cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/13/86)
> Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being > staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased > military spending? The amount of propaganda I've read in the past two > weeks is enough to flood the conscious stream of the average ignorant > american. I have yet to see any accurate analysis of the problem. > And you won't see an accurate analysis of the problem. (Except in radical libertarian publications.) There's a lot of people in America who know someone who has ruined his life, and made a lot of friends and relatives pretty miserable because of drugs. Trying to rationally talk to someone who has seen the suffering is just about impossible. Most parents don't really want to believe that little Johnny became a heavy doper because of the parent's bad example in the use of mind-altering drugs. It's a lot easier to blame it on drug traffickers. > I think it's a diversion, a chance to make the american collective > conscious focus on a problem other than the ones the government > should be concentrating on, and a chance to obtain more authority. > It would be ridiculous to consider this anything less than a political > manuever. Most of the problems associated with drugs are due to fact > that they are illegal. > Uh, would you care to tell me how this is any different from the War on Poverty, and the environmental movement? Amazing, isn't it, how every problem has a solution that involves more government? > Again, I resent that the government sees fit to protect me from > myself. Their efforts would be better spent documenting the effects > of drugs *ACCURATELY*. The current propaganda is such a wave of > distortion it makes me want to puke. Reagan is a buffoon. I can't > believe what I'm seeing. If this administration weren't so real, it > would be a comedy of errors. > The current lunacy is more the Democrats than President Reagan. The House (still controlled by the Democrats) just passed a bill that includes death penalties for second offense drug trafficking, and repeal of the exclusionary rule *just* for drug cases. > John Williams Clayton E. Cramer
rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (09/16/86)
>> Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >> staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >> military spending? The amount of propaganda I've read ... > >What also bothers me is the media reports on how dangerous drugs are. A recent ABC interview showed a young, clean cut, all-american manager saying "Yes, I believe in manditory drug testing in the workplace", and a punk with a mohawk saying "... as long as it doesn't affect your work performance." Sorry folks, but I know more yuppie types that would fail tests for drugs (including alcohol), than punks. I have the feeling that we are indeed being manipulated by major propoganda ploy. -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
ron@celerity.UUCP (Ron McDaniels) (09/16/86)
In article <5305@decwrl.DEC.COM> williams@kirk.dec.com (John Williams DTN 223-2163) writes: >Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >military spending? . . . >I think it's a diversion, a chance to make the american collective >conscious focus on a problem other than the ones the government >should be concentrating on, . . . >. . . Most of the problems associated with drugs are due to fact >that they are illegal. > >Again, I resent that the government sees fit to protect me from >myself. Their efforts would be better spent documenting the effects >of drugs *ACCURATELY*. The current propaganda is such a wave of >distortion it makes me want to puke. Reagan is a buffoon. I can't >believe what I'm seeing. If this administration weren't so real, it >would be a comedy of errors. > . . . > John Williams > >PS. Just another case of profiteering in law enforcement. > >PSS. I do not use illegal drugs. Tell you what, dear John. Why don't you make a printed copy of your posting and take it with you to your local police department's drug inforcement unit and ask what they think about your opinions. Get back to us (if you can) with a report of what they said. I suspect that you know so much about drug use that you won't be take-in by anything so-called experts say. For someone who doesn't use drugs, YOU seem to know an awful lot about the extent of the drug problem in America. Signed: A typical, overprotecive father of teenage children, R. L. (Ron) McDaniels CELERITY COMPUTING . 9692 Via Excelencia Way . San Diego, California . 92126 (619) 271-9940 . {decvax || ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ron "There are buffoons and then there are BUFFOONS!"
brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) (09/17/86)
>Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >military spending? The amount of propaganda I've read in the past two >weeks is enough to flood the conscious stream of the average ignorant >american. I have yet to see any accurate analysis of the problem. Yeah. I sometimes wonder how silly we must look to people in other parts of the world, too. Uncle Ronny Rayguns and Nanny Nancy coming on TV, declaring "War" on drugs. We go around bullying the drug making countries into helping us. We send troops to Bolivia (and, I presume, places yet to be determined) to invade drug country and raid the producers. And all this because we can't cure our own problem. The problem is drug use, not drug manufacture. I am embarrassed that we can't seem to cure this problem at home before going out and attacking the rest of the world for selling us what we demand. >PSS. I do not use illegal drugs. Me neither. --Brian
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/17/86)
In article <1066@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >> staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >> military spending? Of course, it's an election year, Reagan's coattails don't seem to stretch that far, and both parties have discovered that their pet programs don't have the popularity they used to. Both sides will be taking credit for tax reform, the Democrats can use the old "New Deal" social programs without voters asking about cost, the Republicans can't "build defence" for the same reason. >>The amount of propaganda I've read in the past two >> weeks is enough to flood the conscious stream of the average ignorant >> american. I have yet to see any accurate analysis of the problem. Hey, 1 in 10 people are supposed to have drug or alcohol problems, and only 1 will NOT be affected by an alcoholic or addict at some point in their lives. It's an issue that directly effects everyone, and offends only a small, unpopular minority. Drug and alcohol treatment programs are a booming business. With several good lobbies, and a "treatment oriented" program, it will probably be quite popular. >And you won't see an accurate analysis of the problem. >Trying to rationally >talk to someone who has seen the suffering is just about impossible. Fortunately, an at least somewhat rational approach is being used for now. First, the movement is against both drug and alcohol abuse. This is quite different from, the "drugs only" campaigns of the past. >Most parents don't really want to believe that little Johnny became >a heavy doper because of the parent's bad example in the use of >mind-altering drugs. It's a lot easier to blame it on drug traffickers. Again, so far, the thrust has been on two fronts. Treatment of the addict/alcoholic, AND making life difficult for the traffickers. In case you haven't heard, New York beer retailers have been having their coolers locked for selling to customers who are either under age, or intoxicated. You can bet they are being more careful. >> Most of the problems associated with drugs are due to fact >> that they are illegal. If you mean that because addicts are often sent to jail instead of treatment or rehab centers, they are less willing to come forward when they are ready to quit, I agree. If you mean an "open market" for heroin would solve the drug problem, I can't agree. Having been through the entire start/addiction/recovery route, I can't say that the legality had much affect either way. It is too easy to get "Legal" drugs when the supply of "illegal" drugs got scarce. Addicts are very versitile. >Amazing, isn't it, >how every problem has a solution that involves more government? Ironically, the long term solution in this case does not come from the government. It comes from the various "anonymous" groups which are completely self-supporting. It is these groups which show the greatest success at long term recovery, which has reduced demand significantly. The alcohol industries have already started making alcohol free products because they can't sell the alcohol they can produce. >> Again, I resent that the government sees fit to protect me from >> myself. Their efforts would be better spent documenting the effects >> of drugs *ACCURATELY*. I agree. Part of the problem with current "drug education" programs is that they attempt to ignore the "good times" that occur in the early stages of drug abuse. Another problem is the attempt to "gloss over" the importance of self-esteem. Substance abuse can give someone with a normally low self-esteem the feeling that they are "super-cool" for a while. Those with higher self-esteem are less vulnerable to "peer pressure" than those who already feel they don't belong anywhere else. The effects documented ARE ACCURATE, but NOT COMPLETE. Until just a few years ago, only 1 in 14 addicts/alcholics would be able to go more than one year without returning to their addiction. The other 13 would end up in jails, dead, or under the treatment of psychiatric professionals for extended periods of time. Only 1 in 50 would NOT recieve state or federal aid during some portion of their addiction period, for themselves or their families. >The current lunacy is more the Democrats than President Reagan. The >House (still controlled by the Democrats) just passed a bill that >includes death penalties for second offense drug trafficking, and >repeal of the exclusionary rule *just* for drug cases. >> John Williams >Clayton E. Cramer I missed that one. Did you forget to include some qualifiers there? Like causing the death of a customer? Like selling hot-shots, rat-poison, and cyannide as recreational drugs? Keep in mind, that if he chooses, a dealer can punish an addict with withdrawal or overdose that amounts to slow death by torture. Those most likely to be divided on this issue are the "moral majority" types. They will be confused as to how to deal with the problem, but diffused on other issues. Look at the options. Treatment, at federal expense or free, prevention, through good education, deterrence, through punishment of dealers, and apathy toward starting, through media campaigns. Both sides will continue to be embarassed by the inability to balance the budjet, reduce spending, or reduce taxes. Both sides will probably not be pushing too hard for increases in expensive programs.
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/17/86)
In article <363@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >>> Most of the problems associated with drugs are due to fact >>> that they are illegal. > >If you mean that because addicts are often sent to jail instead of >treatment or rehab centers, they are less willing to come forward >when they are ready to quit, I agree. If you mean an "open market" >for heroin would solve the drug problem, I can't agree. Having >been through the entire start/addiction/recovery route, I can't say >that the legality had much affect either way. It is too easy to get >"Legal" drugs when the supply of "illegal" drugs got scarce. Addicts >are very versitile. Exactly. Which is why an open market on heroin *would* (for the most part) solve the parts of the drug problem which cause the most grief - the robberies, the poisonous impurities, and the rich drug dealers. Of course, the number of people *on* heroin will not decrease. If I read you right, it will not increase either. So you have a choice - X junkies with a load of crime and costly law enforcement, or X junkies, period. Isn't the answer obvious? (Surely no one is so naive as to believe that significantly fewer junkies is a realisitic probability?) Of course, with the original Mr. and Mrs. Clown in the White House, it will never happen. Probably not even without them. "What about the junkies", everyone wails. What about them? You can only do so much to save people from their own stupidity, and as has been pointed out, removing the stigma of illegality *would* help those wanting to quit to come forward. Jeff Winslow
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/17/86)
> In article <7222@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: > > ... What I find most disturbing of > >all is that (in California at least) the government is CONFISCATING land > >used to grow marijuana. That sounds awfully draconian to me. It reminds > >me of how the church used to expand its wealth during the Inquisition; by > >confiscating the property of heretics. > > The law authorizing the seizure of land used for drug cultivation has been > on the books for two years now but so far it has proved quite ineffective. > It seems to be going the way of other draconian laws adopted by hysterical > legislatures: juries in rural Northern California are refusing to convict, > given that a guilty verdict would sanction the taking of their neighbor's > land. (It's a Federal law, by the way.) > > ----- > Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gabor There's nothing terribly unusual about confiscating land used for drug cultivation -- in principle this is no different from confiscating boats, cars, and weapons used in drug trafficking. (These items have been subject to confiscation by the government for a very long time.) Aside from the separate issue of whether the government should be trying to prohibit drug trafficking, many of the property owners along the North Coast of California are absentee. As the law now stands, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove that he WASN'T growing marijuana to keep his land. Clayton E. Cramer
ix200@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (Bruce Jones) (09/17/86)
In article <5305@decwrl.DEC.COM> williams@kirk.dec.com (John Williams DTN 223-2163) writes: >Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >military spending? The amount of propaganda I've read in the past two >weeks is enough to flood the conscious stream of the average ignorant >american. I have yet to see any accurate analysis of the problem. You can look forever and not see any analysis of the problem. Television and the American political system are not capable of analysis, only subterfuge. Any analysis of the problem would have to eventually get to the fact that drugs are NOT the problem, only the symptom. >I think it's a diversion, a chance to make the american collective >conscious focus on a problem other than the ones the government >should be concentrating on, and a chance to obtain more authority. >It would be ridiculous to consider this anything less than a political >manuever. The political system has long been involved in this re-direction of the "collective conscious". Having to deal with the fact that life in America isn't what it's cracked up to be is a long and difficult job. It's much easier to focus on the results of this than come to grips with the situation in a creative and constructive manner. >Most of the problems associated with drugs are due to fact >that they are illegal. As long as you are talking about the crime that grows up around the drugs, robbery etc. I'll buy this argument. However I think you are missing something if you think that Cocaine is only dangerous because it's illegal. >Again, I resent that the government sees fit to protect me from >myself. Their efforts would be better spent documenting the effects >of drugs *ACCURATELY*. The current propaganda is such a wave of >distortion it makes me want to puke. What about the culpability of the media in all this?? When is the American public going to get tired of being constantly bombarded with hype. Reagan's war on drugs certainly isn't the first instance of public manipulation by the media in the special interests of a powerful group. Look at the attention given to highjackers and terrorists. Look at the coverage on the news of the Coca Cola hysteria. Who's being taken for a ride here?? WE ARE! Yes, I think that the publicity of this war on drugs is being used to cover up other, more important things that the administration is doing. Things like supporting thugs and killers in Nicaragua, despots in Chile, escalating the nuclear arms race, SDI, and on and on. That's the connection between the media and the government, POWER. The power to do as they please while directing public attention where they will. One last question ... with the military involvement in the war on drugs, how long will it take Ronie to get the draft going again? Bruce Jones bjones@sdcsvax.ARPA
falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (09/18/86)
> > Sorry folks, but I know more yuppie types that would fail > > tests for drugs (including alcohol), than punks. I have the > > feeling that we are indeed being manipulated by major > > propoganda ploy. > > Not only is it a good way to ride the media wave into public office, A friend of mine used to be a New York State lobbyist. She was working the summer they passed the bong law in NY. She said that the politicians had voted for it to keep their conservative constituancy happy. She was amazed at the hypocrisy of it all, since about a third of the legislature smoked dope themselves. > 2) Encouraging children to turn-in their parents for using drugs. > "Hey, Johnny! You wanna really get back at your Dad? Take > this baggie home, drop it in his dresser drawer, and call the > cops! They won't mess with YOU again!" This has been happening quite a lot lately. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems falk@sun.com sun!falk
scw@locus.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods) (09/18/86)
In article <937@tekig4.UUCP> maxg@tekig4.UUCP (Max Guernsey) writes: >In article <7222@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: >>Now, there are some drugs that *deserve* to be outlawed, at least to sell. >>I refer to the *very* adicting(sic) and debilitating ones such as Heroin etc. Actually Heroin is 'hardly' addicting at all, it was developed as a 'NONADDICTIVE' form of Morphine as an analgesic (which it is very good at, unfortunatly political considerations disallow its use even for terminal patients). Herion's major advantages over MS (Morphine Sulfate) are (1) Lower dose for a given level of pain killing, (2) Higher max dose, (3) Lower toxicity and (4) Lower addictiveness. Herion is said (I can't remember where but I believe it was in a Medical Journal) to be about as addictive as Nicotine (that is it's about the same to kick Heroin as Cigaretts). On the other hand there are drugs which are 'Addicting and debilitating' I refer specificly to the new 'designer' drugs, some research has shown that 'synthetic heroin' can produce the onset of Parkinson's in as few as 10 hits. >I disagree, all drugs should be available to anybody. Someone who gets >involved with the *very* addicting and debilitating drugs soon becomes >an ex-social problem and if we're lucky they won't add to the gene pool >either. "Consider it evolution in action." - Jerry Pournell. <scw> Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...!{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!scw ARPA:scw@locus.UCLA.EDU
david@ztivax.UUCP (09/19/86)
>For someone who doesn't use drugs, YOU seem to know an awful lot about the >extent of the drug problem in America. > >Signed: A typical, overprotecive father of teenage children, > >R. L. (Ron) McDaniels It is possible to be informed without being a user. I guess since you are not a heroin addict, then your opinions are valid? Or, since Reagan acts like a deranged addict, we shpould all belive what he says on the matter? If you really do care about your kids, then you have nothing to worry about from drugs, and neither do your kids. If you care about your kids, and they know it, then they have sufficient self esteem to avoid the trap of drugs. Even if they do fall into drug use, if you care about them, and bust them (let them get taken to jail for a day or two - it works wonders!), they will come out of it. Drugs, like alcohol, are not uniquely nor universally evil. There is plenty of historical and current sociological evidence to support the theory that making more-or-less harmless substances illegal _causes_ crime. Prohibition is an obvious example, the difference in approach to Heroin between Europe and America is another. In America heroin abuse is a heinous crime, and so the drug is very expensive (the traffikers must take huge risks) and addicts mst steal to support the habit. In Europe it is illegal, but it is viewed as a social problem, like unemployment. Addicts can get it relatively cheaply (unemployment benefits are enough to keep a luser in drugs), so far less crime is involved. This s why European politicians often speak out against Reagan's drug programs. They see America's approach contributes to crime, instead of stopping crime. I know, everyone's knee-jerk reaction to Heroin is "My God! That stuff is horrible! Evil! Addicting! It destroys people!!!" Well, Dr. John Hopkins was a Heroin addict, and shot up before surgery. Tobacco is now claimed to be more addicting than heroin. I know some reformed addicts (funny, only in Europe. In America they seem so cast out of society, one never meets them). They get on with life with no problems. You would never even know they had used the stuff, at least after a couple of years. Keep Toking! Ooops! I mean, Thinking! David Smyth uucp: seismo!unido!ztivax!david P.S. I don't use drugs, even Asprin. Beer is another matter... "References? you want references?" - Nixon, Harvard Law School
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (09/19/86)
In article <681@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >So you have a choice - >X junkies with a load of crime and costly law enforcement, or X junkies, >period. Isn't the answer obvious? (Surely no one is so naive as to >believe that significantly fewer junkies is a realisitic probability?) >You can only >do so much to save people from their own stupidity, and as has been pointed >out, removing the stigma of illegality *would* help those wanting to quit >to come forward. Actually, this is not as hard a line as it appears, if you spend some fraction of the money presently spent on enforcing the drug laws on rehabilitation. (Similar to the rehabilitation centers for alcohol abuse.) I suspect that whatever else happens, legalizing drugs will cause a decrease in drug related crime and a corrisponding decrease in the money spent on fighting that crime. I think we can then throw funds at education and rehabilitation and still come out ahead. But that kind of plan doesn't win votes. Drug users are in the minority, after all. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
jack@mcvax.uucp (Jack Jansen) (09/22/86)
In article <681@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: > >Exactly. Which is why an open market on heroin *would* (for the most >part) solve the parts of the drug problem which cause the most grief - >the robberies, the poisonous impurities, and the rich drug dealers. >Of course, the number of people *on* heroin will not decrease. If I >read you right, it will not increase either. So you have a choice - >X junkies with a load of crime and costly law enforcement, or X junkies, >period. Isn't the answer obvious? (Surely no one is so naive as to >believe that significantly fewer junkies is a realisitic probability?) Well, I think it's even better than that: legal or semi-legal heroin might well cause a *drop* in the number of junkies. One of the problems a junky faces is the lack of a normal social life with non-addicts: most people will not put up with an underfed friend who is totally undependable, and will probably steal your stereo if you turn your back on them. Making drugs readily available will free the junky of the worry of obtaining enough money to buy his day's dose, enabling them to re-integrate into the 'normal' society. But, you're right: the Reagan administration will probably never even consider this option. An experiment along these lines that was proposed here in Amsterdam was cancelled by the Dutch government, and while we think of them as extreme right-wing, they would probably be seen as socialists in the US... -- Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP The shell is my oyster.
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/23/86)
In article <273@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: >BTW, I believe the drug discussion merits its own talk group, as it >will become a major focus in the months and years ahead. I'd like it >not to get lost amid the other political, legal, social, and medical >topics. I agree. I hear that 3 *BILLION* $$ has now been pledged to this holy crusade against pushers dealers and smugglers. I am also concerned about efforts to censor sexual entertainment and music lyrics, but I'm not sure how big that effort will still be after the November elections. The "drug war" apparently is not going to just evaporate, with that kind of funding. And many of the subscribers to this network may soon be pressured into (or threatened with loss of job) "voluntary" participation in unreliable drug tests with little or no assurance of rational and humane response to the results (assuming the result is positive and is not false, is there a drug treatment program without a lengthy waiting period? Will the victim .. er, I mean convict .. be subjected to harrasment if not fired outright? And remember, some of these tests respond to Advil and other legal drugs). This could be you and me, not "them", not just army recruits and air traffic controllers and senators and doctors. Lots of companies will be tempted to use urinalysis, based on wishful- thinking about its accuracy. This is not just a hypothetical moral issue, this is a major threat of ruined lives and careers, a serious issue *even if the drug tests were infallible*. Further discussion is very appropriate. Some on drug testing (reliability, ethics if it *were* reliable, alternatives that check actual alertness, current legal and union challenges ... etc); some on legalization, some on drug war as smoke screen, some on identifying what representitives and senators lean for and against various measures, ... and more. What to call it? I suggest: 'talk.drugwar' (or dwar, for short?) (talk, or net??) I sort of like 'net.repression', but that is a bit *too* slanted toward my own perspective. Likewise 'witch-hunt', 'smokescreen','folly' (I think Prohibition was called "Willard's Folly" or some such?), etc. Please note that my followup line is to net.news.group; edit it if you wish to respond to drug topic rather than to group creation. - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: "Cocaine is God's way of telling you you've got too damn much money" (... I think by Robin Williams, in his act).
adam@gec-mi-at.co.uk (Adam Quantrill) (09/25/86)
In article <2400010@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes: >crime. Prohibition is an obvious example, the difference in approach >to Heroin between Europe and America is another. In America heroin >abuse is a heinous crime, and so the drug is very expensive (the >traffikers must take huge risks) and addicts mst steal to support the >habit. In Europe it is illegal, [] >(unemployment benefits are enough to keep a user in drugs), [] >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh yeah? I don't know many unemployees in the UK who could afford to score more than once a fortnight out of their dole. I think an addict would be on a few fixes a week at least. -Adam. /* If at first it don't compile, kludge, kludge again.*/
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/29/86)
In article <7078@boring.mcvax.UUCP>, jack@mcvax.uucp (Jack Jansen) writes: > Making drugs readily available will free the junky of the worry of obtaining > enough money to buy his day's dose, enabling them to re-integrate into > the 'normal' society. Even if the drug were cheap, a junkie would not be able to function in a 'normal' society! The only way to implement this idea is to treat the junkie as a welfare case and supply free drugs (Netherlands is doing this now). Now: the million dollar question: What makes a person decide to start taking drugs? -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
cda@entropy.berkeley.edu (09/30/86)
In article <225@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: > >Even if the drug were cheap, a junkie would not be able to function in a >'normal' society! The only way to implement this idea is to treat the >junkie as a welfare case and supply free drugs (Netherlands is doing >this now). Many successful and well-respected physicians have been addicted to opiates for most of their career lives. Junkies who continue to function in mainstream society usually manage to keep their habits a secret. Controlled opiate addiction is much less physically and mentally debilitating than alcohol addiction - the main problem junkies face is financial. That's why doctors are able to maintain opiate habits and still seem like 'normal' people to their friends and associates - they have access to cheap and pure drugs. Charlotte Allen
adam@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) (10/02/86)
In article <225@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: > >Now: the million dollar question: > > What makes a person decide to start taking drugs? > >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> They make you feel good, what else.
sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (10/08/86)
In some article adam@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) writes: >In article <225@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >> What makes a person decide to start taking drugs? > They make you feel good, what else. What else? They make you forget you're feeling bad. They make you forget how to feel good. They make you stop feeling bad. They make you stop feeling. They make you think you're feeling. They make you feel you need them. They make you feel you want them. (Set one to music and sell it to your favorite beverage company :-) Support endorphins. You can't buy them, but they're popular. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn Ed Comp Corp {quest,dicome,meccts}!mecc!sewilco 45 03 N 93 08 W (612)481-3507 ihnp4!meccts!mecc!sewilco Laws are society's common sense, recorded for the stupid. The alert question everything, and most laws are obvious to them.
jp@faron.UUCP (Jeffrey Picciotto) (10/10/86)
Distribution: >From: adam@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) >>In article <225@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >> >> What makes a person decide to start taking drugs? [Stuart D. Gathman] > > They make you feel good, what else. Wrong. They make you feel better. --jeff jpicc@mitre-bedford.arpa {*}!linus!faron!jp