dave@tygra.UUCP (David Conrad) (01/28/91)
In article <0bcb3Um00WBN436Uk7@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes: > >[about a harmless but highly psychologically addictive `euphoria' drug] > > The question is: Would the government make this drug illegal? > >Steve No, they would be the ones selling it. -- Dave Conrad dave@ddmi.com -- = CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Computer Conferencing and File Archive = - 1-313-343-0800, 300/1200/2400/9600 baud, 8/N/1. New users use 'new' - = as a login id. AVAILABLE VIA PC-PURSUIT!!! (City code "MIDET") = E-MAIL Address: dave@DDMI.COM
jmichael@cod.NOSC.MIL (James A. Michael) (01/29/91)
>etc... And, the drug would be no more addictive than cigarettes or sex >or whatever. > > The question is: Would the government make this drug illegal? > >Steve However, tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs known. Jim Michael Addresses: ARPA: jmichael@nosc.mil (preferred) UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax,dcdwest,seismo}!sdcsvax!nosc!cod!jmichael AT&T: (619) 553-2416 (work) (619) 223-9405 (home)
jerbil@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Joseph R. Beckenbach) (01/31/91)
sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes, describing the hypothetical ideal recreational drug, excepting partial paralysis during the euphoric stage, and asks "Would the government make this drug illegal?" Considering that the destructive drugs of tobacco and alcohol are regulated and taxed but still salable, I'd be inclined to say "yes". But then, I've been 'straight man' at a few pot parties, and pot's short-term effects (and odors!) are less objectionable than tobacco's. However, marijuana is illegal. Go figure. My guess, especially with the current political climate, would be "no". No, I do not know the long-term effects of marijuana use; I do know the long-term effects of breathing air with suspended particulates -- which is one reason why I avoid smokes of any sort. Joseph Beckenbach speaking solely for myself
colston@sixnine.gid.co.uk (Colston Sanger) (01/31/91)
> >sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes, describing the hypothetical >ideal recreational drug, excepting partial paralysis during the euphoric >stage, and asks "Would the government make this drug illegal?" > Maybe not quite what was meant, but has anyone considered television as a `drug'? . It is widely used for recreational purposes, induces a trance-like state of euphoria (sometimes?) as well as partial paralysis... Would the government make this drug illegal? Well? Has it? Colston Sanger -- GID - software engineers to the gentry GID Ltd 69 Kings Road Tel/Fax: 0428 654821 Haslemere UUCP: colston@sixnine.gid.co.uk Surrey GU27 2QG, UK
doug@testsys.uucp (Doug Thompson) (02/01/91)
In article <9101302341.AA08012@sixnine.gid.co.uk> (Colston Sanger) writes: > a `drug'? . It is widely used for recreational purposes, induces a > trance-like state of euphoria (sometimes?) as well as partial > paralysis... > > Would the government make this drug illegal? Well? Has it? > Some governments have made TV illegal, most notably the Republic of South Africa until sometime in the last ten years. Can't quite remember when. Others have regulated it very heavily, and some still do. Personally, I think that everything that is bad for people should be made illegal - including war - because it is pretty obvious that most people don't know what is good for them :-). =Doug --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: isishq!testsys!doug DNS: doug@isishq.fidonet.org Voice: 613-722-4724 Fido: Doug Thompson on 1:163/162 POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA ----------------------------------------------------------------------