mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/09/86)
[Drooogs - I moost 'ave 'em. - Paul McCartney] We recently got a bunch of articles from Eric Mading concerning drug use. His ignorance about drugs is reason enough to ignore his ramblings altogether. However, I am waiting for a long compile to finish, and since there may be other people out there who think Eric is a really right-on guy with righteous ideas about dope, I can't resist posting a couple rebuts: (Eric Mading's postings are prefaced with >. He also wrote some of the >>> things, but not all) First, we have this little exchange: > >> > The relative addictive power of a drug has nothing to do with why the >> >government passes laws outlawing certain drugs. >> >> Absolutely. Otherwise, cigarettes would be illegal. >> > >Do you remember prohibition? Well, It didn't work. Besides, there's nothing >really wrong with some moderate drinking. The reason cigarettes are not ill- >egal is that a prohibition on smoking would never work. > The same an be said for prohibition of Marijuana, can it not? > I now change my original position. The relative addictive power of a >drug is not the only factor that makes it illegal. It also is made illegal >based on its danger and public opinion about the drug. Most people object >to LSD, cocaine, speed, angel dust, and marijuana. Most people don't object >to alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene. > You are right, here. The laws are not based upon rationality, but upon the hysterical fears and puritanical pontifications of Carrie Nation types. These are people who choose a way of life and see nothing wrong with imposing their beliefs on others. These are people with "God on their side". >> I confess, I was a caffiene junky. 10 to 15 cups a day, 3 to get >> started in the morning. I woke up feeling horrible, headaches, >> dizzyness, general lethergy. If I didn't get my coffee in the >> >Just because you are a caffinaholic doesn't make caffine bad or illegal. >Most people are not caffinaholics. It might just be that you have a >physical condition that makes you addicted to caffiene, just like alcoholics >have a physical condition that makes them addicted to alcohol. If being addicted to caffeine is not bad, then what is wrong with being addicted to heroin? Obviously it is not the addictiveness of the substance, so we can dispense with that argument from now on, eh? The "physical condition" yoou speak of is "physically ingesting addictive quantities of the substance." Anybody can become addicted to caffeine or alcohol or anything else, although some people are pre-disposed to addiction. By the same token, anybody can be un-addicted to these substances, too, if they so choose. The point here is that addictiveness is not and (in my opinion) should not be a reason for making something illegal. After all, I'm addicted to oxygen, I hope they don't make that illegal! >> Anyone who thinks smoking is not dangerous should watch my mother >> try to smoke and drive at the same time. If she has to shift in >> >I strongly feel that smoking is dangerous, not only to smokers, but >to non-smokers who are present where a smoker is smoking. That is >why I won't hire smokers. There is no law that says that what I'm >doing is illegal; I don't have to provide an area for smokers, I can Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that if it ever went to court that you had fired someone for smoking in their own homes (not at work) on their own time, you would find yourself in pretty hot water. >designate the entire office as a no-smoking area. I also feel that >it should be illegal to have a lit cigarrette or cigar in the front >half of any motor vehicle, just like it should be illegal to have >an open container of alcohol in the car. Smoking while driving is >just as dangerous as driving while under the influence of alcohol. Give me a break. Smoking does not impair judgement, vision, reactions, etc. like drinking does. I'll agree that smoking can be a hazardous task while driving (having once been a smoker who lost the "head" of the cigarrette in the groin region while driving on occasion), but to say it is as dangerous as DWI is ludicrous. Eric makes the claims: >> > I would like to say that the government makes drugs illegal based on >> >their addictive power. Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and speed are illegal >> >because these drugs are addictive to most people. Alcohol and caffiene are not >> >addictive to most people so they are legal. I must confess to being very puzzled by the logic of thi. What were you trying to say? Marijuana, cocaine, LSD, heroin, and speed are addictive so they 're illegal, while alcohol and caffeine (and nicotine?) are legal for the same reason? And, by the way, your ignorance is showing, here - LSD and marijuana are not addictive. And he says: >> > It is a fact that marijuana stays >> >in the bloodstream for nearly a month, so one hit of marijuana will keep you >> >high for an entire month. Since this would keep an employee under its influencethis long, I would not hire anyone who smokes pot. >> > WHERE *do* you get your information? This is simply ridiculous. >> Nicotine is supposedly more addictive than heroin - why isn't it illegal? >Nicotine is more addictive than heroin and cocaine put together. And it >should be illegal. > Again, where *do* you get your information? Besides, I thought you agreed before that the addictiveness of a substance should not be a decidng factor in determining whether something should be illegal? >> >> I have never heard any evidence that LSD is addictive, except that it >> can be fun. But so can books, movies, sex, and computers. Do you call >> these addictive? >> >> I think that there would be less of a drug problem in this country if the >> schools would tell kids the truth about drugs. Instead, they try to make >> every drug sound like the ultimate in evil. This may prevent some people >> from trying drugs, but I suspect it causes more trouble in the long run. >> >> If someone tries a drug and finds out that it is not like they said it >> was in school, that person may then decide that *everything* they said >> in school about drugs was wrong, and then try bad drugs, such as heroin. >> This guy is aout 100% correct - the lies just promote disdain for the liars (AUTHORITY) and tend to make people think, "Well, if they lied about that, what *else* are they lying about?" I, for one, would rather see people try to het at the truth than to push their own pre-conceptions. >You have some good points there. The reason they make every drug sound >like the ultimate in evil is that the teachers are using their personal >bias when they tell us that every drug is the ultimate in evil. Besides, >there are drug pushers who make every drug sound like the ultimate in good, >so the only way the school can balance them out is to make every drug sound >like the ultimate in evil. This is beyond absurd. This see-saw approach to reality causes way more problems than it solves. Why not just go for the TRUTH, and let that be its own argument? If someone lies, telling another lie doesn't add to anybody's understanding or get us anywhere closer to the truth. > >Now while I feel that I can't prove that LSD is addictive, someone obviously >will someday. And I do consider books, movies, sex, and computers addictive, >but these are addictive positively. Drugs and criminal behavior are addictive >negatively. > Why will someone "obviously" prove that LSD is addictive? What if it is *not* addictive - will somebody "prove"it anyway? Maybe you're right - maybe someone *will*, and people like you will believe it, whether it's true or not. And here again you are saying thatthe addictiveness of a substance or activity is not a criteria for making it illegal You say that drugs are addictive "negatively". What exactly does this mean? Which drugs are negative in what ways? Please let us know for each of these drugs: Marijuana Caffeine Heroin Nicotine Pepto-Bismol Speed Barbiturates Aspirin Tylenol (without cyanide) Acohol Cocaine Morphine Penicillin etc... > >> >> First of all: How are you going to tell the difference between >> legal medicine, and `illegal' drugs? What if I have a bad, and I happen >> to use a cough syrup with codine? I would proably check positive for heroin. >> >No, I don't think you would check positive for heroin, unless you use it. > Codeine is a narcotic related to heroin and other opiates. What makes you think you wouldn't test positive for opiates after using one? Where *do* you get your information? >> Or, maybe I'm married and my wife smokes, should I leave her? >> >Yes, you should leave your wife, but only if she won't stop smoking. Besides, >you can tell her to smoke outside, you're the man, and men tell their wives >what to do, not vice versa. > Now I'm beginning to get the feeling that this whole thing is just a joke. This attitude could be real, or it could be :-). Which is it? --MKR