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
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@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