karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (02/07/88)
In article <181@soleil.UUCP> grina@soleil.UUCP (Pete Grina) writes: >In article <539@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >> >> Show me evidence that the >> *use of the drug itself* is dangerous. > >Karl, I hope you're joking. If you're not Joe King, then you're a twit. >C'mon man, even Nancy is against drugs :-) Nancy is against a lot of things.... and she is PRECISELY the problem. People who approach problems like this with dogma will never accomplish anything. People who think, and act in a way that produces the *most* good (note: you can never change something and have the outcome be "all good" -- someone always gets the short end) are helpful. Nancy does not do this, and neither does her Husband when it comes to drug issues. This is one of my biggest complaints with government in America today. >What would you do if your son and daughter started taking those *harmless* >drugs like heroin? "Gee dear, I sure hope that's a clean needle. BTW, has >anyone seen the TV or the VCR?" I bet you'd love it, as long as the needles >were clean, hmmmm? Bozo. FWOOOSH! Ok, buster, you asked for it. My *sister* is a 10-year HEROIN ADDICT. No shit, hose-head. She does the stuff nearly every day. And while the heroin has NOT killed her, the AIDS virus MIGHT. Is this *justice*? Does she *deserve* to die because her will is insufficient to overcome the addiction? (note: it takes WILL to get to the treatment clinic, and to stay off once you're treated -- which she does not have) Should becoming addicted to IV drugs be a death sentence? If she could walk into the neighborhood pharmacy and BUY THE NEEDLES (which incidentally cost pennies, not the hundreds she spends on the drugs!) the risk of contracting something which could easily kill her would be greatly reduced. If she could BUY THE HEROIN THERE TOO, the risk of her death from unclean needles would be ZERO, as would the risk from incorrectly cut drugs (ie: bad cut, or too-strong potency). Personally I think what she does is sick. However, since she *is* of age, and has made this decision herself, and does *not* have the mind to change her habit, it's something I have to deal with. IT IS HER CHOICE, NOT MINE (I made my choice differently that she did). THE RISK OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE, INCLUDING AIDS, IS NOT INEXORABLY LINKED WITH THE USE OF INTERVENOUS DRUGS. If society will not legalize the drugs, as I believe they should then at *least* give those who can not or will not stop using these substances a chance to avoid death. I won't even go into the facts of the matter w/regards to heroin. Just remember that for hundreds of years it was "normal" to be stoned on opiates; in fact, *many* OTC medications contained them and they could be purchased on request. Our current laws are a result of a reactionary attempt to discriminate against some ethnic groups many years ago. THESE LAWS CAUSE PEOPLE TO DIE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE PRODUCTIVE IN SOCIETY. See the point yet? Thhhhwp! ----- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl
grina@soleil.UUCP (Pete Grina) (02/09/88)
In article <693@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > In article <181@soleil.UUCP> grina@soleil.UUCP (Pete Grina) writes: > >In article <539@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >> Show me evidence that the > >> *use of the drug itself* is dangerous. > >Karl, I hope you're joking. If you're not Joe King, then you're a twit. > >C'mon man, even Nancy is against drugs :-) > Nancy is against a lot of things.... and she is PRECISELY the problem. > People who approach problems like this with dogma will never accomplish > anything. You must be joking again. Nancy Reagan is trying to help in her own stupid little way, but she is *not* the problem. If she were never born, would we still have drugs on the streets? My point was that drugs are dangerous and stupid. As usual, you missed the point. > >What would you do if your son and daughter started taking those *harmless* > >drugs like heroin? > >I bet you'd love it, as long as the needle > >were clean, hmmmm? Bozo. > Ok, buster, you asked for it. My *sister* is a 10-year HEROIN ADDICT. No > shit, hose-head. She does the stuff nearly every day. This is a horrible tragedy, and I truly feel sorry for her. > And while the heroin > has NOT killed her, the AIDS virus MIGHT. Is this *justice*? Does she > *deserve* to die because her will is insufficient to overcome the > addiction? (note: it takes WILL to get to the treatment clinic, and to stay > off once you're treated -- which she does not have) Should becoming > addicted to IV drugs be a death sentence? Of course not. It's a damn shame that things like heroin, cocaine, and AIDS exist. Even without the AIDS risk, drug users are risking their lives. If you can't believe this, just go out and buy a couple of grams of <insert favorite drug here> from a variety of dealers. Nice, honest people, huh? BTW, you'll also be supporting all their buddies, too. Is that dangerous? > Personally I think what she does is sick. However, since she *is* of age, > and has made this decision herself, and does *not* have the mind to change > her habit, it's something I have to deal with. I don't understand what you mean by "...she is of age." You said she was ten years old. > Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Pete, you're scum
sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) (02/10/88)
> > Of course not. It's a damn shame that things like heroin, cocaine, and > AIDS exist. Even without the AIDS risk, drug users are risking their > lives. If you can't believe this, just go out and buy a couple of grams > of <insert favorite drug here> from a variety of dealers. Nice, honest > people, huh? BTW, you'll also be supporting all their buddies, too. > Is that dangerous? > And What if I GROW MY OWN!!!!!!!???????????????? -- Jim Sims Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, MD 21218 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims SPAN: {SCIVAX,KEPLER}::SIMS ARPA: sims@stsci.edu
grina@soleil.UUCP (Pete Grina) (02/10/88)
In article <223@mithras>, sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes: > [Re: buying drugs is dangerous] > > And What if I GROW MY OWN!!!!!!!???????????????? > Good point, except we were not talking about just pot. Specifically, the drug we were referring to was heroin. You can grow your own drugs, but not without *some* risk. Pete, you're scum
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (02/11/88)
In article <187@soleil.UUCP> grina@soleil.UUCP (Pete Grina) writes: >In article <693@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >You must be joking again. Nancy Reagan is trying to help in her own >stupid little way, but she is *not* the problem. If she were never born, >would we still have drugs on the streets? My point was that drugs are >dangerous and stupid. As usual, you missed the point. No, you did. Your designation of an activity as 'stupid' does not give you the right to prevent me from undertaking that activity -- nor does it give you the right to pass laws which have the effect of making that activity *more* dangerous than it already is. Let's take an example. If I act in such a way that I recklessly, with knowing regard for the potential consequences, endanger others it's called reckless endangerment, and is a crime. When Nancy and company do it it's called a war on drugs and is 'ok'. The fact that THOUSANDS die from these short-sighted policies is not an issue (it should be!). >> Ok, buster, you asked for it. My *sister* is a 10-year HEROIN ADDICT. No >> shit, hose-head. She does the stuff nearly every day. > >This is a horrible tragedy, and I truly feel sorry for her. Yet you still support the fact that our government's laws might be instrumental in her eventual death? Just *how* sorry do you feel? Or are you another one of those who will say "well, she deserved what she got"? >> And while the heroin >> has NOT killed her, the AIDS virus MIGHT. Is this *justice*? Does she >> *deserve* to die because her will is insufficient to overcome the >> addiction? (note: it takes WILL to get to the treatment clinic, and to stay >> off once you're treated -- which she does not have) Should becoming >> addicted to IV drugs be a death sentence? > >Of course not. It's a damn shame that things like heroin, cocaine, and >AIDS exist. Even without the AIDS risk, drug users are risking their >lives. If you can't believe this, just go out and buy a couple of grams >of <insert favorite drug here> from a variety of dealers. Nice, honest >people, huh? BTW, you'll also be supporting all their buddies, too. >Is that dangerous? Sure... but note that she has *chosen* this path herself, and although I don't like it, I believe it is her right to do with her body as she wishes. My complaint is with those who feel that "just because doing <insert favorite 'smut' activity> is dangerous, and illegal, we can ignore the fact that our laws make it ever *more* dangerous. In fact, we can say that those who sicken and die deserved it because of the immorality of their actions". Oh, while I'm at it I'll point out that buying <insert your favorite illegal drug> wouldn't be dangerous, and we wouldn't be supporting "all those nasty people" if the drugs were *legal*. Take your above argument and can it; it's an artifact of our government's laws. In other words, it's a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why drugs should be legal. The government, in creating an environment where these scum sell drugs, have *recklessly endangered* those who need or want these substances. The government *knows* that these 'scum' would go broke in a day if drugs were legal, and the crime associated with same would *disappear*. Oh my, that 'reckless endangerment' now extends to all of us walking around at a higher risk of mugging/rape/etc. due to drug-crazed people who need $100 per day (50 X what is should require) to support their habits! Do you realize that an addict could *panhandle* for their drug money if the stuff was legal, instead of stealing thousands of dollars in property a week? >> Personally I think what she does is sick. However, since she *is* of age, >> and has made this decision herself, and does *not* have the mind to change >> her habit, it's something I have to deal with. > >I don't understand what you mean by "...she is of age." You said she was >ten years old. Read above. She's been an addict for 10 years; currently she is 25. If you'd taken the time to READ the article, instead of just flaming away, you might have gained some insight as to why I don't feel that the government is justified in it's position wrt. drugs. Then again, reading is not one of the hallmarks of those who post to alt.flame. It appears that I'm one of the few who bothers to take more than 10 seconds to identify the subject (and content) of an article before blasting away. 'Tis a pity. If you want to take this up via email, feel free. I have redirected followups to the trash, as this is quickly degenerating into a circular discussion. ---- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 ihnp4!ddsw1!karl
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/12/88)
In article <192@soleil.UUCP> grina@soleil.UUCP (Pete Grina) writes: >In article <223@mithras>, sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes: >> >> And What if I GROW MY OWN!!!!!!!???????????????? >> > >Good point, except we were not talking about just pot. Specifically, the >drug we were referring to was heroin. > What if he meant poppies, nit ? -- "He tried to do his best, but he could not" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard