you will understand why we have laws against them. >Why do you need chemicals to have fun? Can't you just "get high" on being >alive. Why don't you demand alcohol laws? If you want to see why we need them why don't you ride with the police in your city during a deep night shift on Skid Row. When you see the "dirtballs" lying against the walls drunk on Thunderbird you will understand why we need laws against alcohol. Essentially what you're saying, John, is: "A lot of the people involved with drugs are distasteful to me and many other people. Therefore drugs should be illegal." I hope it's clear how silly this is. >-- >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 > \johnm -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \A tautology is a thing \ Nathan Tenny / The opinions expressed/ /which is tautological. / ...tektronix!reed!mojo \ may not even be mine. \ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ FLAMES ANSWERED WITH NAPALM /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/