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