rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (09/17/86)
Hard to believe that there's worse than Reagan on the drug issue, but Mr DuPont (can't remember his first name) said that if elected president, he'd not only keep the Reagan view on drug testing but extend it to include schools. Well, that's O.K., kids aren't really citizens until 18 anyway :-) -- 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)
licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) (09/20/86)
> Last night, the Reagans called for a new wave of ignorance. Past attempts > at propaganda have only hurt the government's credibility. The appeal was > to the American tradition, one that supposedly makes america strong. > The government actually wants economic and military superiority to > enforce the propliferation of capitalism in a "free" world. The Reagan > administration has "traditionally" shown little or no concern for the > human conditions in foriegn policy. Most decisions are based on economics. > > Is this a conspiracy? No, I don't think so. I think it is another example > of the type of naive realism it takes to make a good salesman. The Reagans > did not mention any comparitive statistics. The Reagans did not mention > any accurate information. The Reagans were interested only in persuading > the American public to join their pet crusade, A crusade that remains > to this day unjustified. > > What happened to the glorification of the brave risk takers? Remember the > challanger? Remember the Brave astronauts who boldly sacrificed their > lifes in the exploration of the new frontier? Know what happened? The whole > thing got absolutely canned. > > Some people do not know how to handle drugs. Any thing by itself is neither > good nor bad. Reagan would like to see the technology that is created to > be used for the military and propaganda machines. He has dropped the > space program. He threatens communication with Russia. Does he know that > communicative technology will render government as we know it obsolete? > > I don't think so. I think Reagan suffers from a naive realism that distorts > his perspectives to the point of absolute clarity. This clarity is a > symptom of psychosis. His rhetoric his effective because it is primarily > unconscious. This is further proved by his unwillingness to yield, or > even consider, fact. > > 1) The number of drug related deaths is low. ( @500/yr. ) > > 2) Most of the problem is financial, due to the demand without supply. > The black market charges ridiculous prices. > > 3) Most of the dangers are the impurities, which can not be adequately > controlled in the underground environment. > > 4) The loss of productivity is minimal, and is insignificant when compared > to other reasons for loss of production ( like mistrust ). > > I say drugs should be legalized because: > \ > 1) The price will drop. The black market will decline, along with the > type of crime surrounding it. > > 2) The quality of drugs will increase. Toxins can be monitored. > > 3) Accurate information can be collected and analyzed. People will be able > to form their own opinions concerning drugs based on accurate information. > > 4) The civil rights of the american public will not be abused. There is > a necessary variance for the survival of a species. The government seems > to want to clone idealisms. > > I resent the tax dollars I pay to have the government protect > me from myself. I would say that a large number of people have at least > tried drugs. I think it is safe to say that these people have not been > seriously afflicted. Many of our past presidents have taken drugs. > Teddy Roosevelt and Ullyses Grant took cocaine. What about Tradition? > > Contrary to Reagan's belief, the problem with the american economy is > not drug related. The problem with the american economy is due to > artificial inflation driven by speculation. It is the natural consequence > when people exploit the system of government. It is estimated that 8% > of the american population control 90% of the wealth. We are rapidly > approaching the extremes that lead to the french revolution. > > And all Reagan can think about is Drugs? I think Reagan suffers from > an equal but opposite addiction. Maybe he's just trying to cover up > the increased funds he wants to put into the black hole defence > budget. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to let this maniac > bring me to my knees. I've got too much love and pride, not necessarily > as an american, but as a human being, to shut up. > > John Williams > decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams > > PS. I do not currently use drugs. > PPS. These are my views, not my employer's. It's evident that you have an axe to grind, John. But, don't let your opinion of Reagan and his foreign and economic policies cloud a social issue that is close to becoming beyond control. I felt the Reagan's speeches made the answer sound too simplistic. Throw enough money around and "poof," the drug problem will go away. Those who have any real knowledge of the drug problem know this is naive thinking. The idea that the 500 drug related deaths each year is a low figure is rather a cold way to prove a point. Most of the dangers are NOT because of impurities. The biggest danger is in becoming addicted. Non-addicts have no problem with impurities. They just don't take the stuff! Loss of productivity is far from minimal. An estimated 4-5 BILLION dollars is lost to business and industry each year due to illegal drug use. That's a figure that's hard to believe, but even if the true figure is half that amount, it's easy to see how our economy is hurt by it. I felt for some time as you did, that legalizing drug use would solve much of the problem. I realize now it wouldn't do much good. At what age would it be legal to buy and use drugs? Twenty-one? What about the twelve year old who wants to experiment? The pusher in the school yard couldn't care less if the kid is underage. Legalization would mean strict production standards, but it won't mean an end to illegal use. As long as there is an addict around there will be a pusher. Addiction is the point, not illegal use. Without addicts who would the pushers sell to? Addiction leads to illegal use. You stated that some people don't know how to handle drugs. Well, in all my experience as a volunteer alcohol and drug counselor I've yet to meet anyone who has consciously set out to become an alcoholic or drug addict. You don't handle drugs, they handle you. BTW, alcohol is as much of a drug as crack, heroin, or any designer drug is. You speak of your freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. You are responsible for conducting yourself in a manner condusive to the good of your society. What kind of society would we have with who knows what percentage of the population is walking around stoned? It's bad enough now. I couldn't begin to imagine what it would be like if you were able to purchase drugs that are now strictly controlled over the counter. Ever try to talk to someone on Thorazine? It's like talking to a zombie. What I fear about the current crackdown is that it could turn into a witch hunt and a lot of innocent people may get hurt. I'm sorry that the Reagans appealed to everyones patriotism and emotions instead of stating that a serious problem exists and steps have to be taken to solve it. There was no need to wave the flag and allude to a threat to "mom's apple pie." -- Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak Health Systems International New Haven, CT 06511 "For Peace Of Mind, Resign As General Manager Of The Universe"
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/23/86)
In article <5360@decwrl.DEC.COM> williams@kirk.dec.com (John Williams DTN 223-2163) writes: >Last night, the Reagans called for a new wave of ignorance. Past attempts ... >1) The number of drug related deaths is low. ( @500/yr. ) I am sympathetic with your points, and would like some confirmation/references on the above statistic so that I can be sure I am using a valid statistic when comparing it to the (approx) 50K traffic deaths per year and *350 thousand* tobacco-related deaths (incl emphasima and heart attack, in addition to cancer). >I say drugs should be legalized because: Some validity to your arguments, but I wouldn't throw all drugs into the same basket. Given valid information, I *might* want to legalize some drugs w/o controls, some with minimum age restrictions (alcohol *is* a drug, and *does* kill; same for tobacco), some under observation only (a bizzarre idea I had as a teenager, when all the scare-stories about LSD were getting heavy press), some by prescription, and some for research only. But I don't have such information, do I? And such a realistic multi-teired system is much too complicated for political bandwagoning, let alone Raygun's Brain. > Maybe he's just trying to cover up >the increased funds he wants to put into the black hole defence >budget. Possibly your most important point. Senate elections are only weeks away, and distraction is a major Raygun strategy. Others have mentioned a more frightening possibility involving use of military to "solve" this problem. Small step from there to others uses, let alone the Prohibition- style abuses likely in the anti-drug "war" itself. [My followup to article by:] > John Williams - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: "Cocain is God's way of telling you you've got too damn much money" (- I think by Robin Williams, in his act).
gnome@oliveb.UUCP (Gary) (09/24/86)
> >> Last night, the Reagans called for a new wave of ignorance. Past attempts >> ... >> 1) The number of drug related deaths is low. ( @500/yr. ) >> ... >> 4) The civil rights of the american public will not be abused. There is >> a necessary variance for the survival of a species. The government seems >> to want to clone idealisms. >> >> I resent the tax dollars I pay to have the government protect >> me from myself. I would say that a large number of people have at least >> tried drugs. I think it is safe to say that these people have not been >> seriously afflicted. Many of our past presidents have taken drugs. >> Teddy Roosevelt and Ullyses Grant took cocaine. What about Tradition? >> >> I don't know about you, but I'm not going to let this maniac >> bring me to my knees. I've got too much love and pride, not necessarily >> as an american, but as a human being, to shut up. >> >> John Williams >> decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams > It's evident that you have an axe to grind, John. But, don't let your > opinion of Reagan and his foreign and economic policies cloud a social > issue that is close to becoming beyond control. "...close to becoming beyond control" could be used for a lot of things. The arms race, the introduction of stupid and anti-constitutional laws, the political system, the use of scare tactics and oversimplification by the president -- they're all close to becoming beyond control. > I felt the Reagan's speeches made the answer sound too simplistic. Throw > enough money around and "poof," the drug problem will go away. Those who > have any real knowledge of the drug problem know this is naive thinking. You bet. > The idea that the 500 drug related deaths each year is a low figure is > rather a cold way to prove a point. No colder than the 23,000 people that die due to drunk driving accidents. > Loss of productivity is far from minimal. An estimated 4-5 BILLION > dollars is lost to business and industry each year due to illegal > drug use. That's a figure that's hard to believe, but even if the > true figure is half that amount, it's easy to see how our economy is > hurt by it. Ok, so to combat it, we'll flush 2-3 billion dollars into guarding our borders from "invading drug smugglers"? Yep, that'll fix the problem. If a company can't follow their production well enough to pinpoint a drugged-out (or even terminally stupid) worker, does that justify the abuses of civil rights that are being proposed? It's another way to offload responsibility to the government. > ... Addiction is the point, not illegal use. Without > addicts who would the pushers sell to? Addiction leads to illegal use. Right again! So, trying to stop the flow won't decrease the number of addicts. It just increases the price (remember, they're addicted)! > You speak of your freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. You are > responsible for conducting yourself in a manner condusive to the good > of your society. That's what I said. The present government is going out of it's way to take that responsibility off the individual and place it in the hands of the police -- or the insurance companies. > What kind of society would we have with who knows > what percentage of the population is walking around stoned? ... > Ever try to talk to someone on Thorazine? It's like talking > to a zombie. If a person gets really heavy into drugs, or alcohol, and will not allow him/herself to be helped into detox', then they will become a statistic. It happens all the time. People who don't take responsibility for their drugs/alcohol/bad driving/stupidity eventually get removed from the gene pool, no matter how many meddling laws are passed to protect them. > What I fear about the current crackdown is that it could turn into a > witch hunt and a lot of innocent people may get hurt. Or thrown in prison, or killed. > I'm sorry that > the Reagans appealed to everyones patriotism and emotions instead of > stating that a serious problem exists and steps have to be taken to > solve it. There was no need to wave the flag and allude to a threat > to "mom's apple pie." > Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak Normally, these tactics are humorous, but if enough people start getting worked-up, a lot of damage could be inflicted to America's civil rights. And after it's all said and done, the real stopping power is with the people, not the government, not the police. As long as there are people who want drugs (or anything else) there will be a supply. Period. Gary HASA member H - Division (I believe in EIA - Evolution In Action.)
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (09/24/86)
I may be ignorant myself, but I can't reconcile two figures that have been bandied around in this newsgroup: 1) Drugs claim about 500 lives a year. 2) The US government wants to spend (is spending?) 2 to 3 billion dollars a year to combat the problem. If this is true, doesn't anyone think this money could be better spent? Just an idea. 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."
rynes@cwruecmp.UUCP (Edward M. Rynes Esq.) (09/24/86)
In article <424@hsi.UUCP> licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) writes: >Loss of productivity is far from minimal. An estimated 4-5 BILLION >dollars is lost to business and industry each year due to illegal >drug use. That's a figure that's hard to believe, but even if the >true figure is half that amount, it's easy to see how our economy is >hurt by it. How was this figure derived? Did the study also state the loss of productivity due to lack of sleep, poor diet, fights with your girlfriend? Or was all loss of productivity blamed on drugs? >I felt for some time as you did, that legalizing drug use would solve >much of the problem. I realize now it wouldn't do much good. At what >age would it be legal to buy and use drugs? Twenty-one? What about >the twelve year old who wants to experiment? The pusher in the school >yard couldn't care less if the kid is underage. If drugs were legal there would be no pusher! Under the current laws, it is much easier for a twelve year old to buy marijuana than a bear. >Legalization would mean strict production standards, but it won't >mean an end to illegal use. As long as there is an addict around there >will be a pusher. Addiction is the point, not illegal use. Without >addicts who would the pushers sell to? Addiction leads to illegal use. Again if drugs were legal there would be no pushers! There are millions of people addicted to alcohol today, but bootleggers are not the number one priority on the FBI's list of things to do. Besides, the government is making milions of dolors a year off those poor `addicts'. > > Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak > Health Systems International > New Haven, CT 06511 > > I don't think that all drugs should be legal, but the current laws are not based on reality. When the two most dangerous drugs around are advertised and promoted (alcohol and nicotine) and one of the safer drugs (marijuana) is condemned as a killer, something is wrong. The fight against drug abuse should start with better education about the TRUE dangers of drugs. Telling a group of pre-teens that smoking a joint will make you a drug addict within five years does more harm than good. (yes that was actualy what they told me) If you lie about one drug then they will assume you are lying about all of them. Drug use is not the problem. Drug misuse is! < I don't even use drugs so why am I arguing this? > < I guess this belongs in net.philosophy 8-) > ______________________________________________________________________________ Edward Rynes Facilities Manager | "The next time, I dedicate Dept. of Computer Eng. and Science | My life's work to the friends I make. Case Western Reserve University | I give them what they want to hear. Cleveland, Ohio 44106 | They think I'm up to something weird. ...!decvax!cwruecmp!rynes | And up rears the head of fear in me." rynes@case.csnet (216) 368-6471 | Kate Bush ______________________________________________________________________________
kaufman@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu (09/25/86)
> If drugs were legal there would be no pusher! Under the current laws, > it is much easier for a twelve year old to buy marijuana than a bear. And a damn good thing too! Can you imagine if for every kid who smoked dope there was one with a pet bear? No doubt there would be problems with feeding them and quite a lot of "accidents". With bunches of bears in the neighborhood, females (and sometimes stray!) would get pregnant, and we know how they can be around their cubs. I love it when a typo comes together! Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman | kaufman@a.cs.uiuc.edu)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (09/26/86)
In article <385@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: > I may be ignorant myself, but I can't reconcile two figures > that have been bandied around in this newsgroup: > > 1) Drugs claim about 500 lives a year. > > 2) The US government wants to spend (is spending?) 2 to 3 > billion dollars a year to combat the problem. > > If this is true, doesn't anyone think this money could be better > spent? Just an idea. Yup. $6,000,000 per death. Strange priorities. Reagan won't provide school lunches for poor children, but he'll spend $6,000,000 each to prevent the deaths of 500 people stupid enough to use cocaine. Yessir, *THAT* is what makes Reagan such a great president! -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
david@ztivax.UUCP (09/26/86)
>I felt for some time as you did, that legalizing drug use would solve >much of the problem. I realize now it wouldn't do much good. At what >age would it be legal to buy and use drugs? Twenty-one? What about >the twelve year old who wants to experiment? The pusher in the school >yard couldn't care less if the kid is underage. This is a good point. I think an important _cause_ of the drug problem is this minimum age for drinking. In Europe, one rarely finds people who have even _experimented_ with drugs. They can go to Disco's and pubs when quite young (no hard-line age limit seems to exist). In America, kids who want to party can't, at least legally. It always seemed stupid that high school kids can't buy beer, but nobody ever asks for ID to buy dope... Solve the problems, don't fuck around with the symptoms.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/27/86)
> In article <385@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: > > I may be ignorant myself, but I can't reconcile two figures > > that have been bandied around in this newsgroup: > > > > 1) Drugs claim about 500 lives a year. > > > > 2) The US government wants to spend (is spending?) 2 to 3 > > billion dollars a year to combat the problem. > > > > If this is true, doesn't anyone think this money could be better > > spent? Just an idea. > > Yup. $6,000,000 per death. Strange priorities. > > Reagan won't provide school lunches for poor children, but he'll spend > $6,000,000 each to prevent the deaths of 500 people stupid enough to > use cocaine. > > Yessir, *THAT* is what makes Reagan such a great president! > > tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" While I disagree strongly with the current drug laws, Tom's remarks above are highly misleading. 1. The current drug hysteria is a bipartisan piece of insanity -- you will find even higher levels of nuttiness on this issue in the Democratic Party. That bill that just got through the House passed with a large majority. 2. The *deaths alone* are not the reason that the population is so anxious to combat drug abuse -- it's the rest of the suffering that goes along with it, and the high crime rates associated with its non-free market pricing. (It sure is funny to hear a liberal suddenly concerned about cost-effectiveness of government programs.) Of course, if you want a reason to paint horns on Reagan for this, go ahead -- don't let the facts get in your way. Clayton E. Cramer
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (09/30/86)
Let's look at this rationally: It's election time. Ronnie has to do something to provide leadership for his party. Drugs. Sounds good, get Nancy, get the couch out, make it family style. Now all you republicans having trouble with the issues, you've got your platform, if they ask about farm foreclosures, tell them how you stand on drugs, if they ask about unemployment, tell them you would hang drug dealers if it were up to you, if they ask you why the deficit has skyrocketed under the leadership of your party when you swore that was exactly what you were going to correct tell them you'll get the pushers out of the schools. Pick up your anti-drug posters and buttons at the door, see you in congress... Gimme a break, why don't the rest of you wake up to what Madison Avenue, packaging and marketing is all about in American Politics. To a social climber like Reagan you are an insect, not even worthy of contempt, to think he is "concerned" about whether you stuff your veins with drugs is such an hysterical thought I can barely type this in...but ok, if it makes you feel better, he cares, he really does, sincerely, Nancy too, they both stay up nights worrying about your cute little problems, oh, and maybe just a little about the guest list to the White House Christmas Party...I wonder if Pete Dupont is free? And the Getty's bring such nice gifts... -Barry Shein, Boston University
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (09/30/86)
This article is not really expressing an opinion in either of the two camps (since i don't think either is wholy right), but to comment on the use of statistics (as in, "lies, damn lies, and ...). In article <1037@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: >In article <385@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >> I may be ignorant myself, but I can't reconcile two figures >> 1) Drugs claim about 500 lives a year. >> 2) The US government wants to spend (is spending?) 2 to 3 >> billion dollars a year to combat the problem. > Yup. $6,000,000 per death. Strange priorities. Strange priorities indeed. That 500 figure puzzles me. Perhaps that's the number that can be unequivocally attributed to OD's? I don't have any figures on drug- related mortality with me. But, It surely cannot be argued that the number of drug users is much, much more. This is not one of my areas of specific interest, so I don't have exact numbers. Of those, many are addicted to the substance which they are abusing. (Some may not admit it, just like smokers who insist they can quit.) The addicts I have seen have always had their general health and resistance debilitated by their abuse of drugs. I grant that I am only likely to see or become aware of an addict when that is the case. Still, the number of people who die of diseases that are aggravated by an addiction surely ought to swell that first number. And a good number of addicts, it seems, do not quit until their (early?) deaths. Also the straight division diverts one from the truth, which is that Reagan's primary concern seems not to be with the dying, but with the loss of productivity suffered by American industry. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (10/03/86)
>Also the straight division diverts one from the truth, which is >that Reagan's primary concern seems not to be with the dying, >but with the loss of productivity suffered by American industry. > Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} Someone else on the net claimed that the loss of productivity was estimated at something like $4-5B, I don't know if that's accurate, but if it's even ball-park it seems spending $3B+ to fight that is a little strange, we could practically just buy the productivity back in cash. Of course, Reagan, for all his braggadaccio about his war on drugs has in fact cut spending on fighting the problem in recent years, his claimed increment only replaces part of what he cut a few years back. No, it seems to me that it's just those damn conservatives with all their fat-cat spending programs which are driving us to the worst deficits in history, can't wait till we get a few liberals in office and get back to some fiscal sanity...(oh heavens Barry, that's not what the audience has been brainwashed to accept, you'll be flamed now for sure! nope, no smileys, the facts speak for themselves.) -Barry Shein, Boston University
white@aloha1.UUCP (Ray White) (10/05/86)
In article <2400011@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes: >...........................................In Europe, one rarely finds >people who have even _experimented_ with drugs......(etc.) I have only one thing to say about that line....BULLSHIT!! > >It always seemed stupid that high school kids can't buy beer, but >nobody ever asks for ID to buy dope... > Can't buy beer?....none of my high-school buddies ever had trouble getting beer....one of them always had a "big brother" to help them get it. By your reasoning removing the drinking age laws will reduce the use of other (illegal) drugs. That maybe so, but only to a very small extent, and the cost incurred (alcohalizm, increased automobile fatalities, etc.) is certainly not worth it. > >Solve the problems, don't fuck around with the symptoms. I hear lots of talk.... how about some action (too bad you don't have the solution to the problem). Mr. Nice Guy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "No pain....No gain" - Arnold -----------------------------------------------------------------------
njd@ihuxl.UUCP (DiMasi) (10/06/86)
> > it is much easier for a twelve year old to buy marijuana than a bear. ====== > And a damn good thing too! Can you imagine if for every kid who smoked dope > there was one with a pet bear? No doubt there would be problems with feeding . . . > Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman | kaufman@a.cs.uiuc.edu) Whoa, Ken, I believe that you have misinterpreted the article. Every bear that I have ever had the pleasure of knowing has always had a great deal of difficul- ty in buying marijuana, or anything else for that matter. It is very hard to handle money when you have sharp claws. Besides, the drug dealers, sales clerks, cashiers, etc. keep running away in mortal fear. Not only that, but bears generally don't have pockets for their wallets and change. Most of them are too proud to carry a purse. And most banks will not issue bears a credit card, because they usually are not able to provide a signature, employment details, credit references, and so forth. (Paw prints are generally not accepted in lieu of a signature.) Nick DiMasi {:-{)>