johnm@auscso.UUCP (11/02/87)
Keywords:
I will continue to call illegal drug users dirtballs, because they are.
What do I know of the situation? First I admit to the occasional drink of
alcohol. While on active duty in the Army I had occasion to witness what
drugs did to the performance of friends and other individuals. They no
longer car about doing their jobs, they came to work late, they went
AWOL, etc. Drugs weren't the sole cause of this by any means, but they
were a substanial reason. What was the most prevalent drug used? Pot.
Yep, that drug most of you think is so harmless, was a cause of this. As
was Alcohol (more so admittedly than Pot), LSD, Coke, etc. The fact is
Alcohol is legal. The others aren't. I'm not for legalization either because
that is a cop out. Why do you need a chemical to alter your "perceptions."
Did you ever try running, the brain is very effective at releasing internal
chemicals that will make you high.
Why the term dirtballs? One night I was riding with my friend (who is a
Dallas Police Officer) when we got a burglary in progcall. When we
arrived it turned out that the lady who resided at the origination of the
call had been out of town. When she got home her door was open. Unfortunately
she went in before getting help, but fortunately the perpetrators were long
gone. Nothing was taken that could be determined. The sickening reality
was that the slime who broke in had used her place as a shooting gallery.
For those who don't know, a shooting gallery is a place where degenerates
go to shoot Methamphetamines into their veins (also known as Crank).
There was little spatters of blood all over the place. What kind of sickos
would do this? You got it, illegal drug users! Drunk drivers are no better,
they are also included in my broad generalization. This only deals with
the abusers. What about casual use? Like I said Alcohol is legal.
Since the others aren't, I certainly don't condone their use. I also don't
condone legalization, since this is a cop out to the problem. These are
immature people who can't deal with life, so they hide out by using chemicals.
This wouldn't be a problem if they were only destroying their lives. But
they aren't, there are family members afffected, and innocent bystanders
(eg victims of drunk drivers, victims of burglars supporting a habit).
What do you suggest? Legalization? Ok, who is going to support the users?
We are! How? Either as victims of crime or through our tax dollars.
Regardless of what you think, welfare doesn't work the way it was meant to.
And I'll be damned if I am going to support a bunch of junkies through my
tax dollars. Personally, I think society is the problem (as has been pointed
out). No, I have no answers on how to fix society, but legalizing these
drugs isn't the answer.
--
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
\johnmedw@IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <602@auscso.UUCP>, johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) writes: > > I will continue to call illegal drug users dirtballs, because they are. All drugs users are low lifes huh??? If the net is any indication of the drugs use among the population, some of those "dirtballs" are professionals. Are you accusing them of also committing these horrid acts against others. I really can't buy the implication that ALL drugs users are EVIL people, I can't even buy MOST drug users are EVIL. if a then b does not imply if b then a. Heres an example of how your logic works. Jim Jones was a preacher. Jim Jones was evil. Hence all peachers are evil. Do you buy that. I hope not, but that is your line of reasoning about drugs users. Let me apply this line of reasoning to you. Alcohol users cause unnessary (through auto accidents). Mr. Meaders is an alcohol user. Hence Mr. Meaders cause unnecessay deaths. Do you see how ridiculous this is. Then maybe you can see why I think your statements are so out of line will reality. Second, how do you think illegalizing drugs has help or will help the situations that you discribed? -- Eddie Wyatt e-mail: edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu
mading@puff.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <602@auscso.UUCP>, johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) writes: > > I will continue to call illegal drug users dirtballs, because they are. > What do I know of the situation? First I admit to the occasional drink of > alcohol. While on active duty in the Army I had occasion to witness what > drugs did to the performance of friends and other individuals. They no > longer car about doing their jobs, they came to work late, they went > AWOL, etc. Drugs weren't the sole cause of this by any means, but they > were a substanial reason. What was the most prevalent drug used? Pot. > Yep, that drug most of you think is so harmless, was a cause of this. As > was Alcohol (more so admittedly than Pot), LSD, Coke, etc. The fact is > Alcohol is legal. The others aren't. I'm not for legalization either because > that is a cop out. Why do you need a chemical to alter your "perceptions." > Did you ever try running, the brain is very effective at releasing internal > chemicals that will make you high. > I admit to an occasional beer now and then, but I do not use any other drugs, except caffiene in soda and chocolate (which I don't have much of) and drugs prescribed by a doctor. I also use running to get high. What I really enjoy is running and listening to my walkman at the same time. Of course, I make sure to run only in residential areas and in parks;not on the sidewalks of busy streets while wearing my walkman. > > Why the term dirtballs? One night I was riding with my friend (who is a > Dallas Police Officer) when we got a burglary in progcall. When we [text deleted] > gone. Nothing was taken that could be determined. The sickening reality > was that the slime who broke in had used her place as a shooting gallery. > For those who don't know, a shooting gallery is a place where degenerates > go to shoot Methamphetamines into their veins (also known as Crank). > There was little spatters of blood all over the place. What kind of sickos > would do this? You got it, illegal drug users! Drunk drivers are no better, > they are also included in my broad generalization. This only deals with > the abusers. What about casual use? Like I said Alcohol is legal. > Since the others aren't, I certainly don't condone their use. I also don't > condone legalization, since this is a cop out to the problem. These are > immature people who can't deal with life, so they hide out by using chemicals. > This wouldn't be a problem if they were only destroying their lives. But > they aren't, there are family members afffected, and innocent bystanders > (eg victims of drunk drivers, victims of burglars supporting a habit). > Agreed. Last night I saw an accident just outside the apartment building where I live. Three people were injured in a truck going through an intersection witha flashing yellow light in his direction. A guy in a Ford Bronco ran a flashingred light and was hit by the truck. The driver of the Bronco was quite drunk; his car suffered little danage. The pickup truck was quite damaged, and the three injured were in the pickup truck. When the ambulance arrived, one guy wasnot moving; the paramedics put a white sheet over him. I think anyone who killssomeone while driving drunk whould get the death penalty. > > What do you suggest? Legalization? Ok, who is going to support the users? > We are! How? Either as victims of crime or through our tax dollars. > Regardless of what you think, welfare doesn't work the way it was meant to. > And I'll be damned if I am going to support a bunch of junkies through my > tax dollars. Personally, I think society is the problem (as has been pointed > out). No, I have no answers on how to fix society, but legalizing these > drugs isn't the answer. > Absolutely correct! One possible way to fix society is to encourage children toidolize the good sports stars who do not use drugs. Major league sports should test all athletes for drugs before they begin their first professional game in the sport and afterwards, test only for cause. Any positive test should result in banishment from professional sports, with an appeal process for those ath- letes who believe they are drug-free. The same goes for television stars. Any actor who tests positive for drugs should be kicked out of the actor's union. If he is on a major tv show and is fired for drug use, let his character die of a drug overdose. This would give young people the message--DRUGS KILL. And thesame goes for movie stars. Also, no tv show should be allowed to show drug use unless there is a warning before the show. Schools should take care to inform parents what tv shows will show questionable material (drug use, profanity, sex,crime, and immoral themes). I also believe in allowing anything to be broadcaston tv, but only if a warning is given before the program, on tv, in the ads, andin a letter to parents. I also believe that a health class should be mandantoryfor all school children, which should teach about what is wrong with drinking, smoking, teen sex, and drug use. I would like to see every movie that depicts drug use positively given an X or A rating (A for adults only). As for welfare, I would like to see a complete reform in the welfare system. I know this is straying from alt.drugs, but I just need to say this. I believe that those on welfare should be required to work for their benifits, welfare recipients without a high school diploma should be required to get one, and children whose parents are on welfare should be required to stay in school to get their share of welfare benifits for the month. You say, "The kid could manipulate his mother to get his way by threatening to skip school." I say to that: "If he skips school, let him starve for a month. If a mother is not getting enough welfare because of one brat who likes to play hooky, don't make his siblings suffer. Give them enough to eat, but let him starve. If he doesn't want to go to school, he can work for his food." And welfare recipientsshould not be allowed to purchase lottery tickets, alcohol, tobacco, or spend their welfare money on horse or dog races, sporting evnets, or any other non- necessitys. The best way to control this is to require all welfare recipients to make their purchases with a automated teller machine card. Some of these welfare reforms have already been implemented in Wisconsin. Eric Mading UW-Madison CS Dept. Disclaimer: My views are independent of the University's.
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <602@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >I will continue to call illegal drug users dirtballs, because they are. >What do I know of the situation? First I admit to the occasional drink of >alcohol. While on active duty in the Army I had occasion to witness what >drugs did to the performance of friends and other individuals. They no >longer car about doing their jobs, they came to work late, they went >AWOL, etc. Drugs weren't the sole cause of this by any means, but they >were a substanial reason. What was the most prevalent drug used? Pot. >Yep, that drug most of you think is so harmless, was a cause of this. As >was Alcohol (more so admittedly than Pot), LSD, Coke, etc. The fact is >Alcohol is legal. The others aren't. I'm not for legalization either because >that is a cop out. Why do you need a chemical to alter your "perceptions." >Did you ever try running, the brain is very effective at releasing internal >chemicals that will make you high. After this reference to drugs and the Army, let me add some experience from what I've heard from my father (who was in). He was in the administrative position to determine whether someone was fit to get booted out of the service because of various infractions against the laws of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Anyway, if it were only use of substance, then my father would try his damndest to get the guy to ``play by the rules'' and try to keep him in the Army (which the guy wanted to do, anyway, it was a fight against super-conservatives). However, whenever someone was dealing, he'd do his damndest to boot the guy out of the Army. The reason, right or wrong, for his actions was that it was against the rules of the Army. People know that they give up most of their rights when they join the service (or they should be smart enough to realize that). Living in Belgium, a lot of my friends would go up to Denmark (where Hashish is legal) and do their thing. Notice that there was no problem with this (except with their parents, which is another story). The Danish society is much more receptive to the use of hashish. The American society, having hash and all cannibus related items illegial, tend to encourage the idea that using drugs aligns you with the ``counter-culture.'' The Army more strongly so. Denmark, not having this, tends to have more ``respectable'' people doing drugs. Anyway, my point is that maybe if drugs weren't illegial, some people using them wouldn't feel so aligned with the ``criminals'' of society. It is my personal experience with some of my friends, that they do change when they start doing drugs. Not because of the effects of the drugs, but rather of the views that society holds against them. I'm don't currently do drugs (probably because of the stigma that is associated with them (but I'm mature enough to admit that)) but I don't call the people dirtbags or anything. Doing that tends to alienate them from the ``rest'' of society and tends to increase everybodies problems. Who knows, if drugs were legal, maybe there would be less problems with our current society? I don't know the answers and anyone who says that 100% positive either way are crocked. Maybe it is worth a shot... -MikeP
shawn@laidbak.UUCP (11/02/87)
I think there is another issue here that is not being addressed with respect to drug legalisation, it's a very major point I might add. Morality aside, lets spend a few minutes on big money, how much money are some people making on the SALE, SMUGGLING, DISTRIBUTION, SAFEGUARDING, and the like of *illegal* drugs? Ever seen someone set up and armed meet for people to buy a pack of cigs? If we look at this topic from the side of the user, be them habitual, addicted, or just weak (meak?), we fill our minds and statictics with auto accidents, people hit by cars, as an EMT I'v actully seen some of what drugs can do up close, but both sides have points that I think need to be considered. I think drugs might just have a place in our society, in todays world people are on the go 18+ hours a day, (most of us anyway), what sleep some of us get is little, and not always good. Sometimes maybe even restful. But there is a fine line between use, and abuse, and I wouldnt mind seeing some consideration of what a valid 'use' might be, as well as where to draw the line of abuse. Do you use asprin? That's a drug. Do you use soft drinks to stay awake? Guess what, caffiene is also a drug. The list goes on of what drugs we use in our daily lives and don't even think about. Ever read the warnings on the back of some of the things you take, and then go operate a motor vehicle? Or perhaps just a kinfe, or chainsaw, or whatever other tools you have that might need your sense of good judgment? Guess what, many of our common meds have very real warnings on the back the same as alcahol doesn't. I'll grant you, things are out of hand at the moment in the world when it comes to drug use, but that does not mean it has to stay that way forever, through public education, government regulation/taxation, and responsable usage, I think SOME drugs have clear uses. Why won't think ever happen? Well, it's not as moral as you may think, if it were not for the fact alcahol was legal to begin with, and everyone in the world (ok, a large number of people) had grown to like it, it would probably still be illegal today. The people making the bucks from it didn't have time to get a foothold before it was legal again and they were out of jobs, (or changed them anyway). Same with pot, coke, whatever you like, they are being shipped by people with some serious intrest in there being illegal, if they are legal, LOTS of people, will lose I dare say, Billions of dollars, this I think anyway, is probably what plays the largest role in the way to legalise drugs. Once something is legal, it can be worked with, it's no longer forbidden, so the kids are no longer temped as easily by the 'danger' aspect of it, (as well as older kids like adults ....), with good education programs, and careful regulation programs, it becomes easy to monitor how much, of what people are using, and to what end. Can you tell I'm undecided about if we should legalise drugs or not? You're right, I'v seen it from a number of directions at this point, and don't like it's current usage, as with any tool, you have to put it in the right hands, and use it for what it was designed, less you cause damage insted of fixing things. Anyway, that's my $00.02 cents worth, (How much has that devaluated this month? :-)), anyway, my major point, and I hope I won't get flamed to badly for it, is not the moral issue, I'v seen enough of that, it's easy to repeat, and how many times can people say the same arguments? The real question, is if the people wanted too, COULD they legalise drugs, ANY drug, I don't think so. I think the people who are making the money off drugs right now have more power within our society than ANYONE thinks, (Even me, and I have great respect for the power the drug world has, although dislike). Yous in topic turning, (I hope), -- Shawn p.s. I welcome all flames, turn up the heat as hot as you like. On reflection I KNOW I'm going to get flamed, so might as well feel like I asked for it. :-) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ban silicon!", "Paramedics save lives, EMT's save paramedics." [Standard disclaimer, and anything else of amusement.]
dlp@ih1ap.UUCP (11/02/87)
> Xref: ih1ap alt.drugs:288 misc.legal:3078 alt.flame:420 > Keywords: > > While on active duty in the Army I had occasion to witness what > drugs did to the performance of friends and other individuals. They no > longer car about doing their jobs, they came to work late, they went > AWOL, etc. Drugs weren't the sole cause of this by any means, but they > were a substanial reason. What was the most prevalent drug used? Pot. > Yep, that drug most of you think is so harmless, was a cause of this. As > was Alcohol (more so admittedly than Pot), LSD, Coke, etc. I was a young innocent when I joined the Air Force, and I existed in an intense partying environment without any urge to join in. Then I learned to drink (to excess) and had to learn a new survival trait, Self control! I can MODERATE my partying. It seems to me that my coworkers (autopilot and instrument systems) were able to control themselves too, because I never saw ANY examples of behavioral problems on duty (Attitude problems were rampant, it IS the military,after all!). Without trying to throw dirt on the service I notice that the Army is a place where delinquents are often offered a second chance. ie: Join the Army or go to work camp. > The fact is > Alcohol is legal. The others aren't. I'm not for legalization either because > that is a cop out. Why do you need a chemical to alter your "perceptions." > Did you ever try running, the brain is very effective at releasing internal > chemicals that will make you high. If you don't need a chemical to alter your "perceptions", why do you run? This activity has been shown to release those very chemicals you are trying to avoid. > And I'll be damned if I am going to support a bunch of junkies through my > tax dollars. I agree with you, and I'll use lethal force, if required, to protect myself against anyone trying to act as you've described above. I don't have a solution to the 'criminal junkie' problem, but it seems that allowing organised crime to extort money out of a weaker human with a behavior problem is an Evil activity. Can you say International Illuminati Conspiracy? Not if you value your life. Random
rob@philabs.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <602@auscso.UUCP- johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes:
-Why the term dirtballs? One night I was riding with my friend (who is a
-Dallas Police Officer) when we got a burglary in progcall. When we
-arrived it turned out that the lady who resided at the origination of the
-call had been out of town. When she got home her door was open. Unfortunately
-she went in before getting help, but fortunately the perpetrators were long
-gone. Nothing was taken that could be determined. The sickening reality
-was that the slime who broke in had used her place as a shooting gallery.
-For those who don't know, a shooting gallery is a place where degenerates
-go to shoot Methamphetamines into their veins (also known as Crank).
-There was little spatters of blood all over the place. What kind of sickos
-would do this? You got it, illegal drug users!
gee john, my friend alex and i were trying to be careful. sorry we
left a mess, but you know how it gets when your in a hurry---hell we
even forgot to steal the stereo. but ya gotta admit that crank is a
real neat name, a hell of alot better than methamphetamines (if you
don't think so, try saying it four times really fast).
-Drunk drivers are no better,
-they are also included in my broad generalization. This only deals with
-the abusers. What about casual use? Like I said Alcohol is legal.
-Since the others aren't, I certainly don't condone their use. I also don't
-condone legalization, since this is a cop out to the problem. These are
-immature people who can't deal with life, so they hide out by using chemicals.
-This wouldn't be a problem if they were only destroying their lives. But
-they aren't, there are family members afffected, and innocent bystanders
-(eg victims of drunk drivers, victims of burglars supporting a habit).
-What do you suggest? Legalization? Ok, who is going to support the users?
-We are! How? Either as victims of crime or through our tax dollars.
Legalization is one way, appropriate education and drug treatment
centers also helps. The question is do you really want to help these
people with there problems, or temporarily stick them in a prison,
only to have them get out again and continue their lifestyles. Like
you said, your going to be paying for it one way or the other. You
might as well have some constructive use come out of it.
Some methods like drug testing do work...sort of. The navy started
it, pot useage went down drastically, lsd (which they can't test for)
useage increased dramatically. sort of back fired in my opinion.
but the military ain't noted for their intellegence (ain't that so mr
mitchel).
rob
--
william robertson
rob@philabs.philips.com
"better living through shell scripts"johnm@auscso.UUCP (11/03/87)
I like your idea on how to deal with TV stars. It is nice to see at least
one other person here who isn't an illegal drug user (or should I say abuser).
--
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
\johnmjohnm@auscso.UUCP (11/03/87)
I appreciate you not throwing dirt on the Army. FYI the Army no longer
desires (or needs) these troublemakers you talk about. To get in you have
to pass a National Agency Check. If you have committed anything worse than
speeding you are going to have problems enlisting. Of course, each case is
taken on an individual basis. Officers have even stricter standards (I know
this because I am about to become one).
--
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
\johnmmading@puff.UUCP (11/03/87)
> > > The fact is > > Alcohol is legal. The others aren't. I'm not for legalization either because > > that is a cop out. Why do you need a chemical to alter your "perceptions." > > Did you ever try running, the brain is very effective at releasing internal > > chemicals that will make you high. > > If you don't need a chemical to alter your "perceptions", why do you run? > This activity has been shown to release those very chemicals you are > trying to avoid. > Running releases chemicals known as endomorphines. These chemicals are present in the brain and create the elation known as "runner's high" that gives runners (and others who exercise) a second wind after about 40 minutes of exercise. Also, drugs like LSD, THC (found in marijuana and hashish), alcohol, and nicotine are not found in the human body. So there is no comparison between running and drug use. Running, when done right, and other forms of exercise help the body. Drugs, when not used in the care and supervision of a physician, can only hurt the body. So don't do drugs. Eric Mading My views are independent of the University's.
co20wta@sdcc13.UUCP (11/03/87)
In article <1220@laidbak.UUCP> shawn@laidbak.UUCP (Shawn McKay(E)) writes: > >I think there is another issue here that is not being addressed with respect >to drug legalisation, it's a very major point I might add. Yah, and that issue is "what the fuck is all this pointless discussion about drugs doing in alt.flame?" I read this news group for entertainment and all this drivel about legalization of drugs etc. is a large pain in the ass. Take a hint and learn the vi editor. Then you can see and edit the Newsgroups line. Bruce --
lundy@encore.UUCP (11/03/87)
In article <1203@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: >body. So don't do drugs. > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >Eric Mading > >My views are independent of the University's. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Looking at those last three lines, it looks like the University of Wisconsin advocates drug use. This is a true shame. And to think, many of tomorrow's leaders are graduating from UW. Moon 'em Bucky!
lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP (11/04/87)
In article <602@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >Did you ever try running, the brain is very effective at releasing internal >chemicals that will make you high. Could you imagine passing around Nikes at a party? I'm sorry, but I thought this comment was pretty funny. -- "Truth is false and logic lost..." - Neil Peart (who at the time didn't realize he was talking about RU) lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu <--------OR--------> {seismo|ames}!rutgers!topaz!lachac
mading@puff.UUCP (11/04/87)
In article <2133@encore.UUCP>, lundy@encore.UUCP (Joe Lundy) writes: > In article <1203@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: > >My views are independent of the University's. > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Looking at those last three lines, it looks like the University of Wisconsin > advocates drug use. This is a true shame. That line is a standard disclaimer. I wouldn't know if the University of Wisconsin advocates hard drug use (like cocaine, heroin, and PCP), but consider this: A freshman caught drinking alcohol in his room could be kicked out of his dorm room on the third offense. This is drinking, not getting drunk, but drinking in moderation. Four years ago, when Wisconsin had a 18 year old drinking age, this same freshman would get treated no different than if he was getting high on reffer in 1987 in his own room. So the University, while not advocating drug use, condones the use of marijuana, which is illegal, but not as much for alcohol, which is legal. I think that anyone should get drinking privliges when they get their high school diploma or GED. Eric Mading. Discliamer given above.
hilda@kaos.UUCP (11/05/87)
In article <932@ih1ap.ATT.COM> dlp@ih1ap.ATT.COM (Random Factor @ Infinite Improbability Drive) writes: >> Xref: ih1ap alt.drugs:288 misc.legal:3078 alt.flame:420 >> Keywords: >> >> While on active duty in the Army I had occasion to witness what >> drugs did to the performance of friends and other individuals. They no >> longer car about doing their jobs, they came to work late, they went >> AWOL, etc. Drugs weren't the sole cause of this by any means, but they >> were a substanial reason. May I propose that another possible cause was active duty in the Army? Like a cause-effect loop, ya know. Now where's that cute asbestos sweater... -Hilda
hilda@kaos.UUCP (11/05/87)
In article <1203@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: > >Running, when done right, and other forms of exercise help the body. Drugs, >when not used in the care and supervision of a physician, can only hurt the >body. So don't do drugs. Drugs, when not used in the care and supervision of a physician, can certainly induce states regarded as detrimental, mostly because of those who prefer those states to real life. I think the most interesting part of the above paragraph is the "when done right" part. I also find it useful to keep the economically based culture of the culturally young United States in mind when considering this issue - forbidden fruit brings a high price. _Why_ didn't the Prohibition work? -Hilda line line line line
mading@puff.UUCP (11/07/87)
In article <170@kaos.UUCP>, hilda@kaos.UUCP (Hilda Marshall) writes: > >> > >> While on active duty in the Army I had occasion to witness what > >> drugs did to the performance of friends and other individuals. They no > >> longer car about doing their jobs, they came to work late, they went > >> AWOL, etc. Drugs weren't the sole cause of this by any means, but they > >> were a substanial reason. > > May I propose that another possible cause was active duty in the Army? John Meaders (sp?) was on active duty in the Army and did not end up on durgs. Some people in the Army do get tired of the monotony of the service and turn to drugs to escape. These are people who never did drugs before enlisting. When they end up on drugs, their performance degrades to the point where they are unfit for duty. The Army is anti- drug because they need good men (and women), not drugged-out men (and women). If the Army allowed their soldiers to be on drugs, our defense would be weak and some nation like Russia or Iran could just walk in and take over and force their government on us. Would you like Gorbachev to be president? Or maybe the Ayatolla? Or maybe, I don't know, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, maybe- SATAN? :-) Eric Mading University of Wisconsin-Madison Known to the University as a BS/4 student. My student ID is privledged information. And these views are mine, not the University's or anyone related to it. These views may be shared by some students, factulity, staff, employees, etc., but that is pure coincedence.
robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (11/08/87)
In article <1228@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: >These views may be shared by some students, factulity, >staff, employees, etc., but that is pure coincedence. Coincidence, and a crying shame, to boot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
acm@bu-cs.UUCP (11/08/87)
In article <1196@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: >a drug overdose. This would give young people the message--DRUGS KILL. You're not listening, are you? Even many illegal drugs don't kill until you really abuse them. Often the deaths that occur happen because the quality of the drug they used was poor or they were sold a more potent drug than they expected. Legalization would solve that problem! Even still, the number of drug-related deaths is low, while drug usage is not. The number of tobacco- and alcohol-related deaths is not low although both are legal. Do drugs kill? Sure, if used irresponsibly. Almost anything can kill if used irresponsibly. Educating children that "drugs" are always deadly is not a solution. When the children start looking around them and find out that the "deadly" drugs are not (they surely will find this sort of thing out) they will be inclined to believe that their parents/teachers/etc have been lying to them. This will undermine their confidence towards authority figures. I can see the plan backfiring. On to other things: >As for welfare, I would like to see a complete reform in the welfare system. Welfare systems vary from state to state. In New Hampshire, the welfare system is one of the harshest in the nation. You don't get it unless you absolutely NEED it and it's still a bare-existance budget. This is not the case in other states. Sometime you should compare the policies of New York and New Hampshire and see the difference. More on this topic: >And welfare recipientsshould not be allowed to purchase lottery >tickets, alcohol, tobacco, or spend >their welfare money on horse or dog races, sporting evnets, or any other non- >necessitys. The best way to control this is to require all welfare recipients >to make their purchases with a automated teller machine card. Some of these >welfare reforms have already been implemented in Wisconsin. New Hampshire uses "food stamps" as a basic item. You may buy food with them, but only food. No lottery tickets, alcohol, tobacco, etc. This works quite well and does not require expensive equipment. >Eric Mading jim frost madd@bucsb.bu.edu
craig@amdahl.UUCP (11/16/87)
In article <602@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >I will continue to call illegal drug users dirtballs, because they are. (He's going to be an army officer soon. I feel much safer.) I'm a dirtball She's a dirtball He's a dirtball We're a dirtball Wouldn't you like to be a dirtball, too? Be a dirtball, Drink Dr. Pepper great stuff glip gloop doorknob yellow cranium post box pencil meat -- "The President is a lot smarter than you think!" - B.D. [views above shouldn't be viewed as Amdahl views, or as views from Amdahl, or as Amdahl views views, or as views by Mr. Amdahl, or as views from his house]