abc@brl-smoke.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (03/15/86)
In article <143@hhb.UUCP> bcb@hhb.UUCP (Bob BField) writes: > >I recently heard on some AM news station that Our Friend E.D.S. conducts >drug testing on some employees. This shows us just what kind of company >concerns itself with such victimless crimes as the use of illegal substances. Victimless crime? Yeah, drug abuse is victimless until some programmer, judgement impaired by chemicals, write incorrect software to control biomedical instrumentation, air traffic control radars, or some other crucial function. >The thing drug-free people don't understand about this new fanaticism to >test for drugs, is that it resembles the way we behaved toward former >members of the Communist Party during the 50's. Note how professional >athletes must fess-up to their sins in public, denounce drugs, agree >to future testing. Oh, what a day for an auto-da-fe'!* In the 50's, Maybe wholesale drug testing of present and prospective employees is an abuse. I certainly would resent being arbitrarily selected for random or blanket drug testing without some reasonable suspicion. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. We're now hearing of airline pilots using pot and coke while flying. I suppose this is victimless, too? And science seems to be finding that the effects of pot seem to linger 24 hours or more after they're no longer detectable. >Does anyone remember Nancy's War-on-Drugs? She traveled around the >country and the globe lecturing audiences on how drugs are bad. Does >anyone remember those by-gone days when her husband, acting as >President of the Screen Actor's Guild, told the public that the Guild >would not participate in blacklisting? Of course, Guild members were >required to have their names cleared with the American Foreign Legion >as a simple, painless loyalty check. You're confusing issues. Are you against mass drug testing or you in favor of unrestricted substance abuse or both? I'm no Reagan fan, either. Does that mean I should be pro-drug? Just what were you smoking when you wrote your note? > >I should not simplify this complicated issue. After all, Professional >Sports is house-cleaning to improve its tarnished image. Drugs abounded >among professional athletes for quite some time. News coverage of it is >recent. Were it not for the Drug Scandal, testing would not be the problem >that it is becoming. Pro athletes, unfortunately, are role models for many of the depressed kids who turn to drugs and for whom you profess so much concern. Much is demanded from those to whom much has been given; the pro athletes have called attention to a severe problem that we should have been working on all along. > >Another observation: Drug testing punishes drug users, not pushers. People >who blow a joint, snort some lines, drop a pill, or down a shot every now >and then do not damage our social fabric. People who abuse grass, cocaine, >speed, alcohol to the point that it affects the way they function at work, >do not damage our social fabric either. They are the rent in our social >fabric that we wish to mend. Punishing severe drug abusers pushes them to >more extensive abuse. They have more to escape from. Well, there are enough unwarranted, unproven assertions in that paragraph to run this news group for the next year. I suppose that the Chessie System engineer who killed a few folks in a wreck caused by his error committed when he was 'high' on something didn't cause any damage to our 'social fabric?' > >We have a serious drug problem in America. Impoverished teenagers turn to >drugs to escape their miserable lives. Other impoverished teenagers get high school diplomas, financial aid, athletic scholarshops, and educations and lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. > >Nancy would like to solve the Drug Problem, but all she can do is stand before >an audience to speak her mind. She is unable to stop the flow of drugs >and alcohol. In the interim, her husband wants us taxpayers to help out >Miami drug smugglers who seek to invade Nicaragua and Cuba. The Cuban Mafia >adores his vicious anti-communism. These are separate issues. Are you really making a pro-drug, anti-testing argument, or is this a "What I hate about everything" letter? > > >Drug testing is a latter-day McCarthyism. I can actually sympathize with this one. Also, I'm mightily fearful of the widespread use of lie detectors. But that is VERY DIFFERENT from wanting to make a dent in drug abuse and in things like espionage. Let's not 'throw out the baby with the bath water.' It's a good thing that this is about over. I'm rapidly losing my patience with most of this and really hope that you're pulling our collective legs. You must know that my employer is in no way responsible for my opinions. My employer knows it. -- Brint Cooper ARPA: abc@brl.arpa UUCP: ...{seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!abc
ks@svo.UUCP (03/19/86)
In article <143@hhb.UUCP> bcb@hhb.UUCP (Bob BField) writes: >Another observation: Drug testing punishes drug users, not pushers. People >who blow a joint, snort some lines, drop a pill, or down a shot every now >and then do not damage our social fabric. People who abuse grass, cocaine, >speed, alcohol to the point that it affects the way they function at work, >do not damage our social fabric either. They are the rent in our social >fabric that we wish to mend. Punishing severe drug abusers pushes them to >more extensive abuse. They have more to escape from. > >We have a serious drug problem in America. Impoverished teenagers turn to >drugs to escape their miserable lives. What a bunch of crap. I don't think that I've seen this much BAD LOGIC in a long time. Users DO damage our 'social fabric.' [I'm still awed that you posted something so absolutely brainless; let me take a breath.] I believe that there are two communities of interest that comprise the 'drug problem.' The first COI is the 'user,' who buys the end-product, along with low-end dealers and low- end (regional-local) distributors. The second COI is the 'producer,' 'shipper,' and 'financier' of (normally unprocessed) product and of related operations. The enforcement agencies have concentrated their efforts at the second COI, while normally relegating the first COI to local, county, and state officials. But they neglected to see that it is the first COI that creates the second. I sure as hell hope that the executive branch takes up the recommendations of the Bush report and that they start getting at the MARKET. It is the user of drugs whose life is ruined and changed forever. A few years ago when I worked as a paramedic, I spent some of my time working in a drug rehabilitation center--where all the 'rent' in our 'social fabric' go, along with the 'impovrished teenagers' who try to 'escape their miserable lives.' Let me tell you one thing right now! Those patients with whom I worked were s c r e w e d u p on drugs. Many had been addicted to narcotics for years, but insisted that they could 'get off at any time.' In the meanwhile, they were approaching toxicity levels of OTC and illegal substances to either control side-effects or to get the 'high' they once got. Most of these people are welfare-benefit receipients; guess where their check goes. They are, in the vast majority, not producers in our society. Their function becomes solely to 'feel good about themselves,' and then nothing else matters. More and more of our society is becoming non-productive because of non-work-related factors such as substance and alcohol abuse. I went to a racially integrated high school in one of the poorest sections of my town. Yet, I know of very 'impovrished teenagers' who were able to do worthwhile things--some even finished college and are continuing their formal education. But they had the same handicap of being poor as their peers, some of whom are, undoubtedly, living in the drug rehab center where I worked. Just say "no." Kurt F. Sauer Tulsa, Oklahoma Internet: ks@a.cs.okstate.EDU UUCP: ks@svo.UUCP
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (03/21/86)
From Brint Cooper (brl!abc): >In article <143@hhb.UUCP> bcb@hhb.UUCP (Bob BField) writes: >> >>I recently heard on some AM news station that Our Friend E.D.S. conducts >>drug testing on some employees. This shows us just what kind of company >>concerns itself with such victimless crimes as the use of illegal substances. > >Victimless crime? Yeah, drug abuse is victimless until some programmer, >judgement impaired by chemicals, write incorrect software to control >biomedical instrumentation, air traffic control radars, or some other >crucial function. So why isn't ethyl alcohol illegal? And who, by the way, is EDS? Do they design radars and medical equipment? This is not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. >>The thing drug-free people don't understand about this new fanaticism to >>test for drugs, is that it resembles the way we behaved toward former >>members of the Communist Party during the 50's. Note how professional >>athletes must fess-up to their sins in public, denounce drugs, agree >>to future testing. Oh, what a day for an auto-da-fe'!* In the 50's, > >Maybe wholesale drug testing of present and prospective employees is an >abuse. I certainly would resent being arbitrarily selected for random >or blanket drug testing without some reasonable suspicion. Give that man a cigar! We don't let cops search our houses without probable cause, why should it be legal for anyone to force us to submit to a search of our bodies for no reason? > But let's >not throw out the baby with the bath water. We're now hearing of >airline pilots using pot and coke while flying. I suppose this is >victimless, too? Drunk driving is illegal; drinking isn't. With a little thought, you can probably see some guideline here for appropriate drug laws. > And science seems to be finding that the effects of >pot seem to linger 24 hours or more after they're no longer detectable. The wonders of science :-). I knew those guys were good, but I didn't know that they can now detect the undetectable! And what have *you* been smoking, besides that cigar I just gave you? :-) > Does that mean I should be pro-drug? Just what were you >smoking when you wrote your note? This is a civil liberties issue. One need not be pro-drug to see a problem with random invasions of privacy made under the guise of fighting a "war on drugs". >>Drug testing is a latter-day McCarthyism. > >I can actually sympathize with this one. Also, I'm mightily fearful of >the widespread use of lie detectors. But that is VERY DIFFERENT from >wanting to make a dent in drug abuse and in things like espionage. >Let's not 'throw out the baby with the bath water.' It's a good thing >that this is about over. I'm rapidly losing my patience with most of >this and really hope that you're pulling our collective legs. The article you're responding to never appeared at our site, and perhaps the parts that offended you were not included in your article. If this is not the case, then I'm at a loss to understand why you're so offended. The quotes you include condemn enforced drug tests on random citizens; they do not support drug use. You say you aren't real pleased about this kind of testing, either. So what's your gripe with the original article? Sure sign of the anti-drug fanatic: they refer to all use of drugs as "drug abuse". - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
roe@toram.UUCP (Roe Peterson) (03/24/86)
In article <3800003@svo.UUCP> ks@svo.UUCP writes: > >In article <143@hhb.UUCP> bcb@hhb.UUCP (Bob BField) writes: > >>Another observation: Drug testing punishes drug users, not pushers. People >> ...etc. > >Users DO damage our 'social fabric.' [I'm still awed that you posted something > ... etc. > >Let me tell you one thing right now! Those patients with whom I worked were >s c r e w e d u p on drugs. For one thing, who are you (or we, for that matter) to tell anyone in this 'free' society that he CAN'T blow his mind away if he feels like it? In my opinion, the job of society is to provide maximum protection for the individual within a framework of maximum freedom. The very thought that any one person (or group of people) should be able to tell me what I can or can't do with my mind and body is abhorrent. Unless I begin to cause damage to other members of society, it's none of anybodies business. Shades of the moral minority!! -- Roe Peterson {linus,ihnp4,decvax}!utzoo!toram!roe All that glitters is spray-paint.
sef@drutx.UUCP (FarleighSE) (04/21/86)
> .....then >how about this: Employee embezzlement is said to be a major problem in >American society these days. Why not give employers the right to come to >your house or apartment (or condo, or teepee, or whatever), and conduct a >full search, at any time? Why not give them the right to fire you, put >nasty stuff into your records, and maybe have you imprisoned, if they >find a couple of company pencils or maybe a few sheets of stationary? >After all, those items do belong to them, and if you bring them home, that >constitutes premeditated theft. Do you object? If so, you must be a >criminal, because honest people would have nothing to fear. Back in about the 1930's the Ford Company did do just that! >Let's go a little further. It is well known that drug dealers make large, >undocumented cash transactions. Why not give government and employers the >right to examine your bank account? After all, if you are an honest person, >you have nothing to fear. So what if, in the process, your employer discovers >what political parties you contribute money to? So what if you give money >to the candidate who's opposing a bill that would force your company to >divest itself of, say, its South African or Libyan interests? After all, >it's a free country, right? This does go on, the government part atleast, it's the U.S. version of the KGB, the IRS. Scott E. Farleigh AT&TIS Denver, CO *The usual disclaimer.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/24/86)
In article <131@drutx.UUCP> sef@drutx.UUCP (FarleighSE) writes: > >> .....then >>how about this: Employee embezzlement is said to be a major problem in >>American society these days. Why not give employers the right to come to >>your house or apartment (or condo, or teepee, or whatever), and conduct a >>full search, at any time? Why not give them the right to fire you, put >>nasty stuff into your records, and maybe have you imprisoned, if they >>find a couple of company pencils or maybe a few sheets of stationary? >>After all, those items do belong to them, and if you bring them home, that >>constitutes premeditated theft. Do you object? If so, you must be a >>criminal, because honest people would have nothing to fear. > >Back in about the 1930's the Ford Company did do just that! IBM still has blood testing for VD as part of their pre-hire medical checkup procedures on new employees. Watson Sr. was apparently a real nut on the subject. I wonder how many new-hires knew about that? They won't tell you unless you ask (I did). Though, according to the law here, it would be illegal for IBM to be told the results of the test - it's supposed to be handled by the MOH and/or your own physician if you test positive. How many people realize that VD testing is routinely done on blood samples taken for other purposes? At least in Ontario it is now considered semi unethical for a doctor *not* to ask for VD screening results on people at risk (eg: women either pregnant or of child-bearing age, or people about to get married (though I know that VD screening is a legal requirement in some states for marriage)) in *addition* to the original purpose of drawing the blood. Some labs do VD screening on almost *all* blood they get for testing. How come there isn't the same screaming and yelling about this? Isn't this an "invasion of privacy"? Because VD isn't "illegal"? Obviously, you haven't seen the VD statutes in this province! (strictly speaking, having in Ontario VD isn't "illegal". However, considering the reporting and treatment requirements, and the various fines/imprisonment available for punishing violators, it might as well be). If only they'd consider AIDS to be included under the same statutes - they're powerful enough for the situation, and appear to be "acceptable" to the populace in general. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
davidsen%steinmetz@steinmetz.UUCP (05/02/86)
I find it hard to care about drug testing for pro ball players. If
these people are playing straight or so wired that they don't touch the
ground, it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. Speed and steroids may
show some increase in performance, cocaine in quantity will eventually
get people so messad up they can't play, and goodies like PCP aren't
any concern of mine.
I worry about my bus driver, pilot, doctor, and anyone else who can
mess up my life by getting weird at the wrong time. Why anyone would
say something about testing being needed for athletes but not computer
programmers escapes me. It's the useful people in the world who have to
be in touch with reality. Let all the actors, singers, models, and
anyone else in the entertainment business (except the management, who
might mess up the stockholders) have all the drugs they can use, they
hurt no one but themselves.
--
-bill davidsen
seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
/ \
ihnp4! unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
\ /
chinet! ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"Unknown@hplabs.UUCP (05/02/86)
This message is empty.
bane%parcvax@parcvax.UUCP (05/03/86)
In article <696@smeagol.UUCP>, earle@smeagol.UUCP (Greg Earle) writes: > In article <279@parcvax.Xerox.COM>, bane@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Rene P.S. Bane) writes: > > ... There are many subjective responses > > of being more creative, etc., while taking drugs - has this ever been > > verified experimentally by, say, problem solving problems? > > > > - rene > > How curious - attempting to measure increase in right-brained activity by > using left-brain-oriented "problem solving" problems ... > -- > Greg Earle Actually, there ARE tests designed to measure creativity, where normal, left-brain activity will NOT allow you to properly solve the problem. You obviously don't watch shows such as "The Brain" which attempt to deal with creativity. Haven't you ever had one of those problems where the answer was simple, but thinking logically and mathmatically didn't allow you to solve it? - rene -- Rene P S (nee Steiner) Bane bane@parcvax
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/03/86)
In article <715@steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: > > I find it hard to care about drug testing for pro ball players. If > these people are playing straight or so wired that they don't touch the > ground, it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. Speed and steroids may > show some increase in performance, cocaine in quantity will eventually > get people so messad up they can't play, and goodies like PCP aren't > any concern of mine. > I think you should know that these pro ball players are idols for young children. If these juvinile jocks see the ball players play good and then learn they are fucked up on drugs, these kids will get the idea that drugs are okay when in reality they are not. Drugs are the main cause of evil. > I worry about my bus driver, pilot, doctor, and anyone else who can > mess up my life by getting weird at the wrong time. Why anyone would > say something about testing being needed for athletes but not computer > programmers escapes me. It's the useful people in the world who have to > be in touch with reality. Let all the actors, singers, models, and > anyone else in the entertainment business (except the management, who > might mess up the stockholders) have all the drugs they can use, they > hurt no one but themselves. I worry too about bus drivers, pilots, doctors, and nurses getting high on drugs. We need drug testing for them, too. Kids also worship those in the entertainment business, so we can't have any of them on drugs either. As for computer programmers, I plan to have my employees at my company of the future drug free (this includes tobacco, as tobacco is a drug). How- ever, I won't include prescription drugs or alcohol, as long as it is used in moderation. I feel that it is worth mentioning that anyone in the entertainment world cannot appear in cigarette ads. This also goes for athletes. However, I have seen too often jocks and famous stars advertising alcohol and chewing tobbaco. I feel that these stars should not be advertising these things. And I also feel that no pro ball player should chew, because this just encourages kids to chew (some do it as early as the first grade) and chewing tobacco can kill, just like smoking can. Eric Mading UW-Madison. Disclaimer: These are my opinions alone, at least. > -bill davidsen > > seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\ > / \ > ihnp4! unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen > \ / > chinet! ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA) > > "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (05/04/86)
In article <881@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >Drugs are the main cause of evil. Gee, Ronny's gonna be mad when he finds this out. He thought that the Russkies are the main cause of evil. Alternate response: Are you for real? Mike Schloss
mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) (05/05/86)
In article <266@enmasse.UUCP>, mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: > > In article <881@puff.UUCP> I write: > >Drugs are the main cause of evil. > > Gee, Ronny's gonna be mad when he finds this out. > He thought that the Russkies are the main cause of evil. > Why? His wife, First Lady Nancy Reagan, is about the biggest anti-drug crusader in the world. Drugs and drug pushers are the main cause of evil, and the Russkies push drugs on their citizens; how else do you think the government stays in power? It's citizens are either stoned on pot or speed, high on LSD or cocaine, maybe heroin; and a lot of Russians get drunk. Ever hear of vodka? A Russkie Commie invented it, I bet. > > Are you for real? > > Mike Schloss I would suggest, Mike, that you call the cocaine hotline, if there is one in your town.
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (05/06/86)
In article <893@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >In article <266@enmasse.UUCP>, mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: >> >> In article <881@puff.UUCP> I write: >> >Drugs are the main cause of evil. >> >> Gee, Ronny's gonna be mad when he finds this out. >> He thought that the Russkies are the main cause of evil. >> >Why? His wife, First Lady Nancy Reagan, is about the biggest anti-drug >crusader in the world. I'll grant you this. > Drugs and drug pushers are the main cause of evil, and the Russkies > push drugs on their citizens; how else do you think the government > stays in power? Where the hell do you get your facts? Or do you just make them up as you go along. > It's citizens are either stoned on pot or speed, high on LSD or cocaine, > maybe heroin; and a lot of Russians get drunk. I'll give you the last part. I think I've heard that they have a much worse alcohol problem than we have. Must be something about living in a totalitarian state. I would be extremely surprised if they have nearly the availability of drugs as we do. > Ever hear of vodka? A Russkie Commie invented it, I bet. Vodka has been around a lot longer than the Soviet Union, Communism, or Marx. >> Are you for real? >> > >I would suggest, Mike, that you call the cocaine hotline, if there is one >in your town. I would suggest that you spend some time with a psychiatrist. You sound like you really have a warped view of reality. Don't tell me, let me guess. The Mideast problem is really a drug problem in disguise. (Didn't fool you though.) The Cold War ... Yup another drug problem. Nuclear Proliferation, Pollution, Child Abuse, Unemployment ... Nope, all these are just cleverly disguised drug problems. You sound like the guys who collect alcohol statistics. A guy skids out on a patch of ice and totals his car. 0.00% blood alcohol but he's got a case of empties on the floor he's been meaning to bring back for the deposit. You guessed it, another alcohol related accident. Once again, are you for real? Mike Schloss
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/06/86)
In article <881@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: > Drugs are the main cause of evil. > At last! A controversy existing from ancient times has been resolved at last! You heard it here first - it's not money, it's not Satan, it's not sex, it's not political or religious extremism, it's drugs! I fear that human stupidity and malevolence need no chemical help. Jeff Winslow
thain@magic.DEC.COM (Glenn Thain) (05/06/86)
In article <881@puff.UUCP>, mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: (ERIC) > I think you should know that these pro ball players are idols for young > children. If these juvinile jocks see the ball players play good and then > learn they are fucked up on drugs, these kids will get the idea that drugs > are okay when in reality they are not. Drugs are the main cause of evil. "Drugs are the main cause of evil." This is a pretty powerful statement, which requires justification before one takes it at face value. How do you come to this conclusion? Drugs cause crime? Drugs kill? People are the missing element here, those who use and those who don't. This issue reminds me of one in the '50's, I believe a Senator McCarthy made the same broadsweeping generalization about those that participated in another freedom, the freedom of politics. Now these don't have very much in common, save for the fact that a group of people, " those who *know* what's right", are trying to institute another witch hunt. > I worry too about bus drivers, pilots, doctors, and nurses getting high > on drugs. We need drug testing for them, too. So do I. But drug testing is unreliable, if only because of the human factor. I *do* hope that if the aforementioned people are using recreational substances, that they are responsible in their usage, and never place anyone else's life in danger. If they do commit an act, they should be tried, and if found guilty should be punished to the full extent of the law. But I was under the impression "innocent before proven guilty" held some place in our system of belief's. > Kids also worship those in the entertainment business, so we can't have any > of them on drugs either. Children need to be educated on the matter of drugs and drug abuse. Not talking about this issue is what drives children to try and experiment. If the dangers were presented in an upfront, *adult* manner I feel most kids would take the message to heart. The problem in this country is we want to shield children from the horrors of the adult world, and then we expect them to deal with those horrors without having been exposed to them. > As for computer programmers, I plan to have my employees at my company of > the future drug free (this includes tobacco, as tobacco is a drug). How- > ever, I won't include prescription drugs or alcohol, as long as it is used > in moderation. Define moderation. Your defination or mine? These are the kinds of vauge replies one gets when this issue is brought up. Moral judgments need to be made on the application of such hings, and who's morals do we use? These tests are not reliable. People could lose jobs and security built up over the years on the crediblity of these tests. What happens if Joe working over in drug testing decides to switch tests between his friend Ed, and Frank, a guy he hardly knows? Frank is fired because his test results read positive, meanwhile Ed who still uses still reaps the benifits of the system. It can and will happen, in case after case. drug testing is a violation, a violation of the trust an employee and employer must have to conduct business. There is another frightening thing to consider here, it won't end the drug related crimes, as it's not your computer programmers who are out robbing houses. Rather than alienating those who use drugs, why not educuate? Where do we stop? what happens if we find that certain types of behavior arn't sutiable, do we have psychologists administer personality tests? Conform or be ostercized? Shall we eliminate employee theft by instituting lie detector tests to all employees? Fire all those who fail? See where this can lead? > I feel that it is worth mentioning that anyone in the entertainment world > cannot appear in cigarette ads. This also goes for athletes. However, I > have seen too often jocks and famous stars advertising alcohol and chewing > tobbaco. I feel that these stars should not be advertising these things. > And I also feel that no pro ball player should chew, because this just > encourages kids to chew (some do it as early as the first grade) and chewing > tobacco can kill, just like smoking can. > > Eric Mading > UW-Madison. I feel in necessary to mention that the steps you are advocating are designed to impringe on moral behaviors that we find disgusting to our senses. I have no problem with responsible drug use, what one does in the privacy of his or her home and body is none of my business. So long as they remain responsible with their vices, I have no reason to complain. Drugs and their attendent problems arn't going to go away because everyone is being watched by "Big Brother". Only by education, responsible behavior on the part of the users, and help from the medical community will the problems start to be solved. a generation or two ago, drugs became part of American life. Creating fear and dissention is no way to solve a problem of this scale. Only education, and prosecution of negligent actions while under the influence will help stem the tide. Happy Trails, Glenn thain@decwrl.DEC.COM ( The opinions above are my own, colored by my education and experiences, and in no way should be attributed to anyone else, unless they wish them to be.)
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/07/86)
In article <893@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >In article <266@enmasse.UUCP>, mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: >> >> In article <881@puff.UUCP> I write: >> >Drugs are the main cause of evil. >> >> Gee, Ronny's gonna be mad when he finds this out. >> He thought that the Russkies are the main cause of evil. >> >Why? His wife, First Lady Nancy Reagan, is about the biggest anti-drug >crusader in the world. Drugs and drug pushers are the main cause of evil, >and the Russkies push drugs on their citizens; how else do you think the >government stays in power? It's citizens are either stoned on pot or speed, >high on LSD or cocaine, maybe heroin; and a lot of Russians get drunk. >Ever hear of vodka? A Russkie Commie invented it, I bet. Hey, buddy, this isn't net.bizarre. Jeff Winslow
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (05/07/86)
In article <495@magic.DEC.COM> thain@magic.DEC.COM (Glenn Thain) writes: > Children need to be educated on the matter of drugs and drug abuse. Not >talking about this issue is what drives children to try and experiment. If the >dangers were presented in an upfront, *adult* manner I feel most kids would >take the message to heart. I have to take issue here, as one who's tried similar things. Yes, the matter is partly one of education. However, one must remember that children are children because they are n o t adults. No, I am not trying to "protect the little dears" from anything. On the contrary, I shove my kids out into the front lines of the blood-and-guts (literally) world. My point is, that these issues have to be presented in a different manner to a younger audience. Most people these days develop their ability to react to things in an adult manner somewhere during their college (or equivalent) years. (Many I have seen do develop it earlier -- that does not invalidate this partial generalisation.) On a different subject -- folks, why pick nits at Mading's "Drugs are the root of all evil."? You all sound as if that were a personal challenge or insult. You can't deny that there i s a drug problem, especially if you include EtOH as a drug (and, scientifically, it is). Mading's statement is rash, obviously, as there is totally un-drug-related evil in the world. So, let's treat it as perhaps partially justified hyperbole (if you don't know, go take a class in English!) (for non-English-speakers, apologies, it means poetic exaggeration) and QUIT STUPID FLAMING. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
goudreau@dg_rtp.UUCP (Bob Goudreau) (05/08/86)
In article <893@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >In article <266@enmasse.UUCP>, mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: >> >> In article <881@puff.UUCP> I write: >> >Drugs are the main cause of evil. >> >> Gee, Ronny's gonna be mad when he finds this out. >> He thought that the Russkies are the main cause of evil. >> >Why? His wife, First Lady Nancy Reagan, is about the biggest anti-drug >crusader in the world. Drugs and drug pushers are the main cause of evil, >and the Russkies push drugs on their citizens; how else do you think the >government stays in power? It's citizens are either stoned on pot or speed, >high on LSD or cocaine, maybe heroin; and a lot of Russians get drunk. >Ever hear of vodka? A Russkie Commie invented it, I bet. >> I think Mr. Mading's obsession with drugs is finally leaking out for all the world to see. "The Russkies push drugs on their citizens?" Some references please? Sure, the Soviet gov't sells vodka to its citizens, but then it sells *everything* thru state-run stores - this is "communism", remember? The USSR has a large alcoholism problem, but it has existed since long before 1917. (Obviously, vodka could not have been invented by a commie, as none existed several centuries ago.) There is no evidence that pot, speed, LSD, cocaine or heroin are widely available in the country at all; certainly not to the great bulk of its citizens, who are barely making enough to make ends meet anyway. (There is apparently a dope problem among soldiers in Afghanistan however - they are right in the middle of poppy-land.) "How else does the government stay in power?" A police state takes care of that quite easily. As far as drug pushers and drugs being "the main cause of evil", how do you explain Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Khomeini? OF course, you may hold that they all were indeed part of a world-wide evil drug conspiracy, but if so you reduce yourself to the level of Lyndon LaRouche. >> Are you for real? >> >> Mike Schloss > >I would suggest, Mike, that you call the cocaine hotline, if there is one >in your town. I would suggest Eric, that you seek counseling. Why do you imply that Mike is a cocaine user? ------- Bob Goudreau "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
pete@stc.co.uk (05/09/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: Xpath: ukc eagle In article <270@enmasse.UUCP> mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: >In article <893@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes: >>In article <266@enmasse.UUCP>, mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: >>> >>> In article <881@puff.UUCP> I write: >>> >Drugs are the main cause of evil. >>> >>> Gee, Ronny's gonna be mad when he finds this out. >>> He thought that the Russkies are the main cause of evil. >>> > >>Why? His wife, First Lady Nancy Reagan, is about the biggest anti-drug >>crusader in the world. > > I'll grant you this. > >> Drugs and drug pushers are the main cause of evil, and the Russkies >> push drugs on their citizens; how else do you think the government >> stays in power? > > Where the hell do you get your facts? > Or do you just make them up as you go along. | | | > >Once again, are you for real? > > Mike Schloss Have I missed something? I assumed an implicit :-) for this one. Surely there aren't *really people like this about? -- Peter Kendell <pete@stc.co.uk> ...!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete "If I could only be tough like him, Then I could win, My own, Small, Battle of the sexes."
kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (05/11/86)
In article <881@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP writes: [discussing the rights and wrongs of sportsfolk using drugs] >I think you should know that these pro ball players are idols for young >children. Why do we teach children to idolise anyone? >As for computer programmers, I plan to have my employees at my company of >the future drug free (this includes tobacco, as tobacco is a drug). How- >ever, I won't include prescription drugs or alcohol, as long as it is used >in moderation. Tobacco is a drug? Granted... and prescription drugs and alcohol are not? Oh, please, if you're going to state things like that, at least give a *reasoned* reason! >Supidity, like virtue, is its own reward. Virtue is its own punishment... Kay. -- "I AM; YOU ARE; HELLO: all else is poetry" ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!kay