### Apollo BBS Archive - Drug Debate - March 3 - 24, 1989

    Message: 57444
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gangs
    Date: 03/08/89  Time: 18:28:22

      Gangs seem to be the current media hysteria, so it should be noted that
    total gang related homicides in Phoenix during 1987 were 17 and that this
    declined to 13 during 1988.
      Once again we have been propagandized into a panic over something which is
    being touted as the latest epidemic. Remember how all our children were
    going to be kidnapped, how we were all going to be wiped out by the AIDS
    epidemic, what was it before that?
      Since these gangs prosper mainly by dealing in illegal substances should
    we crack down on law abiding citizens who use prescription drugs or aspirin?
    This makes every bit as much sense as harassing law abiding citizens over
    their legally owned weapons in order to get back at the gangs for shooting
    people with their illegal ones.

       See You Later

          Dean H.

    Message: 57452
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gangs
    Date: 03/09/89  Time: 07:11:12

    Changing the subject a bit - it seems to me that the drug/gang/gun problem
    would be solved if we legalized drugs to begin with. Gangs might still be
    around but if they are not fighting for something such as drugs - then the
    main reason for their existence would be gone. They would have nothing to
    protect.

    Dean ... your point about gangs being the new media hype is true of course -
    however, my daughter just moved from the L.A. area because of the violence
    of the gangs there and they are so many. I ask her why she didn't move to
    Phoenix and her reply was that the gangs are moving here now! She moved to
    Santa Fe instead and claims there are no gangs there. (at this time!)

    ;       -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57454
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/57453
    Date: 03/09/89  Time: 11:18:21

    The best way to solve a problem involving a dangerous product such as
    narcoti, is not to make it legal. If that were the case, we could curb mafia
    action in the underground porno industry by making child pornography legal.
    We could lighten the load in the prisons by making murder legal. We could
    eliminate the problem of pimps and organized crime in the prostitution
    business by making call-girls legal (my, wouldn't that help curb the spread
    of AIDS? [sarcasm]). In short, the way to curb an evil is not by legalizing
    a greater evil. Could you imagine the field day that companies would have it
    narcotics became legal? They would have an advertising field day, and suck
    hundreds of thousands of kids down that drug-induced drain. The chief source
    of income (and source of violence) among gangs currently is crack, a drug
    that can addict a user upon the first dose, and will cause the user to do
    anything within his/her power to keep a fix (the high lasts 20 minutes, in
    which a terrific depression follows [also a hunger for another high.]) Kids
    would deplete their finances, and resort to crime to keep their habit going
    (which is prevalent now, but not to the extent that it would be if crack
    were legalized.)
    Would you want crack to be legal? Your plan (were it to work) would involve
    a blanket legalization. Any omission would result in the gang's trafficking
    those one or two ILLEGAL drugs.*

    Message: 57455
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 03/09/89  Time: 15:53:48

    Re:  "if we legalized drugs to begin with"

    That same argument has been used for prostitution too.  I know some
    countries have either legalized or semi-legalized drugs and/or prostitution.
    But has it helped society?  Does anyone have statistics?  No one is jumping
    on the bandwagon of success here.

    Message: 57456
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Crime
    Date: 03/09/89  Time: 16:01:51

    The best deterrent to crime is to make it unprofitable.  The next best
    deterrent is to execute the criminal.  I know some of you do not believe
    capitol punishment deters crime, but I have never heard of a dead man
    robbing a store, mugging an old lady, or raping a young girl.  Maybe when
    the situation gets bad enough the government will zap all the convicts on
    death row.  That would have to save a bunch of money right there.  And I've
    already heard all that hoopla about some innocent getting zapped by mistake.
     My comment, tough!  Zap them all anyway!

    Message: 57459
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/legal
    Date: 03/09/89  Time: 20:24:19

            Your child porno does not fit well with drugs.  Not a good example.
    Why not make drugs legal.  Those who want to do them now have no trouble.
    In fact, two years ago an ounce of cocaine was $1000.  Today the same amount
    is $500.  This is because there is so very much on the street that prices
    continue to drop and also the demand has gone down.
            If every drug user was put in prison (an impossible task) then there
    would be a prison on every block.  According to the most recent government
    stats, it costs $20,000 per year per inmate.  Guess who pays?  Why it is the
    middle class worker who pays.
            The very worst drug is already legal and has been legal for years.
    It is alcohol.  Pot, which is the mildest and does help people overcome
    alcohol addiction carries a felony penalty.
            Again, drugs being illegal stops no one from using them.  In fact as
    a person grows and learns how corrupt this society is, drugs become more
    desirable because they are illegal.
            There would be no Bloods or Crips in this area if drugs were legal.
    Just as many people would use them but there would be room in prison for
    people who commit crimes that involves hurting others.
            Christ used drugs.  It says so in the bible.

    ;            Rod

    Message: 57460
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/last
    Date: 03/09/89  Time: 20:32:53

            Many a public official, policemen and probation, parole officers use
    drugs.  Judges, attorneys, city, county, state, federal personnel use drugs.
            What do you think the solution is?

    Message: 57476
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 03/10/89  Time: 15:24:13

      You complain that I failed to address the availability of weapons to
    outlaws and the crimes which they commit with them. You also continue to
    say that the AK-47 and Uzi, etc. are legally available with little if any
    prerequisites.
      Every gun sold retail in the U.S. is subject to registration under the
    Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The buyer must provide identification,
    prove residency in that state, and sign several statements of eligibility
    concerning felony convictions, drug use, mental disability, etc. Some
    states, like California, also require a waiting period and background
    check.
      Every FULLY automatic weapon sold in the U.S. is subject to the controls
    I described in the earlier messages, administered by the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, and Firearms under a law that has existed since 1934. As you have
    been told several times, these legally sold weapons have not been used in
    any crimes.
      It is obvious that all this makes it unlikely that a person would buy a
    gun, especially a fully automatic one, from a gun dealer with the intent of
    using it to commit a crime unless that person had no intention of trying
    to escape. Since this has had absolutely no effect in stopping crime it is
    obvious that criminals have other sources for weapons and that the current
    level of infringement, not to mention the constantly proposed increases in
    it, serve no useful purpose whatsoever with regard to crime.

      I took the trouble to provide some information about the firearms which
    are in question here in hopes of penetrating some of the media induced fog
    surrounding them. The AK-47 is a military FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon. It is
    not available to criminals by any means in the U.S. which can be effected
    by further gun legislation. Stopping the heavily regulated sales of them to
    collectors would not help, as none of those sales has ever resulted in a
    crime. Stopping the sale of semi-automatic look-a-likes would not help
    because criminals don't have to buy retail anyway, and there is no way to
    outlaw these look-a-likes without also outlawing all the functionally
    similar firearms which have been in legal use in this country for the last
    ninety years. To ban these firearms would make paper criminals out of the
    millions of Americans who own clip-fed self-loading guns. Police effort
    would then be required to track down those who would refuse to comply with
    the ban, and do you doubt than many would? The police would suffer a double
    injury as their manpower was called away from real police work to hunt down
    the otherwise law-abiding victims of this travesty, while the nation's
    respect for law and the police would reach a low comparable to that seen
    during Prohibition. It would have zero effect on real outlaws, as they can
    get illegal guns smuggled into the country as easily as they do illegal
    drugs.

      You say that I have ignored the facts about 'ever increasing numbers' of
    people killed by gangs. I did post the totals for gang related homicide for
    Phoenix for the last two years. Maybe you didn't notice that since it wasn't
    an 'ever increasing number' as the fixated media has declared. I don't have
    such figures for L.A., but I would not take the media's word for it
    there either without some hard facts to back it up, considering that they
    are currently in such a frenzy over this that no contradictory information
    is likely to be heard.

      During the time I was in California last month incidents of police
    over-reaction to alleged gang activities exceeded reports of actual gang
    warfare by about two to one as nearly as I could tell. The police are
    under severe pressure to show results against the gangs with all this media
    hype going on.

      Even if we accept everything that has been said about gangs running
    rampant and killing bystanders on a daily basis with machine guns, what
    would be a correct course of action? Would it be to put useless restrictions
    on those who abide by the law, or to look for ways to actually improve the
    situation? If law enforcement and the criminal justice system have not dealt
    with this problem, then why not? That is the issue which needs to be
    addressed, and the gyrations of the gun confiscation lobby are only clouding
    the issue and making real progress that much less likely.

      If there has been a failure of law enforcement and the criminal justice
    system to deal with the situation, then what are the reasons for that
    failure?

      Some would say that the police are out-gunned by these gangs and can not
    cope with them. If this were true then we would be in serious trouble
    because any criminal who could get a hold of a machine gun would be
    practically untouchable by the police. In fact, of course, the police
    are armed appropriately to their mission and rely more on their tactics and
    communications than mere firepower in the hands of every officer.

      The patrol officer wears a handgun because it is the handiest and least
    obtrusive weapon available, which suits the fact that the great majority of
    their work is routine and involves interaction with the public. When a
    shooting situation develops the officers usually have a shotgun in their
    patrol car and they can use communications to arrange everything from
    backup cars, helicopters, SWAT teams with snipers and machine guns, or a
    tank if required. It is true that a lone officer who is away from his car
    and out of communications is out-gunned by a criminal who has a rifle, but
    this has always been true. If the police can no longer accept this state of
    affairs then they can always issue more effective weapons for each officer
    or patrol car, but they can not realistically hope to eliminate the rifle
    from the hands of the criminal.

      Another possible reason for the failure of law enforcement and the
    criminal justice system to control gang activities is the difficulty they
    have in keeping these offenders off the street once they have been arrested.
    Repeat offenders commit the majority of violent crime, but they are often
    returned to the street after little or no incarceration. Prison overcrowding
    is the most heard excuse for this. There is a great need to build more
    prisons and/or make sure that the prison space we do have is used to keep
    dangerous criminals off the street. If our prisons and jails weren't filled
    with people who did not rob or attack anyone, but only offered to buy or
    sell drugs or sex for instance, then the existing system would be much more
    effective at discouraging these violent repeat offenders.

      Whether it is mainly because of prison overcrowding or other factors, the
    fact remains that the criminal justice system is so ineffective that this
    alone could dissuade the police from working too hard or taking too much
    risk in order to arrest dangerous criminals. They know that it doesn't do
    any good in the long run. Nobody will testify in court because they know
    that they will soon be targeted when the criminal hits the street again.

      The man who shot those children in Stockton, Patrick Edward Purdy, had
    been arrested for felony crimes numerous times before, but they never
    bothered to indict him. A police psychiatrist's warning that Purdy was a
    danger to himself and others meant nothing to them and he was always
    released.

       See You Later

          Dean H.

    Message: 57486
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 03/11/89  Time: 05:02:11

    Re:  "Christ used drugs.  It says so in the bible."

    I'll bite.  Where does it say that?

    Message: 57487
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/victimless crime
    Date: 03/11/89  Time: 05:32:09

    When a kid abuses drugs, that kid is the first victim. Then the family
    members are victims. Then those from whom that kid must eventually steal to
    obtain more drugs are victims. THen the entire society, who must bear the
    cost of either rehabilitation, investigation of the crimes committed, and
    probably hospitalization and/or funeral expenses become victimized.
     How can you say that drug abuse is a victimless crime?
    Legalization is not the answer either. All that will accomplish is to make
    the poison that much more available. The kids will be able to buy it at the
    corner candy store instead of having to find a pusher that hasn't been shot
    yet for selling on the wrong corner.

    Message: 57489
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/dope
    Date: 03/11/89  Time: 08:14:16

    Where else is organized crime going to go? Where else could they make those
    kind of big bucks? They'll always be around, but why give them something
    like the profit of drugs? Re: child pornography - yes, they make big bucks,
    but nowhere near what a drug runner or even a pusher can make. There just
    isn't the demand for child porn. Besides - that IS exploitation - the
    children have no choice - drug users do so because they want to!

                -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57490
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/evils
    Date: 03/11/89  Time: 08:26:30

    You can put the tag of evil on such things but that doesn't make it so.
    Drugs have been around ever since man has been here - it was legal up until
    the last couple centuries.
    Re: the state making kids drug users - that won't happen any more than the
    state making them alcoholics. That is ridiculous. A drug store (literary)
    could be run just like a liquor store and I certainly don't see any twelve
    year old purchasing Jack Daniel's from the local store. Sure, the kids will
    get  hold of it just like they do liquor and cigarettes and they'll no
    doubt steal for it too - but certainly on a much lesser scale than now. He
    wouldn't be able to make the big bucks or sell it to adults because the
    adults can get what they want anytime and at reasonable prices. It will
    also remove the thrill of doing something illegal. That can't be under rated
    either. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57492
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Bob/Drugs
    Date: 03/11/89  Time: 11:57:28

            Okay, you bit, here goes.

            Jesus had oils rubbed into his skin.  They made him feel refreshed
    and smell good.  Pot has the same effect.  I guess one could make a paste of
    pot and rub it on the skin.  It certainly smells good.

            Hope this answers your question. -Rod

    Message: 57493
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/victimless crime
    Date: 03/11/89  Time: 12:07:58

            You used the word abuse.  All substances can be abused and this
    includes bacon.  There is nothing wrong with substances that come
    from flower tops when used on occasion.  They are much better than animal
    products.  By your logic everyone is a victim of something.
            Drugs which comes from vegetable matter are most probably the most
    healthful substances on this planet.
            I'm sure that every American abuses the fallout from automobile
    exhausts and this certainly isn't a victimless crime.  Every man, woman
    and child has to suffer the consequences on a equal basis.  Plant substances
    are probably the best things ever to come down the pike and I'm not talking
    substance which are allowed to ferment.
           But one must be careful and not abuse that which we have a choice of.

            I guess kids after trying certain drugs find them to be such a
    contrast to their everyday life that in many cases abuse follows.  Too bad
    the stage is set for that to happen.  This world is so very corrupt that
    people, all people, want to do things that make them feel good.  Children
    have so very little real things that make their lives feel good.

            -Rod

    Message: 57497
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Drugs & Crime
    Date: 03/11/89  Time: 19:20:19

          For every problem there is a cause.  Every problem has a
    solution.  Simple words, simple meaning.
          Why people abuse substances is anyone's guess.  My guess based
    upon a few items of knowledge will follow.  It has been noted that
    during times of great stress people will do abnormal things.  During
    the First World War, 1914-1919, cigarette sales went way up.  During
    the Great Depression, ash trays had to be added to the table in
    restaurants as the amount of smokers increased at an alarming rate.
    You know, smoke a cigarette, calm your nerves, is an old saying.  Alcohol
    is no exception.  In the old movies, most everyone smoked right on
    screen and many a time I have heard the comment on films, "I deserve a
    reward, I'll have a drink".  Of course everyone who watched wanted to
    be cool like the movie stars so again these two substances soared in
    sales.  So, we have two things that bring about abuse, stress and peer
    (or should that be idol) pressure.

          In our nation today and especially in the big cities, there is
    an awful lot of stress.  We go by the clock more so than anytime in
    history.  Hustle-bustle is a way of life.  Being short of money, having
    to go without items and having your credit cards charged to the max is
    the norm.  Both husband and wife working at jobs away from their brood
    is more necessary now than ever before.  Children are being raised by
    child care centers and their schools.  Their parents are usually too
    tired to help much after a hard day of work.

          Why is it like this?  It isn't necessarily Capitalism that is to
    blame.  But it is Pig-Capitalism.  Another cause is separation of the
    common person from their government.  It is being pushed and shoved by
    the Establishment with no recourse.  It is a feeling of hopelessness
    that comes from situations beyond our control. "Guess I'll have
    another drink and dull the problem from my mind."

          We are a nation of madmen, out of control.  It is not
    economically feasible to rent a house nor is it economically possible
    to purchase one, at least for the average middle class person.  This
    in itself is a gigantic rub as a safe and secure cave is a basic need
    of the human self.  Always has been, always will be.  A cat or other
    animal will not have a kitten in a place considered to be dangerous.
    They will spend weeks checking out a safe spot.  A human is no
    exception to this rule.  A feeling of safety and well-being is most
    important to us.  Many people (read many) are dictated to by their
    landlords.  Three days late with the almighty money and eviction
    proceedings are started.  There are just as many stresses with this
    so-called, buying a home, as the lender likes to see their money just
    as well and balloon payments have become a part of many financing
    deals.

          So here we have parents who both work in order to pay for their
    nest and children who lack in parental supervision.  This is not a
    good situation for this country.

           The final matter I wish to touch on is that there are bombs that
    exist which are more than capable of destroying all human life on this
    planet.  This in itself is bad and causes stress but because we are
    constantly reminded of world unrest and military paranoia the situation
    is in the forefront of our minds.

          Although drugs are not the correct way to solve the problems of
    the world they do offer a solution to the person who is overwhelmed by
    the enormousness of them.

          So you see, the government is prosecuting people for problems
    that it is directly responsible for.  Prisons are being filled beyond
    capacity with those who are not real criminals.  But when the inmates
    are released from prison watch out because now we are dealing with a
    bitter victim of the unjust laws of the establishment.  Society is
    becoming worse off.

                -Rod

    Message: 57503
    Author: $ Alan Hamilton
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/crime
    Date: 03/12/89  Time: 01:39:26

            The difference between drug abuse, and child porno, murder, etc.,
    can be summed up as "consenting adults."  Child pornography and murder
    involve people that are not adults, or are not consenting, or both.  I would
    not favor legalizing drugs for children, anymore than booze is legal for
    children now.

    =3D Alan

    Message: 57509
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 03/12/89  Time: 05:58:59

     If "useful ways of dealing with crime are available", then how come the
    gangs are getting such a foothold and growing so large and dangerous, mostly
    on the profits from the sale of illegal drugs?
    Id "useful ways of dealing with crime are available", then why are there
    areas in this best of all possible countries where honest people must fear
    for their lives every time they step out of their doors?
    If "useful ways of dealing with crime are available", how come police in
    some parts of our country have to go to work in body armor?
    How come Dean?

    Message: 57513
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 03/12/89  Time: 11:34:59

      I said that effective ways of dealing with crime were available, I did not
    say they were being used. Enforcing existing laws and keeping violent
    offenders off the street and in custody works, but the criminal justice
    system is not functioning effectively in this area. This is partly due to
    the prisons and jails being filled with people who are not violent offenders
    and partly due to other problems in the judicial system. Don't expect any
    relief from this as long as a doomed 'war on drugs' is our top national
    priority in law enforcement.

      Body armor saves more police officers from injury in traffic accidents
    than it does in shootings. It is probably an excellent idea for anyone who
    drives a lot as part of their job, but especially anyone who gets into the
    occasional high speed chase.

       See You Later

          Dean H.

    Message: 57523
    Author: David Hsu
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: legalize it
    Date: 03/13/89  Time: 04:09:07

    I think we should legalize crime.  After all, those who want to commit
    crimes are going to do so regardless of any laws which are passed.  Just
    think of what we could do with the billions of dollars saved by the
    elimination of the criminal justice system, law enforcement, and
    the penal system.  Why, we could pay compensation to all the poor victims of
    the environment who suffered in jail for their little misunderstandings with
    society.

    Message: 57525
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Jesus/Drugs
    Date: 03/13/89  Time: 13:12:56

    Some how I can't equate "Jesus had oils rubbed into his skin" with smoking
    pot.  On occasion I rub hand lotion on my skin, but no one has even
    suggested that I'm doing drugs.  You'll have to do better than that Rod.

    Message: 57530
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: David Hsu
    Date: 03/13/89  Time: 17:37:48

            Are you talking about victimless crimes?  Well, hell, lets just put
    everyone in prison.  I'm fairly positive that everyone has committed a crime
    during their lifetime.  But who would be the guards?  Or would we do it on
    the honor system?  We could each carry a key and lock ourselves in.

            Oh, you think that because a person is a cop or a judge or some
    other official that they are not guilty of anything.  I see.

            Your message sucked.
                -Rod

    Message: 57532
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/57474
    Date: 03/13/89  Time: 23:11:47

    Rod, do YOU understand that the criminal element that pervades the
    trafficking of both child pornography and illegal drugs, profits upon the
    illegality of both? Make drugs illegal, and the criminals will pool their
    money into something more profitable. And you are being half-cocked if you
    wish to legalize one to eliminate crime, and not the other. Ethically, you
    should be for the legalization of both, or the status quo. And you say that
    drug abuse is a victimless crime, eh? Tell that to the kid that is lying
    dead in the gutter as the result of some bad dope he bought from the
    neighborhood pusher. Yeah, victimless crime, right. There is one victim: THE
    USER.

    Message: 57533
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 57475/Rod
    Date: 03/13/89  Time: 23:16:19

    If the judge trying my case is kcufed up on cocaine or any other illegal
    drug, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. Any officer of the law who willfully uses
    drugs, either on or off duty, is a DAMN HYPOCRITE, and is no better than any
    criminal on the street in my eyes. Furthermore, if that person is going to
    his taxpayer-paid job copping a buzz, then I want his butt OFF THE FORCE. To
    Protect and To Serve does not mean To Protect (The Stash) and Serve (Your
    Fellow Officers).

    Message: 57534
    Author: Stuart Dobbs
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 00:45:37

    Hey fellow.  You ain't never gonna stop them cops from catching a buzz.  I
    don't care who they hire, human is human.  Same for judges and the like and
    you ain't never gonna know about it cept once in a while, maybe.  There is
    thousands of judges and cops in this country.  Do you think they are all
    honest and don't by future freeway land while laughing at the geeks who come
    before them without a pot?
    When you gonna wake up, the coffees perkin.  Every human is dishonest to a
    degree.  Them big money boys don't even take the time to consider us yokels.
    All they wants is that power and glory they gets from putting us in the
    slammer and taking our land and possessions.  Praise Dobbs.

    Message: 57535
    Author: Rick Shaw
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jesus on drugs
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 03:30:29

    He drank wine, didn't he?

    Message: 57536
    Author: Rick Shaw
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Williams/Hsu
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 03:34:02

    I think he was serious.  Sounds like a Libertarian.

    Message: 57537
    Author: David Hsu
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Williams
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 03:52:34

    You misunderstand me.  I'm talking about letting everyone OUT of prison.
    However, your suggestion of putting everyone in prison is well taken, since
    the differences between the two conditions are negligible.
    As far as the virtue of judges and policemen, it is my considered opinion
    that all officials, with the exception of certain petty bureaucrats in the
    U.S. Department of Labor, are clearly either immoral stooges of the
    military-industrial tool-complex, or have secret vices beyond the ken of any
    of us, save perhaps Merle Haggard.

    Yes, I'm a Libertarian and proud of it.

    Message: 57539
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gee...

    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 11:27:14

    Stuart, uh Rick, uh I mean ROD... You most certainly are on a roll, aren't
    you? Well, when you're finished "rolling" it, turn off your computer, smoke
    it, and hush.

    Wine was not intended to be used as a means for getting intoxicated in those
    days. The Bible shuns drunkenness (1 Cor 5:11, among others). Even you
    should know that, since you claim to be an ex-Bible scholar. I tend to doubt
    that more and more each day.

    Message: 57546
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Rick/Stu etc.
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 19:02:42

            You are way off base, bub.  I am neither Rick or any of those others
    you mentioned.  But I am a Libertarian.

    Message: 57548
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/1 of 2 1/4
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 19:04:54

    Daryl, you still do not understand.  Child pornography is a serious
    crime that involves a victim.  That's right, it is someone hurting
    another.  Pot, heroin, cocaine, magic mushrooms and Peyote are from the
    plant kingdom.  Get this.  It is the individuals right to take any of
    these substances.  In fact it is their right to take Cyanide if they so
    desire.  Of course they would be violating others rights if they took
    poison while speeding down a freeway at 80.  People do not have the
    right to be foolish where it involves freedoms of others.  But, damn it,
    you cannot usurp the rights of others in regards to what they put into
    their bodies.  Although it is done, it is in direct violation of an
    individuals freedom.  But that just happens to be the type of world we
    now live in.  Ignorance is king.

          I hope you can see the difference between herbal intake and
    using a child to produce explicit sexual material.

          You mention a kid who is in the gutter, dead from too much dope.
    Well, I can see those children in the gutter, dead from being run over
    by an automobile but deaths due to drug over-usage is far down on
    the scale of reality.  It is rare.  It would be easier for a child to
    OD on the booze in his fathers liquor cabinet than die from pot or
    cocaine.

    Message: 57549
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/ 2 of 2 1/4
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 19:05:47

          But if you want to protect the kids from bad dope then push for
    legalization.  There would be no bad dope.  It would all be pure.
    By the way, what is 'bad dope' and how does one go about dying from
    it?  Well, sure if someone is foolish enough to stick needles into
    their veins and squeeze the 'bulb' then I guess a lot could happen,
    including infections.  But anyone who is idiot enough to allow
    substances to bypass all bodily defenses by putting things directly
    into their blood stream should be educated.  They should be given or
    sold clean needles.  They should be helped out of their dilemma but
    not with prison or jail but with an education.

          Many anti-drug laws were drawn up by legislators drinking
    cocktails.  I'm sure they couldn't discern the difference in the land
    where ignorance is king.

          Many people who have little self-worth shoot the harder
    substances such as heroin.  The reason they have little self-worth to
    begin with is the way our society is set up.  Some children are born
    with little intelligence compared to others.  They grow up as slow
    achievers and very little is offered to them in the way of a decent
    livelihood or home.  They are set upon by the sharks of this world.
    They never get ahead.  They are probably more efficient at

    Message: 57550
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/ 1/4
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 19:06:33

    shop-lifting and other criminal type behavior as minimum wages are
    hardly enough to support them, their wives or children.  Society
    offers little to these people of low intelligence.  There are people
    who go all through school and do not know how to read, write or add.
    The school just wanted to get rid of them.  If our teachers are not
    intelligent then who is?

          We have a lot of growing up to do and in the meantime, the
    bigots will continue to have a lot of say in this world.  Prisons will
    remain full and murder, rape and smog will get worse.  -Rod

    Message: 57551
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/wine
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 20:03:32

    Daryl, you say that wine was not intended to be used as a means for
    getting intoxicated in the days of 2000 years ago.  You make me
    laugh.

          So what you are saying is that our ancestors of 2000 years ago
    were somehow more intelligent and enlightened.  Sure, yea.  You doubt
    the people became intoxicated at wedding feasts or when problems
    beyond their control arose?  They just sat down and had a biblical
    conversation with God.  They didn't get drunk.  Are you serious?  You
    go on to say that in 1 Cor. 5:11 it says The Bible shuns drunkenness.
    Well, that's good enough for me and everyone else.  (grin)  It's
    simply amazing how everyone followed the bible 2000 years ago just the
    same as they do today.  I bet they got a real thrill from Mark and the
    others not to forget Paul.  People back then were so smart that they
    would wait till Monday to pull their beasts of burden, who had fallen
    into a pit on a Sunday, to safety.  You are hilariously funny today.
    That particular civilization was corrupt to the max, bout' like it is
    today.  Cept' they didn't have Libertarians back then.  -Rod

    Message: 57552
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 20:17:01

      Let me say that I agree with Rod and that I am impressed as hell at how
    well he is expressing himself.

       See You Later

          Dean H.

    Message: 57557
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/57548
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 22:36:15

    Rod, there is a vast difference between raw unprocessed coca leaves and
    highly concentrated and refined cocaine and crack. You say that it is an
    individuals right to kcuf their lives up with drugs. THEN WHY IS IT ILLEGAL
    IN THIS COUNTRY? HOW CAN IT BE A RIGHT WHEN MERE POSSESSION OF THESE
    *ILLEGAL* DRUGS CAN GET YOU PUT IN THE SLAM? Your Bill of Rights and mine
    are apparently quite different. Or perhaps your mind is too clouded to read
    it properly.

    Message: 57558
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod Part II
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 22:43:07

      Protect the kids from drugs by making it legal and offering them purer
    dope. If that isn't a perfect example of NON-LOGIC, I don't know what is.
    From someone who seems to place a high priority on logical solutions to
    problems, I think you need to put that pipe down for as long as it takes to
    allow you to think (relatively) clearly once more. It's the easiest cop out
    in the world to blame the big bad society for everything. When it comes down
    to the nitty gritty, the person is responsible for his own life. If he
    doesn't try to make something out of it, it is his own fault. Drugs are a
    cop-out for the weak-minded, weak-willed, that place a sense of non-value
    UPON THEMSELVES. It's an old saying, but I think it bears repeating. DRUGS
    ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HANDLE REALITY. If you have to destroy your mind
    with drugs, or booze up until you are vomiting to have "fun," then please
    steer clear of me, thankyouverymuch.

    Message: 57559
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod III
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 22:52:20

    If a kid doesn't want to take the time to learn, THAT IS HIS OWN FAULT. If
    his teacher is unwilling to give him the one-on-one he may need to get him
    past the hard spots, he should seek out someone who will, not just blow it
    off. Again, that is the result of the weak will of the individual, not
    society. Too many kids nowadays have a "What the kcuf do I need to learn
    this for? I'll never use it" attitude. THEY ARE ALLOWING *THEMSELVES* TO
    REMAIN IGNORANT. I agree that a student should not be allowed to progress in
    grade level until his requirements are met, however IT IS UP TO THE KID TO
    LEARN. If he doesn't want to learn, there is not a teacher in the world that
    can force him to. And, like I said, though it is easy to blame it on the big
    bad ol "society," how YOU direct YOUR life is YOUR responsibility. Just
    because you kcuf up in life, don't go blaming it on me, or on my neighbor,
    on on the guy down the street, or down the block, or in the next town,
    state, etc. etc. YOUR LIFE IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. LEAD IT WISELY. AND FOR
    YOUR OWN SAKE, DON'T KCUF WITH DRUGS, DAMN IT! Despite how earnestly those
    like Rod want to "improve" your lives by legalising drugs, to make it
    easier, cheaper, and purer for you, IT'S THE WRONG ROAD, FRIEND. And though
    Rod may feel that drug abuse is a victimless crime, HE IS WRONG AGAIN. By
    doing drugs, you set yourself up to be the victim of your own demise. Drugs
    do not improve your thinking. Drugs will not improve your productivity in
    the long run. Drugs will not allow you to find inner peace. Drugs will alter
    your thinking, kill brain cells, destroy self-value, incentive, and future
    goals. Drugs will mess you the kcuf up.

    Message: 57560
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Wine
    Date: 03/14/89  Time: 22:58:49

    Talking to you is nigh impossible. It's like talking to a very loud and
    pompous brick wall. Wine was not created for the intent and purpose of
    getting snockered. If it were, I would most certainly doubt that it's use in
    moderation would have been practiced by Christ. You can drink a little wine
    and not feel buzzed in the least. In fact, much of the wine used in Biblical
    times was heavily watered down (most likely for that reason). And as I am
    sure you would know if you were knowledgeable of the Bible, that many did
    not follow the words of God, and many suffered directly as a result. Of
    course, some people are wrapped up in their own false sense of self worth
    that they don't want to be bothered by having to answer to a higher
    authority. These same people are going to have a terribly rude awakening one
    of these days. I will continue to pray for you, though. Perhaps it may do
    some good eventually.

    Message: 57561
    Author: Mildred Stumpstedd
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hi
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 01:26:41

            I new here and I have been reading some of the posts.  They are
    pretty interesting too.

    I know a fellow who is serving eight years in Florence Prison because he had
    some marijuana.  He is with some people who are in for murder and are only
    serving seven years.  My question is this:  Why are the Senators and
    Congressmen of this Country not in prison where they belong.  They are the
    biggest crooks of all and are the ones who make the laws.  Yet they are also
    the ones who break the laws big time.  Is this fair.

     And whoever it was that called our Jesus a wino is not telling the truth.
    Wine wasn't made in order to get high.  It was made solely for the purpose
    of helping food digest.  Jesus will get you for that and make you pay in
    the end, that's for sure.  You'll wish you had never, never even thought
    such a thought in your life.  How does eternal hell sound to you?  You'd
    better think about it.  Our bible school teacher says that at least 75% of
    the people in this world will go there.  There is only room for the good
    people.  This is a Christian Nation and I will fight to the death to defend
    it.  My teacher told me that all Communists will go to hell.  All Jews and
    Moslems, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and many Christian sects will go
    too.  God is the most perfect being.  He just created some real bums, that's
    all.

     Go to church every Sunday and confess Jesus in your hearts.  Jesus loves
    you more than you will ever know.  He died for you.  He is sitting on the
    right hand of the Father, smiling at his beloved.  He lives!!  Viva God and
    all his chosen.  The Saints smile on you and wait for you.  Love Mildred

    Message: 57562
    Author: Peter Leventhal
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: wine/Bible
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 03:09:10

    I think the point was not whether or not Jesus could hold his liquor, but
    whether or not he consumed drugs.  Whether he intended to get smashed, or
    just to partake of the common practices of the day, he consumed alcohol,
    and alcohol is a drug, yes?

    Message: 57565
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 05:36:14

    You and a few others stubbornly fail to recognize the fact that, when it
    comes to substance abuse, there are many victims. Victim #1 is, of course,
    the abuser, whose mind, body and eventually life are destroyed by continued
    abuse. Victims of each abuser are also his or her family, who suffer agony
    beyond description as they watch helplessly as their loved one flushes his
    life down the toilet, not to mention the real loss of the money and other
    items the abuser steals from the family to feed his addiction.
     Next comes society as a whole, victimized not only be the loss of those
    things stolen to buy dope, but by the ultimate cost to the public for
    rehabilitation and treatment, and all too often, burial of the indigent
    addict, indigent only because of, and directly attributable to, the drugs
    they have consumed. Victimless? Indeed!

    Message: 57567
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/#57557
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 07:30:52

    These things are illegal because the moralists want others to do what they
    think is right. For as long as I can remember, there is always someone who
    tries to tell me what is good and bad for me - right and wrong. I need no
    one to do that for me. Rod is right - we need to let the individual judge
    for himself what he wants to do (IF he is not hurting anyone else!) - even
    if that means shooting up with bleach is that's what he chooses to do.

    Re: Biblical wine - they were no different than we are today. In fact, the
    wine was probably a lot more potent than it is today. Wine will make
    me drunk quick - just a glass - than whiskey of any sort! So will beer and
    both of these are much lower proof than whiskey, gin, vodka etc. Just
    because wine is a countries tradition doesn't mean it is/wasn't abused.
            -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57568
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/drugs
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 07:35:44

    Who said anything about legalizing drugs and giving it to kids because it's
    purer? The rules of legalized drugs would be the same as it is for alcohol
    now. How come you don't see 'booze peddlers' out on the street selling the
    stuff to kids or any one else? Because it's legal and has no profit in it!
    'Rum Running' is a thing of the past. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57569
    Author: $ Alan Hamilton
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/57557
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 08:17:41

            I think the whole point of this is discussion is that yes, drugs are
    illegal, but that they should not be.  Why are drugs illegal?  From the
    misguided perception that simply making something illegal will get rid of
    it.

            Another point has to be made about what a victimless crime is.  That
    is an action that is illegal, but does not harm anyone beyond the person
    committing the "crime."  If an adult wants to do something to himself, even
    something stupid like smoking tobacco or crack, they should have the right
    to do so.

            Under a legalized drug system, sellers of contaminated drugs could
    be prosecuted under product liability laws.

            Note that above I mentioned "adults."  Children, under the law, are
    not fully responsible for their own actions, so like with alcohol and
    cigarettes, they should not be able to obtain drugs until they reach
    the age of majority.

          /
      /  *  /  Alan
     *     *

    Message: 57572
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl 1 of 5
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 11:55:10

    Daryl, you graciously point out that a difference exists between the coca
    leaf and processed cocaine and crack.  Granted, there is also a
    difference between milk that lays in a cows belly and that which sits in
    your refrigerator.  I think your mind may be a bit cloudy from drinking
    same.  After all, cholesterol is a number one killer and everyone knows
    by now that milk from another beast is not the best for the human body.
    The majority of it sits in the intestines and, err, well, rots.  But it
    is your right to purchase it and use it as you see fit.  Even though I
    don't think you should use it, that it is bad for your system and you
    will undoubtedly suffer for it in later years, it is your right to drink
    all you want.  You cannot legally legislate what another does to their
    body.  It is bigoted to say the least.

         You ask why some drugs are illegal and cause the user, if caught, to
    be put in prison.  Good question.  There are many reasons, Daryl.  One of
    them is in the form of a question.  Why should a wealthy and powerful
    person lose an income of billions of dollars each year by legalizing
    drugs?  The big importers have power and influence in this nations
    capital and can easily pay for lobbyists.  Another reason is that the
    best drugs grow better in South American Countries.  Pot needs a warm,
    humid, mountainous country and the same for coca.  The pot that grows in
    Nebraska just doesn't come out as well.  Although pot grows well in
    Northern California and Oregon and it is their number one cash crop.
    Well, it is done so by some old hippies that are not members of any big
    cartels.

    Message: 57573
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl 2 of 5
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 11:55:58

         Any big capitalist worth his salt would grow and distribute drugs if
    given half a chance.  This should be obvious to you as you can take a
    look at the liquor industry.  Alcohol is the number one killer in the
    drug world and there are more bottles than Bibles.  Users are caught and
    put in prison because we live in a bigoted, fairly evil world.

         As Ann pointed out, plants have been used since mans first step.
    Coffee, Tea, and a host of others are being ingested everyday.  Look at
    the number one prescription drug, Valium. It comes from plants that grow
    in a field.

         This nations law enforcement boys, many themselves using drugs, will
    NEVER put an end to drug usage.  The fabric of this nation is being
    ripped to shreds over the bigotry of this issue.  A nation that has one
    single individual in a prison, an institution whose sole purpose is
    punishment, is sick.  Our prisons are bursting at the seems.  People will
    continue using drugs.  At least we could make sure they are pure.

         You said yourself, in your last message, that when it comes to the
    nitty gritty a person is responsible for their own life.  Yet you are
    trying to legislate the lives of those you say have that responsibility.
    This is bigoted and don't try to deny it.  More on this later.

         If drugs are a cop-out for the weak-minded, weak-willed then I guess
    everyone is weak.  So, you think it is your right, as a Christian-Bigot
    to determine what is best for others.  You, as your lord tells you, knows
    what is right for everyone else.  Okay, Ev.

    Message: 57574
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl 3 of 5
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 11:56:40

         You say that drugs are for people who can't handle reality.  Is this
    why hundreds of thousands of American Servicemen in Viet Namn smoked pot
    and snorted heroin.  I guess this reality you mention is a fun thing, eh?

         But, coming back on the boat or by plane, these same servicemen quit
    their drugs and caused the new West Coast Drug Treatment Facilities to be
    unused.  Less than one percent of the returning servicemen used them.
    They were probably the ones who watched their buddies head being shot
    off.  This is the kind of reality that is offered to young men.  Die for
    pig-capitalism.  And don't tell me that we weren't on that foreign soil
    in order to rip-off their wealth.  And don't tell me that you, if you had
    been there, would not have knelt in your foxhole, holding a bible in one
    hand while pushing heroin up your nose with the other.  And then when
    your reality suddenly changed, you probably would have lost your need and
    desire to be zombied out.

         Well, my good friend Daryl, look around you and see the reality of
    the millions of people who rush to their doctor each month to get their
    prescription for drugs.  This is a rough world and a big part of why this
    is, is because of people like you who think it is their right to
    legislate the morality of others.  We live in a world of Christian-Bigot-
    Landlords who up the rent after having a personal conversation with
    Jesus.  But, but, it says so in the Bible, right?

    Message: 57575
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl 4 of 5
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 11:57:24

         Believe me Daryl, I do steer clear of people like you.  No problem.
    Oh, I see them, talk with them but they are not counted as my close
    friends or people I associate with on a regular basis.  But change is
    possible and it happens.  You have intelligence.

         In your message, Part 3, you say that if a kid doesn't want to take
    the time to learn, THAT IS THEIR OWN FAULT.  Congratulations, spoken like
    a true Christian.  Daryl, you missed my point entirely.  Wake up.  There
    are many people in this nation who lack in basic intelligence.  They are
    the underachiever, they are born this way.  They are naturally ignorant
    but they are not bad people.  They have their own genius in animal
    intelligence, survival, cunning and all that.  But in the business world
    they are not bright.  They could have ten teachers for 100 years and they
    would still be dense.  It is how their physical brain works.  It is in
    the genes, it can't be helped.  It is not their fault.  You as a so-
    called Christian are condemning them.  I don't understand but then again
    I understand.  Know what I mean?  You said it yourself, "weak will".  It
    is a fact of life.  These people, by the laws of our society, are being
    trodden upon, being used.  Someone has to live in sub-standard housing
    and purchase the junk products.  American depends upon them.  But they
    are people nonetheless, they have hearts and feelings and deserve better
    than what is offered.  Rajneesh should never have been closed down.  I
    guess that I should be thankful that you do not run a mental institution.
    But I bet that your brother ran one up in Oregon a few years ago until he
    was caught.

    Message: 57576
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: 5 of 5
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 11:58:08

         About the best thing I could recommend for you is that you go smoke
    a joint, friend.

         In your last message to me, headed "WINE", you say that it was not
    created for the intent and purpose of getting snockered.  Well, then why
    didn't they just drink grape juice?  It tastes much better.  One swallow
    of ANY alcoholic beverage effects my mind.  One half can of beer will
    make me drunk.  For what purpose did early man ferment plant material?
    Was it digestion or to ease a harsh reality?  According to your bible
    story, Christ made the good wine first and after the guests drank this
    and got buzzed the watered down stuff tasted okay.

         Yes, I am one of those people who is wrapped up in my own false
    sense of worth, as you mention.  My children must profit from it, too.
    At least I hope they do.

         When you are praying to your God about me....ask him this for me,
    Send Drugs!

        -Rod

    Message: 57577
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: LEGALIZATION?
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 12:12:25

         Obviously, we aren't going to legalize all drugs tomorrow - but where
    would be a good place to start?  Personally, I'd say with the
    de-criminalization of marijuana.  To begin with, let's clear up a
    misconception here.  You can't even start to compare this drug to the harder
    stuff, such as crack.  It's kind of like comparing "near beer" with grain
    alcohol, if you know what I mean.

         Drug use is a victimless crime, in that there is no victim to
    potentially file a police report after the fact (as there would be in the
    case of child porn.)  This is even true in the case of marijuana, where
    the effects are much less intense than with the harder stuff.

         In drug-abuse deaths due to accident, suicide or unknown cause
    (in a report by the Drug Abuse Warning Network), the #1 killer was "alcohol
    in combination".  Next, came heroin, cocaine and codeine.  Tylenol was #10,
    aspirin #11.  Marijuana?  42.

         Marijuana has been shown to aid in the treatment of depression, help in
    controlling seizures in people afflicted with MS & cerebral palsy, and
    stimulate appetite/reduce nausea in cancer therapy. (As a side note, a
    program in Britain which allows the use of heroin to relieve pain in
    terminal patients has been called successful.)  Being on Schedule I,
    marijuana cannot even be used in medical research these days.

         When drugs such as marijuana are illegal, what happens?  First, the
    price skyrockets.  With the harder, more expensive drugs, this translates
    into one thing -  more capital is needed to continue buying.  Often times,
    when users exceed their means, the additional cost comes out of your pocket
    and mine - quite literally, and by force at times.  Drug laws force people
    who may be law-abiding otherwise into "criminal" activity.  If you really
    wanted to help a drug user, is sending him to prison for possession of a
    small amount of marijuana really the best way to help?

       On another note, if a drug is illegal, those people wishing to buy must
    then deal with a person who grows/makes and sells this drug knowing
    full well the legal risk involved.  Talk about a nervous character... Drug
    manufacturers have also been known to "invent" new drugs, to get by drug law
    loopholes.  These "designer drugs" can prove to be far more dangerous than
    the drug being replaced.  I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a
    pharmaceutical company, with all the regulations & guidelines it follows,
    making these drugs than Moe the back street chemist.

         If drugs were legalized, we wouldn't have that kid dead in the gutter
    any more than we have the occasional case of teenagers going belly up from
    alcohol poisoning.  Prices would drop substantially, resulting in less crime
    committed to support an expensive habit.  I really don't think usage would
    increase substantially (ask yourself - would YOU start using drugs on a
    regular basis if they were legal.  If you answer "no", what make you
    any better than the average joe?)

         In the case of legalizing marijuana, I can't see any good reason to
    keep it illegal. It's just not that dangerous, especially when you put it up
    against crack, or a bottle of Jack Daniels.  As for the legalization of other
    drugs, such as heroin, all I can say is that there aren't any easy solutions
    here.  However, I know a half-assed "war on drugs", isn't a solution, it
    is ignoring a bigger problem by smoothing things over with tough talk.

    Talk, that is what the war amounts to these days.

         Sometimes drastic problems call for drastic solutions.  Drug
    legalization may be that solution.  Not an easy pill to swallow, I know.

         If you'd care to help in this solution, please get in touch with:

    Message: 57589
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/profit
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 05:27:25

    I'm sure that Kemper Marley, wholesale liquor dealer and one of the richest
    and most powerful men in the state, would be interested to know that there's
    no profit in booze.

    Besides. alcohol is the only addictive, poisonous "disease" that can legally
    be sold on virtually every major corner, in every liquor store, drug store
    and supermarket, and it should stay the only one. Making dope legal is not
    going to solve the problem at all, and that is a fact.

    Message: 57590
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Alan
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 05:35:09

    The last statement of your message tells me that it has been too long since
    you have taken a good look at out high school and even junior high campuses,
    where children are being coerced into not only smoking cancer sticks, but
    using all sorts of drugs as well. This is pressure put on kids not only by
    their peers, but by those who are supposed to be the examples as well. Just
    walking into a teacher's lounge is enough to gag a maggot, what with all the
    stale cigarette smoke in the air.

    No Alan, legalization is not the answer. Neither, for that matter, is the
    Phoenix police present drive to get tough on the users. Education of the
    children and much tougher prosecution of the dealers and importers and/or
    manufacturers would help. Even up to and including the death penalty for
    convicted pushers, since they are responsible for many deaths with their
    poison.

    Message: 57593
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Paul/legal drugs
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 07:13:01

    Then what is your answer to the problem? Surely the death penalty is no/has
    been a deterrent. With those kind of big bucks involved, they figure it's
    worth risking their lives for anyway. In fact, a lot less money could be
    involved and they'd risk their lives. If this country gave the death
    penalty to all pushers - we'd become mass murders ourselves. I don't think
    we have enough courts or judges, prisons etc. to carry out such a thing
    anyway. What are we going to do with a little 12 year old pusher too? Send
    him to the gas chamber? Do you also realize what it would take - man power
    wise to hunt down all these drug dealers? Wouldn't it be easier to just take
    away their profit? Don't just condemn this idea and not give a solution
    yourself. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    P.S. If I remember right, about 6 months ago didn't you say you were
    thinking the subject over and hated to admit it, but you might change your
    way of thinking and making it legal?

    Message: 57596
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul/57565
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 09:31:55

    Of course, and the only way to solve all of that needless suffering and
    victimization is to LEGALIZE it, right? Then everything will be peachy keen
    and everyone will have daisies in their yard all year long, and we'll all
    ride bicycles to work and think like Rod. Whoopee!

    Message: 57598
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Wine
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 09:48:04

    Wine, like anything else is fine IF CONSUMED IN MODERATION. In the days of
    Christ, drugs as we know them today did not exist (both the healing kind and
    the narcotics). Most certainly it was known that drinking to excess produced
    drunkenness. It was also frowned upon greatly: "But now I have written unto
    you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a
    fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
    extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." Drunkenness is in some pretty
    heavy company, there. It's nestled in there among such other detestable
    things as fornication, idolatry, and extortion (1 Cor 5:11). Next chapter:
    "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
    not deceived: neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
    abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
    drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God."
    (1 Cor 6:9-10). "Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:
    For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall
    clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20-21). Riotous overindulgence of food
    (such as pagan feasts) always included the overindulgence of alcohol.
    However, as we can see, it was something for an upright man to detest.
    "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the
    Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
    singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always
    for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
    Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Ephesians
    5:18-21).*

    Message: 57599
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Wine II
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 10:02:41

    However, the wine itself is not seen as a detestable thing. David wrote of
    all the good things of the Lord in Psalms, and among those things he
    included, "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the
    service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; [this in no
    way can be misconstrued to give a blessing to the smoking of marijuana, as
    it expressly refers to the use of the herb to "bring forth food out of the
    earth"] And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face
    to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." (Psalms 104:14-15).
    Then of course, there was the occasion when Christ, at a wedding reception
    in Cana of Galilee, turned waterpots of water into wonderful wine (it's
    superiority attested to by the governor of the feast: "When the ruler of the
    feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was:
    (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast
    called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth
    set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse:
    but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:9-10) (The practice of
    serving the guests good wine, and then after the tastebuds could not discern
    the difference, setting out cheaper wine, was in practice even then! *grin*)
    However, once again, drinking to excess was not the accepted use among
    upstanding people of those times. As it was already mentioned: "Drink no
    longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often
    infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23).

    Message: 57600
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Drugs To Kids
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 10:11:43

    You seem to be closing your eyes to the fact that teenage alcoholism is a
    serious problem in our country. Many kids who would never smoke a single
    vial of crack or snort a single line of cocaine, regularly get themselves
    drunk to the point of illness. Why is alcohol the substance of preference to
    underage youth? Because it is legal, and because it is acceptable. You say
    there are no "alcohol peddlers" out there. Granted, there is nobody on the
    street corner with bottles tucked under his trenchcoat. However, many
    underage kids are still getting alcohol in as great a quantity as they want
    or can afford. How? An older friend. An older brother or sister. A fake ID.
    You name it. It's a hell of a lot easier for kids to get, and a damn sight
    cheaper. It is the allure of the advertising and the acceptability through
    the media that does it. In Holland, a 16 year old can get a can of Heineken
    from a coin-operated dispenser on his school campus. However, drinking to
    excess is frowned upon severely by Nederlander teenagers. Drunkards are
    those to be scorned or mocked, and it is certainly not a status symbol.

    Message: 57601
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Alan/Legalization
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 10:18:57

    Alan, like you said, making it "illegal" for someone to get something isn't
    going to make it go away. Like you said also, cigarettes and alcohol are
    illegal for minors. However, with the legalization train of thought, why
    should they be? I know a lot of minors that are a damn sight more
    responsible than a lot of adults that I know. AND DESPITE THE LAWS AGAINST
    CHILDREN BUYING/USING ALCOHOL/CIGARETTES, CHILDREN ARE STILL USING THEM, AND
    USING THEM IN GREAT QUANTITY. If you make crack and other narcotics illegal,
    it is going to raise the acceptability level of those drugs, and use among
    teenagers will rise. How? By the same means that beer companies are aiming
    their commercials (Spuds is a prime example) to teenagers and youth. As soon
    as RJR finds out there is money to be made in the newly-legalized drugs,
    they are going to put out advertising campaigns the likes of which you have
    never seen before. Anyone who can make a dollar in the legalized drug market
    will be doing so, and using all means within their power to do so. Making
    those drugs illegal to underage children will produce the same "halting
    effect" that the ban on underage drinking and smoking have now. Kids are
    still going to get it, kids are still going to use it, and being that the
    acceptability level will be raised, I feel that more kids will start using
    the newly legalized hardcore drugs. And using a lot of them. Why? Because
    society will be telling them that it's LEGAL! And it's the thing to do to be
    POPULAR and have FRIENDS! Why else?

    Message: 57603
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Reply
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 10:30:44

    First of all I want to thank you warmly, and from the bottom of my heart for
    taking my words out of context, twisting the meanings of others, and
    attempting to throw them back in my face under the guise of respectability.
    I try to answer your questions honestly, and I would ask that, lest I not
    give your posts the time of day, that you would offer me the same gesture.
    Oh, and thanks too for all the mudslinging. That really lends credence to
    your smoke-clouded thinking. This world and all it's "me-me-me" train of
    thought makes me violently ill. Tell you what, good ol buddy pal, why don't
    we just legalize EVERYTHING? No sense in trying to place limitations on
    people's lives. Let's let everyone just do whatever the hell they please. I
    mean, why should I want to try and restrict someone else's life just because
    I would like to retain a sense of general order? Heck, if you want to go to
    church? Fine, go with the flow! If you want to go up to that same church and
    torch it to express your newly found freedoms, what the hell? There are no
    laws anymore. They are too repressive! Why should we be kept from doing
    whatever we want to do even though we are being wholly irrational and
    potentially ruining our own lives? Need a good laugh? Just knock an old lady
    into the middle of Central Avenue during rush hour and have yourself a grand
    old chuckle.

    Off base, you say? Perhaps a little. But well within your scope of
    legalization. Why legalize some things and not others? If someone wants to
    mess their life up on crack in the privacy of their own home, I could really
    care less.

    Message: 57604
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Drugs II
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 10:36:29

    It is not my place to tell them whether or not to do it there. They are
    probably so messed up they wouldn't listen to a little common sense.
    However, if that same person is out on the street, in a car, or any place
    out in public without his full faculties, who knows what he might do? It has
    been proven that those who become addicted to crack (nearly all that have
    tried it) become so wholly and completely dependent upon that drug that they
    care nothing about how they get their next fix as long as they get it.
    Burglary, murder, robbery, it doesn't matter. All that matters to them is
    that high. If I were to give the okay to legalize any currently illegal
    recreational drug, I would suggest marijuana, but ONLY marijuana. And it
    could not be an "outdoor drug" much like alcohol is restricted (you can't
    drink a beer in your front yard). Not that I condone the use of marijuana,
    but on the whole I have understood it to be a much less damaging drug than
    the others you want to include in a blanket legalization.

    Message: 57605
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Final
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 10:47:25

    At this point I will refuse to attempt any sort of rational discussion with
    you. You use my words out of context, you twist other words beyond
    recognition, you sling mud like there is no tomorrow, you put words in my
    mouth, you mock my personal beliefs, and this is only the beginning. For
    someone who claims to respect the rights of others and blasts those who you
    feel DON'T respect the rights of others, you are a real hypocrite. And
    calling me a bigot? Your anti-Christian bigotry and constant Christian
    mockery is far more repulsive than any any racist bigot I have seen in a
    long time. (And lest you attempt to use this line out of context to claim
    that I support racial bigotry) I HATE ALL FORMS OF RACIAL BIGOTRY. There.
    But do not attempt to judge others until you take a good long look in the
    mirror, pal. This is not to say that I hate you, Rod. I don't HATE anyone.
    It's the things that you say that I cannot stand. Expect me at the next GT
    to say hello, and engage in light conversation, but don't expect me to ever
    again attempt to debate anything of any weight with you again. It's futile.
    Open your mind, Rod, like you claim to do.

    Message: 57611
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Savage on drugs
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 16:46:39

    The notion that the drug problem will be solved through law enforcement
    efforts directed against pushers and smugglers is nonsense.  Tougher law
    enforcement is not going to deter many from entering the business; the risk
    of prosecution is simply an operating expense for these people.  Even the
    death penalty would not serve as much of a deterrent.  The risk of execution
    (like the risk of death in other occupations) would merely be computed into
    the cost of doing business.  The ultimate result of greater law enforcement
    directed against drug suppliers will be to drive up their operating
    expenses, which would consequently drive up the price of drugs on the
    street.  Since demand, at least among addicts, is relatively inelastic, this
    will mean addicts will have to raise more money to support their habits.
    How do addicts raise money to pay for drugs?  Crime.  Thus, the result of
    increased law enforcement efforts directed against drug suppliers is likely
    to be nothing more than an increase in violent and property crime by drug
    users.

    The only way to fight drugs is by attacking the demand.  This means tough
    penalties against users and strong discipline in schools, as well as private
    efforts, especially by parents to keep their kids from using drugs.  The
    problem with drugs is not that people are selling them.  Someone who deals
    in drugs may be an unsavory character, but fundamentally he is nothing more
    than a businessman who is entering a market to meet a demand.  Any effective
    anti-drug strategy must emphasize that users are accountable for their
    actions and are not innocent victims of the drug dealers.

    Message: 57612
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Westfall's 57598
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 16:47:58

    Is cocaine fine IF CONSUMED IN MODERATION?

    Message: 57613
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl/wine
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 21:03:04

            Isn't it easier to make grape juice, a whole lot easier?  Do you
    think that perhaps the process started out with some grape juice going 'bad'
    and fermenting?  Someone was thirsty or thrifty and drank some and ole' saw
    what it did to their minds and there have been alcoholics ever since.  It
    isn't made now or wasn't made then for any other reason than to get high.

            And yes Daryl, marijuana, hash-hish and heroin, peyote and mushrooms
    as well as alcohol for getting soused was just as common back then as it is
    today.  Oh, I forgot cocaine.  Only then it was LEGAL and was used by the
    people as they saw fit.

    Message: 57617
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl 1 of 3
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 21:15:21

         In your last set of messages to me you made many innuendos as to my
    character.  I couldn't resist replying in kind.  I am weak, so what?

         Well my brother, it is another day and I see I have more messages
    that need to be answered, written by you.

         What words of yours did I take out of context?  I answered you as I
    understood you.  And there you go on that "Let's legalize everything"
    trip.  You just do not understand that my freedom ends where your nose
    begins.  You can drink milk right in front of me and I haven't the right
    to arrest you or knock it out of your hand.

         By the way, can single people who have no families do hard drugs or
    would the undertaker become the victim?

         You ask, "Why legalize some things and not others?"  Daryl, knock,
    knock, anybody home?  Think.  It is a fact of life that some things are
    illegal while other are legal.  By your logic, turning this statement
    around, "Let's make EVERYTHING illegal", makes no sense.  Neither
    statement fits or shows any logic whatsoever.  Somehow I don't expect you
    to see it as you've brought that very same point up last week.

         You said it yourself, crack is addicting and those addicts, as well
    as heroin users, will do anything to get their next fix.  Burglary,
    murder, robbery, it doesn't matter, you said.  Agreed.  The police will
    never, never, be able to put an end to its being imported or its use.
    Therefore look forward to a continuing crime wave well into the next
    century.  Also expect many more prisons, all filled to capacity.  Sounds
    like a Christian Plan.  I couldn't see your Christ having people arrested

    Message: 57618
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl 2 of 3
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 21:16:03

    for smoking pot and put in prison and this includes even the politicians
    being jailed.

         Under the proposed legalization plan, the huge profits, whatever did
    not fall into the politicians pockets, would be used for Drug Education.
    Right now, there are no profits for the establishment, just debts.  And
    the taxpayers are hit hard.  $20 grand for each inmate per year according
    to the latest Government survey.  Don't you realize that for every pusher
    that gets popped, there are many willing to take their place?  When you
    hear of a shipment of drugs being confiscated, you can bet your bottom
    dollar that hundreds of shipments got through.  If every citizen in the
    United Stated were deputized, drugs would still get through and still be
    used by the masses.  You cannot take away from people what they want.

         Drug usage is also a form of protest by our youth.  Same as rock 'n
    roll and fast dancing.  These young people see through the hypocrisy of
    this world and rebel against it.  If the establishment says don't do
    this, you can again bet your last dollar they will.  Resentment of
    authority plays a big part in all this.  If the establishment showed
    a good running system, both fair and equitable where a person would be
    proud to be a part of, then crime would diminish.

    Message: 57619
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl 3 of 3
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 21:16:43

         Here it is like apartheid.  The South African Government made it
    illegal for a black family to own enough land to support themselves on.
    Thus they were able to get cheap labor and put people in the mines.
    It is basically the same here.  Children growing up recognizes these
    things and go against society in anyway they can.  Looking to a job at
    McDonalds is not what they have in mind.  Crime is created by the
    politicians.

         You may not be a racial bigot but you are a bigot in the sense that
    you support legislation that makes it a crime to do something that is not
    harmful to others.  In fact, you've never tried drugs of the type we are
    talking about, therefore I can say that your judgement is biased and you
    tend to believe all the establishment crap that is printed.  You probably
    believe the tests done on rats in the sixties where marijuana was used,
    causing brain damage to the little critters.  It later came out that the
    rats had their brains taken out of their skull, then THC was injected
    directly into their gray matter, the rats died after suffering massive
    brain damage. -Rod

    Message: 57581
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Westfall's 57557
    Date: 03/15/89  Time: 17:06:13

    Whether something is illegal is not what determines whether I have the right
    to do it.

    Message: 57622
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Drug News
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 22:13:03

    Sensible News: The government finally admits that it cannot prevent people
                   from using drugs by arresting smugglers and dealers because
                   there are just too many of them. The huge demand causes new
                   sources of supply to pop up faster than they can react, and
                   prices continue to drop as supply gets better and better.

       Silly News: Now the government says it can prevent people from using
                   drugs by going after the 'users' themselves. You know, the
                   'users', those folks who are so determined and large in
                   number that they were able to finance the winning side of
                   the 'War On Drugs' (even though the losing side was taxing
                   everyone in the country).

      Future News: The government finally admitted that going after 'users'
                   was a big mistake. Public respect for the law has been
                   practically wiped out, the justice system's ability to deal
                   with real criminals is diluted even further, and drug use
                   has become harder to detect due to changes in the ways drugs
                   are packaged and used. The government now says that it must
                   crack down on the drug smugglers and dealers instead because;
                   they are much fewer in number, they are easier to spot, and
                   they are not as hard to convict since juries won't identify
                   with them so much. And around we go again.........

    Message: 57623
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Taranto/Drugs
    Date: 03/16/89  Time: 22:14:52

       You ended your message with, "Any effective anti-drug strategy must
     emphasize that users are accountable for their actions and are not
     innocent victims of the drug dealers."

       If you took this admirable attitude a little further couldn't you say
     that anti-drug crusaders are accountable for their actions and are not
     innocent victims of the drug users? It is essentially the crusader's
     demands that others live according to their rules which make drug use
     such a serious problem in the first place. Nearly every major problem
     associated with illegal drugs stems from that illegality, rather than
     from the drugs themselves.

       Nobody dies in gun battles over supplies or distribution rights for
     alcohol anymore. Nobody has to risk death by consuming alcohol of unknown
     strength or quality anymore. Nobody has to live in a neighborhood where
     alcohol sellers encourage underage people to start drinking anymore.
     No longer does anyone have to live under the thumb of an alcohol crime
     syndicate or the corruption of police and the courts which they created.
     All these problems and more still exist with regard to drug use, simply
     because of the crusaders' lust for the power to control others.

       Yes, let us hold users 'accountable for their actions'. If they choose
     to partake of some substance or other and harm no other person, then
     let us not hunt and trap them like murders for it. Let us hold them
     accountable for any harm which they actually do, but not for bruising
     the crusaders' egos by ignoring them.

       See You Later,    Dean H.

    Message: 57625
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 57612/James
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 00:05:28

    James, cocaine is ingested for one purpose, and one purpose only. Some may
    claim that it helps their productivity at work, or makes them more alert,
    but that is all bullpuckies. Being that cocaine is consumed solely for the
    purpose of altering the regular functions of the mind and body, I would have
    to say that NO, cocaine is NOT fine consumed in ANY amount.

    Message: 57626
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Opinions Vs. Fact
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 00:11:52

    It is so easy to say in an argument, "well, yes they did create wine solely
    for the purpose of getting drunk" or "marijuana[SIC], hash-hish[SIC] and
    heroin, peyote and mushrooms as well as alcohol" were as common in Biblical
    times as they are now, without providing one scintilla of evidence. However,
    to someone who is determined to cut through the pea-soup foggy-mindedness of
    "opinions-stated-as-fact" argumentation, it isn't worth a burnt corn
    tortilla. Especially when such "opinionated facts" come from the same source
    that attempts to state that Christ was a homosexual with a penis fixation.

    [A general post directed at no one in particular]

    Message: 57627
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Silence Be Broken
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 00:28:06

    I said I would not continue this discussion with you. Well it's hard not to
    when you claim to knock on my head and find nobody home. Well, Roddy ol'
    pal, sorry to burst your bubble, but I did make the mistake of trying
    marijuana once (at the urging of an older sister). Luckily, it produced no
    effect upon me at all (with the exception of a nagging headache), and I have
    never laid hands upon a single narcotic drug since. Here's a question for
    ya, Rod. What would be the benefits of making narcotic drugs legal? We're
    talking individual benefit as a citizen, not profit-wise. In a situation
    such as this you have to weigh the good against the bad. What restrictions
    would be imposed upon the places in which you could toke/shoot up/snort?
    Would these narcotic drugs be purchased as an item from a pharmacy, or would
    it be on the impulse rack next to the horoscope books and the Weekly World
    News in the 10-items-or-less lane? How would we go about keeping newly
    legalized drugs like crack out of the hands of impressionable youth? Would
    it be any more effective than the laws against teen alcohol or cigarette
    consumption (that are a joke in themselves). What would the government do,
    to keep my future son or daughter from coming into possession of a vial of
    legalized 100%-pure-no-additives-or-preservatives crack? Teaching begins in
    the home, but it is impossible for parents to hover over their children 24
    hours a day (that is, without giving the kid a complex). And how close to a
    reality do you REALLY think this is? If the government can take Premiere
    "cigarettes" off the market for being a drug-delivery system (delivering
    nicotine, the same drug obtained by smoking the actual leaves), what makes
    you think that they are going to give the okay to legalize drugs?

    Message: 57628
    Author: Zelda Pulasika
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Wine
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 00:49:35

     Mr. Westfall, wine is ingested for one purpose, and one purpose only. Some
    may claim that it helps their productivity at work, or makes them more
    alert, but that is bullpuckies. Being that wine is consumed solely for the
    purpose of altering the regular functions of the mind and body, I would have
    to say that NO, wine is NOT fine consumed in ANY amount.

    Message: 57630
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Westfall
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 04:34:35

    The government did not force R.J. Reynolds to remove Premiere cigarettes
    from the market. They were withdrawn due to poor sales.

    Message: 57631
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Alcohol
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 04:38:43

    Actually, in Arizona it is legal to drink alcohol in your yard. The law
    prohibits consumption "in a public thoroughfare."

    Message: 57632
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 05:47:00

    Yes Ann,I was actually thinking it over and giving consideration to the
    arguments for legalization, but in the final analysis it makes no more sense
    than does the legalization of murder or any other crime.  That we have a
    very serious problem is all too obvious. Just as obvious is the premise that
    there are no pat answers to the problem. Just as with the gun problem, while
    I can advocate personal gun ownership, and can subscribe to the premise that
    when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, I still cannot see the
    dope dealers running around conducting their territorial disputes with
    weapons that should never get into their hands in the first place. The fact
    is that drugs are the number 1 killer in this country, either directly or
    indirectly. We have a frightening proportion of our children and young
    people, the only hope of our future, going down the tubes due to the abuse
    and misuse of drugs. Legalization of the product will not stop this, any
    more than repeal of prohibition stopped the kids from getting older people
    to buy booze for them. You are absolutely right in saying that I offered no
    viable alternative or workable solution to the problem, but then, neither is
    legalization. That is being supported by people who simply have not thought
    through all the consequences of such an action, and in good conscience I
    cannot support nor condone such a move. Until tighter reins can be put on
    the manufacture and/o/or import of dangerous drugs, I'm afraid the war must
    continue and intensify. I do not, however, agree with the local police
    policy of coming down harder on the end of the chain, the user. That seems
    to be totally futile and pointless.

    Message: 57635
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/#57596
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 06:30:01

    There is nothing wrong with daisies in the back yard, riding bicycles to
    work and thinking like Rod! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57636
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/drugs
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 07:04:39

    Your posts on not legalizing drugs doesn't make sense at all. Why would
    drugs be advertised any more than hard liquor is now? I can't remember the
    last time I saw a whiskey commercial on TV. Can you?

    Re: kids getting hold of booze, cigarettes and drugs - yes, there is a
    percentage that do and always will. But legalizing it would get the pushers
    off the street corners - the ones that urge the kids to 'be cool' and take
    it! This is the only way a pusher can advertise his wares.
    One thing you forget - there are literally hundreds of thousands of drug
    users in the U.S.A. and they will continue to use it regardless of how awful
    and sinful YOU think it is! This IS NOT going to go away! There is NO Way it
    can be curbed, crushed or just disappear with the profit that is made from
    t. The same with drinking, cigarettes and gambling. Mankind has been doing
    those things since he's been here. We might as well be making a profit as a
    nation than give it to the pushers that become millionaires in their
    dealings. All that profit could go into the social security fund so it'll be
    here when you get old and need it or to balance the national debt. This
    isn't going to go away Daryl! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57637
    Author: $ Ralph Blehm
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: drugs
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 08:18:56

    Shoot them all. no more drugs!

             Love you all
              Ralph

    Message: 57638
    Author: $ Alan Hamilton
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Premiere "cigarettes"
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 08:47:34

            According to a couple of smokers I know, they tasted awful.  I do
    know they smelled like burning plastic.  They didn't emit smoke, but the
    smell was bad enough.

    -Alan

    Message: 57639
    Author: $ Alan Hamilton
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Crimes
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 08:51:09

            Murder should not be legalized because it involves an unwilling
    participant, the murdered.  Drugs only affect the user.

            Sure, a user may commit other crimes.  He should be punished for
    them, just as any other person should be.  Whether or not he used drugs is a
    non-issue.

    Message: 57640
    Author: David Roe
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ASU LIBRARY INFO.
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 10:23:01

      One of the oldest known drugs, cannabis was acknowledged as early
    as 2700 BC, in a Chinese manuscript. Throughout the centuries it has
    been used both medicinally and as an intoxicant. The major psychoactive
    component of this drug, however, was not identified until the
    mid-1960s; this ingredient is tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as
    THC. At present, other cannabinoids explored.  Psychoactive compounds
    are found in all parts of the male and female plant, with the greatest
    concentration in the flowering tops. The content of these active
    compounds varies greatly from plant to plant, depending on genetic and
    environmental factors.

    Historical Perspective

      Humans have used drugs in various forms since prehistoric times.
    Primitive humans ate plants such as mushrooms, which had physiological
    effects. The ancient Romans and Greeks practiced a well-developed
    MEDICINE, using various plants and waters therapeutically. ALCOHOL,
    OPIUM, and the derivative of the hyoscyamus plant were used as
    ANALGESICS and SEDATIVES. The ancient Egyptians used opium for pain,
    castor oil for  worms, and animal blood, viscera, and burned sponge to
    treat goiter, which probably was a curative because of its iodine
    content. By the 16th century physicians were employing colchicum for
    gout, as is done today.

    -David, P.S.  Hope this helps.

    Message: 57642
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zelda
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 11:27:13

    Certainly original, aren't we? I would agree with you that wine or any other
    alcoholic beverage is unsuitable at work. However, try and tell me that a
    glass of wine with a good Italian dinner is intended to alter one's sphere
    of reality. I will await a genuine response with truly original thoughts on
    the subject.

    Message: 57643
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Nick/57630
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 11:29:36

    I'd check into that, Nick. RJR agreed to remove them from the shelves, not
    only because they were found to be a drug-delivery system rather than a
    cigarette, but that research found them to taste "beyond nasty." But they
    WERE found to be a drug-delivery system, and something like that placed on
    the market without FDA approval is not an incredibly bright thing to do.

    Message: 57644
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Nick/57631
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 11:31:01

    Though a back yard certainly is not considered a public thoroughfare, a
    front yard usually faces (and is almost always in close proximity to) a
    public street, which is a public thoroughfare.

    Message: 57645
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/Drugs
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 11:37:15

    (Huge sigh of relief) FINALLY, someone who is thinking rationally on the
    subject! And so you agree with me that legalizing drugs in itself is on par
    with legalizing murder in the sheer asinine nature of the consideration.
    When you place the pros and cons on the scale, the cons are likely to break
    the scale! Of course the drug users are going to support something like
    this. It will make it easier and cheaper for them to get what they want. BUT
    IT'S NOT going to make crime go away, AND IT'S NOT going to take the stigma
    away in the eyes of kids. Anyhow, how would it look, in the face of the
    "JUST SAY NO" campaign, for the government to turn around and say, "Ok,
    kids, now all these drugs that we have been telling you not to use? Well,
    we're gonna LEGALIZE them now, but just because their legalized and just
    because Uncle Sam is making money off of it, still...don't do 'em, 'kay?"

    Yeah, right.

    (Handshake Paul)

    Y.F.I.C.,

    Daryl

    Message: 57647
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Double Sigh
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 11:43:11

    Ann, if you think a single pusher can sweet talk a bunch of kids into trying
    drugs, think of how many the media could sweep in. Looking for liquor ads?
    Billboards. Beer ads on TV. Rolling Stone. Spin. Cream. Circus. Just about
    any youth magazine you can think of with the exception of the 16s, Tiger
    Beats, and Teen Screams. M-T-V. Pop radio. Rock radio. Open your eyes, Ann,
    they are there. And what is the difference between hard liquor and beer or
    wine coolers? A kid really doesn't care about what will get him drunk. The
    teenage alcoholics who rely on hard liquor, I would imagine, are in the
    minority. Beer and wine coolers are the "hip" young adult liquor beverages
    now. And enough of them will get a kid kneeling before the porcelain altar
    in no time.

    Message: 57648
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Alan/Drugs
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 11:45:23

    Whether or not he used drugs is a non-issue? Drugs alter a person's
    perception of reality. Drugs will cause a person to do things that he/she
    would not normally do sober. And when you've got that craving for a drug,
    and no money to obtain that drug with, what do you think you're going to do?
    Just sit there, and twiddle your thumbs until someone throws you a $20?

    Message: 57651
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 16:42:13

    I see you've gone from self-pity to self-righteousness.

    Message: 57654
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/Daryl
    Date: 03/17/89  Time: 22:30:10

    Paul and Daryl:

          Since its all the same to you whether a person uses an illegal drug
          or commits a murder, remind me never to party with you guys.

       See You Later

          Dean H.

    Message: 57678
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/Daryl
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 14:21:07

          It appears that Misters Westfall and Savage, both of the
    Christian persuasion, are taking like views of the current drug and
    gun debate.  They are going against James Taranto, Dean Hathaway, Ann
    Oudin, Alan Hamilton and myself.  If only they had the capacity to
    think for themselves instead of listening to the little fairies inside
    their heads.  Or if they rid themselves of the mish-mash they read in
    their religion book, they may even become contributing members of this
    society instead of helping it remain in the dark ages.

          If only they understood that this nation is predominately of the
    Christian faith and saw the wholesale corruption they may realize that
    their system of beliefs not only do not work but has a retrograde
    effect.  It seems logical to me that a Christian would think that
    since the majority are of that faith our nation would be smooth
    running.

          But in fact just the opposite is true.  And with the closed
    minds that these two typical Christians display it appears that our
    nation will continue to be screwed up for some time to come.

          It is good that people are recycled because if that were not so
    there would still be wholesale murder of those who had the nerve to
    say that Planet Earth was not the center of the Universe.  And I could
    easily envision Paul and Daryl setting laws from their bigoted
    beliefs, causing pain and injury at their discretion.
    next

    Message: 57679
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 14:21:56

          Daryl stated that he tried pot once and it gave him a headache.
    Because it apparently disagreed with him, it is his thinking that it
    should be illegal for everyone.  His logic is if it wasn't good for
    Daryl then no one should have it.  Way to go Daryl.

          And because Paul is not a gun collector or fancier then guns
    should be limited.  He is not broad enough to see the dangers that lie
    in only the government having weapons.  If we could convince him there
    is a real plot, by several countries south of the border, to overthrow
    this nation then perhaps he would fight for our rights instead of
    allowing them to be taken away, a step at a time. (So the lax among us
    may not notice and one day wake up to find that our slingshots are
    being taken away.)

          I don't know if such a plot exists but judging from history I
    would say that it is a real possibility.  But this isn't the only
    reason for bearing arms.  It has been said many times that a nation of
    people without effective arms is at the total mercy of their
    politicians and believe me, there isn't a politician I know of that I
    would trust. - Rod

    Message: 57680
    Author: Daryl Westfalll *NOTE:  This is a fake message ***
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Brevity 1
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 17:03:04

    Some people on this system are TOO NMAD LONG-WINDED.  Rather than make their
    point in a CONCISE manner, they RANT and RAVE, ON AND ON AND ON.  They think
    they're CLEVER, but they're not, so NYAH, NYAH, NYAH NYAH NYAH.  I cannot
    stress ENOUGH the importance of stating one's opinion CLEARLY, CONCISELY,
    and RATIONALLY.  Those who don't are simply marble-heads.  Look at it this
    way.  Some most profound things you can say are simple, three-word sayings.
    "Jesus loves you."  "Praise the Lord."  "Go to lleh."  "Daryl Westfall is
    great."  Some of you dunderheads will no doubt jump all over me because the
    last one is more than three words.  Four, to be exact.  Well, EXCUSE ME!
    You are just attacking my character.  ISN'T THAT ORIGINAL?  Boy, I am just
    SO IMPRESSED that you can INSULT me.  I don't think I want to continue this
    discussion, since all you are going to do is INSULT and ATTACK me.  Next
    thing I know, I'll be called a GEEK again by that crypto-fascist JT, or that
    ZOMBIE Roddy will be calling to legalize EVERYTHING, including drugs,
    speeding, child pornography, and even MURDER.  After all, either everything
    is legal or everything is illegal.  Where do you get off saying ONE thing
    should be legal while ANOTHER should be illegal?  That's DISCRIMINATION!!!
    And discrimination is ILLEGAL!  This message is directed at no one in
    particular.  ANOTHER complaint.  Some people on this system are TOO GNAD
    SHRILL and SELF-RIGHTEOUS.  They think they know EVERYTHING.  Well let me
    tell YOU something, buddy boy.  Only GOD knows everything.  To suggest
    otherwise is BLASPHEMY.  All you SELF-RIGHTEOUS types will BURN in LLEH for
    ETERNITY come JUDGMENT DAY.  Mark my WORDS!  That's why you guys have to
    MELLOW OUT.  I mean, after all, we're only HUMAN, and we have to be able to

    Message: 57681
    Author: Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Brevity II
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 17:12:34

    ADMIT that we are SINNERS who make MISTAKES.  So stop being so
    SELF-RIGHTEOUS because self-righteousness is EVIL.  You know, I had vowed
    not to continue ARGUING with you, but I cannot resist the TEMPTATION any
    longer.  Therefore I will CONTINUE and will just have to SUFFER through your
    SLANDEROUS PERSONAL ATTACKS directed against POOR LITTLE ME.  I will just
    have to CONSOLE myself with the knowledge that I am going to HEAVEN and you
    are going to LLEH to BURN for ALL ETERNITY because YOU'RE self-righteous and
    I'M NOT.  I cannot stress ENOUGH the importance of BREVITY and CLARITY in
    writing messages on this system.  Rather than DRONING ON and ON about
    NOTHING, you should simply GET TO THE POINT.  I can't afford to WASTE MY
    TIME reading a lot of NONSENSE posted by BANANA-BRAINS who can't ORGANIZE
    their THOUGHTS effectively.  REDUNDANCY is another problem.  YES, REDUNDANCY
    IS ANOTHER PROBLEM.  How many TIMES do I have to TELL you not to REPEAT
    yourself?  Be concise, rather than RANTING and RAMBLING.  Be COHERENT and
    avoid REDUNDANCY.  And don't just COPY my messages.  That's NOT very
    ORIGINAL.  I look FORWARD to hearing some REASONABLE responses from
    INTELLIGENT people who have ORIGINAL thoughts that they can EXPRESS CLEARLY.
    STOP with the SELF-RIGHTEOUS personal ATTACKS.  Just LEAVE ME ALONE and quit
    hassling POOR LITTLE ME.  State your points CLEARLY, and don't LEGALIZE
    EVERYTHING.

    Message: 57684
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl Love/last
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 20:07:56

            Thanks for being brief.

    Message: 57685
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 20:18:58

            As far as a way to distribute drugs once they become legal I would
    suggest a hard look as Amsterdam.  There you can go into a tobacco shop that
    displays the marihuana leaf logo, and purchase what you need.  You cannot
    smoke, roll or even display drugs on the street but there are many bars that
    you can go into and do your thing.  Kids cannot purchase drugs there.
    Holland has a great economy and strong social services.

            As for prostitutes there is a section in the city that one can visit
    and choose.  Child molestation is practically non-existent except for a few
    visiting Americans each year.  And the incidence of rape in that place is
    practically nil.

            Drugs have been legal there for longer than ten years and thus far
    nothing bad to show for it.  People there do not burglarize houses or mug
    people for drug money.

            As (redundant) I've stated before I honestly believe there are a lot
    of BIG people involved in making drug profits and therefore keep them
    illegal.  When you talk about billions of bucks each year profit you ain't
    talking peanuts.  Politicians are people too.

            Hope I didn't bore you, dear sweet Darly.  And you were just joking
    about others being self-righteous, right?  You were poking fun at yourself,
    I assume?

            BOB loves you and pukes on your boots.  (this is the BOB's way of
    showing the utmost affection for those who worship HIM.)

                -Rod

    Message: 57688
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: DRUG CHATTER
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 22:39:02

         Whoever said it is the addicts clamoring for legalization - that notion
    is just plain silly.  About as silly as saying all Christians are
    close-minded.

         If the government started legalizing drugs tomorrow, that would not
    send a message of "Its o.k. to do drugs now" -- that would only be true if
    EVERYTHING permitted by law was obligatory.  What it boils down to is this -
    This is America.  In this country, we are supposed to have the freedom of
    choice.  If people choose to destroy themselves, as sad it may be, that's
    their right.  Whether they choose to work themselves into the ground & end up
    having a nervous breakdown, or take drugs (any drug, including alcohol) in
    excess.  It's their body, and their life.  Drug use IS a victimless crime -
    a "victimless crime", by definition, is a crime in which there is no
    potential for filing police charges.  That is, the action (of using the
    drug) only brings direct harm to the person acting.  Now, Paul mentioned the
    family as "victim".  True, the user's family may go through anguish (and may
    not, depending on the drug and frequency used), but that user is ultimately
    responsible to him/herself, not his/her family, friends, etc.  About $10
    billion was spent last year on enforcement of drug laws.  This money could
    be used much more productively.  Drug users could be helped more effectively
    if drugs were legal.  Case in point - if you were hooked on cocaine today,
    would you seek help knowing full well you could end up under arrest?  If
    cocaine was legalized, wouldn't the decision to kick the habit be that much
    easier knowing you'd be getting help.  Jailing drug "offenders" isn't a
    solution, and in fact only perpetuates the problem.

       If I want to do drugs in the privacy of my own home, why should the
    government be able to tell me I can't?  Let's suppose for a moment -  Let's
    say some wild-eyed liberal atheist congressman presented a bill that said
    the Bible was dangerous to the well-being of the people, and should be
    banned to PROTECT Americans.  Especially the children (which always makes
    for a good emotional appeal).  Let us say further that this bill passed.
    Faced with a jail sentence if caught, would you still keep and read your
    Bible?  And, would you be pissed if the government started telling you what
    you could & could not mentally digest (meaning the teachings in the Bible)?
    You certainly wouldn't think the Bible to be dangerous, but not everyone
    would agree....  And whether or not it is dangerous is not the point - the
    point is - it is your right to choose.  That's what it's all about.

         You're not going to save the world by keeping drugs illegal.  Like I
    said before, I'd feel safer knowing these drugs were clean - kids and adults
    are going to use them regardless of the legality - each user thinks he'll
    be the one who won't be caught (that's human nature).  Or won't be the one
    to get the cocaine cut with draino.  If drugs were legalized, gangs wouldn't
    have the $$$ or the need to carry around AK-47s.  Drugs is big business, you
    know?  If drugs were legal, and a large-scale program was implemented that
    basically said, "Yes, you can take so-and-so drug, but this is what will
    happen" without the scare tactics now used (both in the gross exaggerations
    of drug use results in some cases, and the consequences of JAIL), kids &
    adults would be more prone to listen.  Illegality only makes it more worth
    getting to some.

    Message: 57690
    Author: Alan Finney
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Crimes
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 03:28:02

    "Murder should not be legalized because it involves an unwilling
    participant, the murdered."

        I think it can safely be argued, that the victim of murder IS a willing
    participant.  After all, you can't get shot if you don't stand there and
    take a bullet.  Furthermore, people get what they give.  I mean, if someone
    is murdered, they MUST have done something wrong to their killer.

    I think people must be held responsible for their actions, and this
    certainly includes those who are murdered because of their behavior and/or
    appalling ineptitude.

    Message: 57691
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann!
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:42:21

    Your "facts" are so full of holes as to be totally ridiculous!
    Families of drug abusing teenyboppers can just pick up and leave? I'm sure
    that if your kid was hooked on crack that's just what you would do, right?
    Send him or her off to school or the local detention center, and while they
    were there, pack up, sell the house and move without leaving a forwarding
    address or a trace. Sure you would!

     Legalization would eliminate the need for crime to feed the drug habit?
    Like hell it would! The kids who are getting hooked on garbage now would
    still get it, much the same way they get booze now, and they would still
    find ways to get the money for drugs, even though they have no visible
    source of income.

     Finally, if you don't think that your and my tax dollars are going into
    rehabilitation programs, you just don't know where your money is going! And,
    since legalization will NOT reduce the number of addicts, neither will it
    reduce the need for rehabilitation centers, nor the need for government
    support of those centers. Actually, of all the drug rehab programs in
    operation today, I think the only one not supported by government funds is
    Teen Challenge. (Which, by the way, just happens to be the most
    successful, according to a government survey.)
    Methinks that thou speaketh before thou thinketh the problem through.

    Message: 57692
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/bigotry
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:45:04

    Compared to your ignorance, my bigotry is as a drop in the ocean.

    Message: 57694
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Petrisko
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:08:48

    Those have got to be the dumbest arguments for legalization I've ever heard.
    It is indisputable that legalization would send a message that drug use is
    morally permissible.  In addition to its other functions, the law serves as
    a guide to what society regards as morally acceptable conduct.  To many
    people, the distinction between legality and morality is unclear at best.

    You then take on the claim that drug use is not a victimless crime because
    it often leads users to break their obligations to their families.  Your
    reply to this is simply to brush the argument aside.  "That user is
    ultimately responsible to him/herself, not his/her family," you state.
    I will admit that the question of whether and to what extent the government
    should enforce family obligations is a problematical one, but your response
    -- to simply deny that such obligations exist -- is disingenuous and
    unsatisfactory.

    You then claim that legalization would make it easier for addicts to seek
    treatment.  They are, you claim, reluctant to seek treatment because they
    fear punishment.  I would like to see you offer some empirical evidence to
    support this claim.  In any case, I don't believe that rehabilitation
    centers typically turn their clients over the the police, so if addicts do
    have this fear, it is entirely unwarranted.

    You then imply that doing drugs is the moral equivalent of reading the
    Bible.  That is ludicrous.  Surely you are not so doltish that you cannot
    distinguish between reading a book and injecting or ingesting substances
    that impairs the mind.  (If that is what you are claiming, then why not
    just argue that drug abuse is protected by the First Amendment?)  It is a
    clever metaphor (by your standards, anyway) but a worthless one:  Drug use
    is no more equivalent to reading the Bible than it is equivalent to murder.

    I am not sure whether drugs should be legalized.  But your pro-legalization
    arguments make the most convincing case I've yet heard against legalization.

    Message: 57697
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/Drugs
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:34:26

            It would be safer for children to steal pot from their parents
    than alcohol.  The effects of alcohol are more damaging than marihuana.  If
    the child cannot find alcohol or pot then, because of the basic desire to
    get smashed after duress, the child will then get out the paint thinner,
    glue or something from the medicine cabinet.  Do you doubt this Paul?

            Humans have been using substances that makes them 'high' since
    pre-historic times.

                Rod

    Message: 57699
    Author: Mildred Stuckstedd
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: DRUGS
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:57:53

            What if the entire family took drugs?  What if they were a wealthy
    family and did not need to steal?  Who would the victims be?

    Message: 57700
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/drugs
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:41:01

    You're just like Daryl - lots of talk and no answers.

    You can bet your sweet 'Bippy' that if one of my little teeny boppers were
    on hard drugs they'd go to a detention center and if they wouldn't take
    them, then we'd throw them out on the street! When I married my husband, my
    oldest daughter (16) came to live with us a few months later, She was on
    speed and it was ruining her life. My husband took her over - said she was
    most welcome to our household IF she got off drugs and made an effort. She
    didn't until he was ready to literally throw her out on the street. She must
    have thought it over, because she gave them up! SHE - not us, was responsible
    for herself. At that age, it's time to start taking over one's life. On the
    other hand, we also eventually got my 14 year old son - we LET him grow his
    marijuana in secluded places in our big yard. The stipulations were - he
    only used it at home - did not sell or give it away and if he was caught and
    put in a home - it was his problem! That we would lie like hell and say we
    didn't know he had the stuff growing. The outcome --- he had more fun
    fussing over those plants than he ever did smoking them - he had more
    respect for us because we didn't sit there with booze in our hands and
    telling him how awful grass was. (Which it isn't!) If we hadn't  done
    this, we knew perfectly well he'd still get it some place - go other places
    to smoke it and would probably still grow it too. He never did really get
    in to it - wasn't using it at all by the time he was 16 and got married at
    17 and now has 4 kids and none of them are into drugs of any kind including
    himself. True story. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57701
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter/your drug post
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:44:06

    Those were great! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57703
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: JT
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 16:53:52

         I never said doing drugs was the moral equivalent of reading the Bible.
    What I was doing was drawing a parallel - If I want to read the Bible in my
    home, that is my right.  If I want to take drugs, that should also be my
    right.  Why should the government be allowed to come in my home, and tell me
    what I can and cannot put in my body?  I would only be "hurting" myself, and
    not treading on anyone else's rights.  Right?

         As far as family obligations go, I never denied such obligations
    existed.  I'm just saying such obligations shouldn't be legislated.  Take
    care of yourself, take care of your own.

         BTW - the mag should be appearing in a Tower near you this week or

    next.

    Message: 57704
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Petrisko
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 17:22:04

    Your "parallel" between drugs and the Bible is absurd.  In the first place,
    no one is claiming that drugs should be illegal because the government has
    unrestrained power to regulate people's behavior in their own homes.  You
    seem to be adopting a Westfallian argument:  either everything you do in
    your home is legal, or nothing is.  Of course, one would then ask, why
    shouldn't I be able to commit murder or rape, provided I do it in the
    privacy of my own home?  Also, the use of drugs in one's home is only a
    small subset of the behavior that is proscribed by drug laws.  Even if you
    had offered a valid argument, would this imply that since Bibles may be sold
    commercially, drugs should be also? That since Bible-reading on public buses
    is legal, so should pot-smoking? That since one may read the Bible and then
    go out for a drive, it should likewise be permissible to shoot up heroin
    before driving?

    I accurately characterized your statement about family obligation, and your
    further clarification has done nothing to change this.  You replied to the
    argument that drug abuse is not a victimless crime because drug abusers
    neglect their family obligations by simply brushing aside the question of
    family obligations.  If you don't believe the person who is betrayed is a
    victim, then you do not believe, in any meaningful sense, that the betrayer
    had an obligation.

    Message: 57707
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 20:02:53

    Re:  "a hard look as Amsterdam"

    How does Amsterdam control DWI's?  Is there some kind of test to determine
    if someone is high on pot?

    Message: 57708
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 21:44:42

    Everyone rides bicycles.

    Message: 57709
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michael/Scuze Me?
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:13:32

    I would hardly endeavor to call myself righteous [Ps 143:2]. To do that
    would be, well, would be self-righteous! *grin*

    Message: 57710
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/57657
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:21:53

    Tormented forever, tormented forever   Eternal punishment,
    tormented forever

    Message: 57711
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/3 Points
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:36:21

    1. The families can choose to leave this obviously debilitated fellow
       family member alone to suffer by himself. Well, if you have absolutely
       no sense of family unity or no hint of conscience whatsoever, perhaps
       you could indeed do just that. For me to do something like that to a
       family member involved in drugs (that is, leave) would cause serious
       scars on my conscience for the rest of my life. I cannot speak for you,
       or how your conscience would play upon you in such a situation, but
       judging by your post, you consider leaving a drug-dependent family
       member, indirectly crying out for help, out in the cold, as a a viable
       "solution."

    2. Drug programs are around because of the illegal status of street drugs?
       Then what are all these prescription-drug addicts doing in these same
       rehabilitation centers? The drugs that they are taking are perfectly
       legal, and were probably prescribed to them by their own doctor. So, you
       assume that legalizing narcotics will make this all go away? Fuzzy logic
       at best.

    3. Did I actually see you call the drug addict a VICTIM? Yes, indeed I did!
       Certainly he is a victim (most likely) by his own bad decision) BUT HE IS
       A VICTIM NONETHELESS. Which blows a gaping hole in your (and Rod's)
       "conclusion" that the selling and abuse of narcotics is a victimless
       crime.
                ....NEXT?

    Message: 57712
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/U Asked 4 It
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:48:12

    Q. Would legalizing drugs put the drug dealers, big and small, out of
    business?

    A. NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. In fact, if nothing else, it will
       merely shift the drug selling into the hands of the free enterprise
       system. Drugs would be easier to obtain than ever before. The dealers
       would no longer be underground types. With the legitimization of narcotic
       drugs, the "dealers" would be above-ground, "respectable" businessmen and
       salespeople. You see, anyone that is involved in the selling of any
       item to the public is called a dealer. By opening up my record business,
       I am going to become a dealer. In a greatly different business, yes, but
       still a dealer. So, in keeping with the wording of your question, the
       legalization of narcotic drugs would not eliminate dealers (big or small)
       from the marketplace.

    2. Would legalization save the nation money? I doubt it. More money will
       be needed to beef up the law enforcement agencies to prepare for the
       increased amount of drug-related disturbances that are to be expected.
       Not everyone is going to be "turning on" and "feeling groovy." Some are
       going to be "stringing out," "whacking out," and "spacing out." Deny it
       all you want, but in the same breath, deny the high percentage of
       narcotic drug usage in those arrested for criminal offenses of all sorts.

    3. Would imports stop? Nope. Tropical climes are still the best for growing.

    Message: 57713
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:35:32

            Don't forget, the United States Government made ready many drug
    rehab centers for the vets returning from Viet Namn.  There were not needed
    as the drugs were no longer used by the majority.  Drug usage, tobacco
    and alcohol included, goes up during times of stress.

            I would say that the correct answer to the drug problem this nation
    faces is to work on eliminating the cause of the stress.  Drug usage will
    abate itself.

            In the meantime the drug war should soon be called off before we
    all go broke.  The alcohol prohibition was not won and neither will this one
    be.
                     Rod

    Message: 57715
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob/Holland
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:40:28

            I will have to do some research on that subject.  I'll get back to
    you.  Do their auto tires have wooden wheels?

    Message: 57717
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 02:31:00

    Re:  "Do their auto tires have wooden wheels?"

    Only those bought with "wooden" nickels.

    Message: 57718
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: open containers
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 04:59:06

    Try driving around town with an open container of an alcoholic beverage in
    your hand, and you may find yourself enlightened on this point.

    Message: 57719
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/kids
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 06:13:16

    Yep Rod. You're right. Kids have been using substances since pre-history.
    What a wonderful argument for making drugs legal and easier to get! While
    we're at it, we must remember that kids have committed suicide and
    fratricide since the old days too. (Remember Cain and Abel?) So let's make
    that legal too, and maybe we ought to join the punk rockers and acid groups
    that sing of the wonderful release from pressure and euphoria that suicide
    gives them, and encourage them to go and O.D., or shoot themselves, or jump
    off a high building. What the heck! It will help our overpopulation problem
    too!

    Why  don't you go back to the 60's where you belong, and crawl back to
    Haight-Ashbury and bury yourself in a cloud of pot smoke! You are a great
    example of why they call the stuff dope!

    Message: 57721
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/your kids
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 06:23:39

     I don't think that you realize just how lucky you are! In more ways than
    one. Since you apparently don't there's not much point in telling you, or in
    continuing this discussion, since it will obviously go nowhere.

    Of course, the thought never occurred to you , rather than sit in front of
    your kids with a drinkie poo in your hands and tell them they could grow
    marijuana just so you could continue with your own vices, you could have set
    the better example of abstinence, and of showing them that life is possible
    and perfectly fulfilling without the spectre of substance abuse hanging over
    your heads. No, I didn't think so. Oh well.

    Message: 57722
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/more drugs
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 07:41:05

    Re: "Leaving a drug dependent family member" - It would depend on the
    person. If the user does not show any signs of helping themselves or wants
    to, then I would not stick around unless I WANTED to! You are also under the
    false idea that all drug users are addicts! Not so any more that all people
    that drink are alcholics. But regardless of what you say - the bottom line
    is the person that misuses drugs are responsible for themselves.

    Yes! The drug addict is a victim of his own abuses. But you are mincing
    words here in order to appear that your winning this conversation! You are
    not because you have only disagreed with us that want to legalize it and
    have not came up with any sort of answer yourself. If there IS A BETTER way
    to stop drug lords/pushers/trapping kids into a life of crime - I'm
    certainly interested in hearing it. I did not make a snap decision when I
    thought the answer might be legalizing it. I saw that the way it is now is
    not going anywhere. Too much money involved for it to do a bit of good.
    So I'm still waiting for your solution(s?). And with a open mind and ears!

             -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57724
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/last
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 08:04:48

    "I could have shown a better example of abstinence"? Hahahahaha! Leave it to
    a moralist to think that drinking is a sin. I enjoy drinking and it does not
    harm me the way I do it. I do not need it - I like it - it's here, it's
    legal - I'm an adult - and a free American. I eat steak with a lot of fat
    too and Winchell's doughnuts! Should I have given up the latter (abstinence)
    to show my son the 'right way' to be/live/eat?

    "Spectre of substance abuse hanging over your heads"? My lord Paul. Isn't
    that a bit heavy with dramatics? You ought to be a preacher - I've heard
    those words many times in my life from righteous moralists. I even believed
    them once. I know better now.

    Of course life can be perfectly fulfilling with out booze, cigarettes,
    drugs, and Winchell's doughnuts - but it can be too WITH all those things.
    That is something you seem to forget. You have chosen the 'row you want to
    hoe' - I have chosen mine. My garden flourishes too but please refrain from
    trying to tell me how my row should be hoed! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57725
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/imports
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 08:11:40

    Re: imports - of course it would stop most import of drugs. If they were
    cheaper and safer here - why would there be any profit made off of imports?
    The same goes for your reasoning that it grows better in tropical chimes! So
    what? We have tropical areas ourselves - Florida and Hawaii for instance.
    There could also be green houses.

    I would like to see marijuana legalized to the extent that you can grow it
    for your own use in the back yard. The government could forget trying to
    curb that aspect of it and save even more money. They could also sell it at
    a very low price (after all, it's a prolific weed!) to deter people from
    trying to sell what they grow. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57726
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Paul & Daryl
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 09:10:37

    A question: Which one of us that are for legalizing drugs has ever said,
    suggested or hinted that murder and rape should also be legalized then?
    Just show me the post(s) - if you can't, please get off it!

       -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57727
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Paul & Daryl again
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 09:12:18

    A question: Can you not see the difference between someone who willingly
    takes drugs and someone that goes out and murders and rapes someone against
    their will? -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57728
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Stress/Drugs
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 10:16:08

    Eliminating stress sounds like another REAL feasible plan. Yeah, TRY it
    sometime. In this fast-moving world, stress is unavoidable in many cases.
    Wait; I have an idea...let's LEGALIZE it! ...Oh, you mean it's NOT illegal?
    But people are continually under it's grasp anyhow? Pity.

    Message: 57729
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob/57716
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 10:19:00

    Bob, you're trying to reason with Rod. Not productive, trust me. Ever try
    beating your head against a brick wall? Hurts, doesn't it? (grin)

    Message: 57730
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Drugs
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 10:25:06

    Ann, I see that your mind has been made up, and that you don't wish to be
    bothered with facts. What's the point in continuing the discussion? Open
    minded, indeed. [I will bite my tongue at this point, for what I wish to say
    would probably not make for profitable conversation.]

    Message: 57731
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/57726
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 10:34:26

    Ann, what we are trying to show you is that you are being a hypocrite. To
    back the legalization of one source of income for organized crime, and not
    all the others (to get them out of the business) is mugwumpdom at it's
    finest. To legalize drugs to hurt organized crime's income is like picking
    up several grains of sand from a vast beach. Organized crime has their
    fingers in just about everything! If you are going to sit on the fence with
    your "pet issue" waving your "IT'LL ELIMINATE CRIME!" banner, you are
    fooling no one but yourself. Perhaps the real reason you want to legalize
    marijuana is purely self-serving behind that big red paper thin banner.

    Message: 57732
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/57727
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 10:47:31

    Can you see a difference between someone who is raped against their will,
    and someone who is taking drugs because his body is dependent upon them and
    not of his free will? VICTIMS, Ann, they are BOTH VICTIMS. Ok, say it was a
    brother of yours. Strung out, wondering where he is going to get his next
    fix. He knows his life is messed up, but he can't help it anymore. The drugs
    have taken over his life. He can't think clearly anymore. He can't hold a
    job because he's either doped up or going through withdrawal symptoms. He
    tells you he doesn't need any help, but it's the drugs talking, not him. He
    no longer controls his life and what goes on around him. The drugs control
    every facet of his life. The drug-dependent brain can't even retain a
    rational thought anymore. His self-esteem is shot. His self-value is no
    more. He doesn't feel that his life is worth ****. AND YOU TELL ME THAT
    SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS TOLD YOU THAT HE DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP THAT YOU ARE
    NOT GOING TO HELP HIM? HEAVENS, ANN, NOT ONLY ARE YOU SELFISH ENOUGH NOT TO
    HELP HIM EVEN THOUGH HIS DRUG-FRIED MIND DOESN'T THINK IT NEEDS HELP, BUT
    YOU WANT TO MAKE THE DRUGS *EASIER* FOR HIM TO GET? Certainly, let him drug
    himself to death. Who cares? He's only your brother, and YOU don't run his
    life. Who cares if he's family, he's made his decision, and he should deal
    with it by himself. You obviously have better things to do. Sure, he's a
    victim, but it's not like he's been RAPED or KILLED or anything like that.
    JUST BECAUSE HE'S A WALKING ZOMBIE DOESN'T MEAN HE'S A *REAL* VICTIM, OR
    ANYTHING. I mean, if we make drugs legal, perhaps he will see the error of
    his ways and straighten himself out! Yeah, that's it! Hey, bro! JUST SAY NO,
    okay? Uh, that's if you want to, if you don't want to, then GREAT! [slam]

    Message: 57734
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Savage
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 16:48:03

    Stop being such a teetotalitarian.

    Message: 57735
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: WESTFALL
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 16:53:43

    I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS SUGGESTING THAT DRUG LEGALIZATION WOULD STOP
    ORGANIZED CRIME.  WHAT IT WOULD STOP, HOWEVER, IS A GOOD DEAL OF
    UNORGANIZED CRIME.  THIS IS SIMPLE ECONOMICS.  THE RISK OF CRIMINAL
    PENALTIES IS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR DRUG DEALERS, AND, LIKE ANY
    BUSINESS EXPENSE, IT IS PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER.  THAT IS WHY DRUGS ARE SO
    EXPENSIVE.  BECAUSE DEMAND FOR DRUGS IS RELATIVELY INELASTIC (AND BECAUSE
    DRUG USERS ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW, AND THUS ARE LESS WORRIED THAN YOU
    OR I MIGHT BE ABOUT BEING CAUGHT COMMITTING A CRIME), MANY USERS COMMIT
    CRIMES IN ORDER TO RAISE DRUG MONEY. LEGALIZATION WOULD LARGELY ELIMINATE
    THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE THE PRICE OF DRUGS, OBVIATING THE NEED
    FOR ADDICTS TO STEAL.

    Message: 57737
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/Daryl
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 17:21:17

            You two are the biggest, most self-righteous, closed-minded bigots
    that ever came down the pike.

            By the way, Daryl and Paul.  Dean Hathaway had some EXCELLENT posts
    concerning drug legalization.  Why didn't you answer them?  Oh, I see, you
    couldn't.  I totally understand.  You can't even answer JT's points

    Summary on drug issue:  No one has the right to legislate morality.  But it
    seems that closed-minded bigots do so anyway.  They can usually be spotted
    because they have their heads 'where the sun don't shine'.

            Paul, you used to be the biggest bigot on this board but now you have
    company in the name of Daryl Westfall.  If this intelligence you both are
    showing is caused by your deity then I must say that IT would be a bigot of
    the first class.  A closed-minded, filthy, scummy, drip.  -Rod

    Message: 57738
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Taranto/Drugs
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 17:54:15

      I do not accept the idea that it is a legitimate function of government
    to protect the citizen from himself where no fraud or coercion are involved.

      If I did accept that idea I would still not accept the idea that drug
    use can be effectively dealt with by arresting users.

      If I did accept all of the above I would still be against the policy
    because it would put impossible demands on the law enforcement and criminal

    justice systems at a time when they are already unable to deal with the
    problem of violent repeat offenders.

       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 57739
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/Drugs
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 17:55:33

    Paul: Using your definitions for 'victims' of drug abuse we could easily
          build a case for outlawing practically every activity imaginable.
          You started by calling the person who uses the drug a crime victim
          and then went on to include everyone who might be harmed, annoyed,
          or taxed as a result of that activity. Using this kind of thinking
          we would all be in prison. Drug abuse is a victimless crime because
          it does not involve fraud or coercion, as long as the user has freely
          chosen to do it. If fraud or coercion result from it, such as property
          crimes committed to pay for drugs, then that is a separate issue, just
          as it is a separate issue if someone commits a theft in order to
          finance the purchase of motorcycle for example. When you think of
          the huge amounts of drugs being consumed, it should be obvious that
          the stereotype of drug users as non-productive people who routinely
          rob and steal can not be accurate. If that picture were true for the
          average user we would all have been robbed blind and murdered long
          ago.

       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 57740
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hathaway
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 19:57:17

    I believe an argument can be made against drug legalization based on
    libertarian principles.  The notion that any activity is permissible that
    does not involve force or fraud presupposes that man is a rational being.
    I do not believe, for example, that most libertarians would argue against
    institutionalizing the mentally incompetent -- that is, people whose mental
    condition leaves them incapable of caring for themselves or renders them
    dangerous to themselves and others.  Libertarians may take issue with others
    (or with each other) as to where the line should be drawn or how stringent
    should be the burden of proof.  But if it is agreed that someone is
    incapable of rational thought, I don't think most libertarians would
    disagree in principle that to assert that he has a right to liberty is at
    best meaningless and at worst pernicious.

    The question, then, is this:  If the capacity for rational thought is a
    precondition of the right to liberty, does the right to liberty include the
    right to ingest substances that diminish or destroy the capacity for
    rational thought?  I think a strong argument can be made that it does not.

    As for the practical consideration you raise, I have not suggested that the
    solution to the drug problem is "jailing users," and I don't know that
    anyone has.  The solution is more likely found in lesser sanctions, such as
    the denial of various government privileges (drivers licenses, for example)
    to those who fail drug tests, public exposure of drug users (as Bill Bennett
    recently proposed), and increased use of drug tests by private employers.
    There should also be more discipline in schools and, yes, more education as
    to the effects of drugs.  It is clear that the drug problem can only be
    solved if we're willing to apply a little imagination to it.  Stock,
    boilerplate answers like yours and Paul Savages's are the reason the war on
    drugs has so far proved un-winnable.

    Message: 57742
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: JT
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 21:09:48

            Interesting thought ...... "...does the right to liberty include the
    right to ingest substances that diminish or destroy the capacity for
    rational thought?"

            They say that one man's right ends at the end of the other man's
    nose. If one can not rationally think out his/her next course of action,
    they stand a good chance of infringing on the other person's right to
    'happiness' or whatever.

            So, who has the greater right? The person wanting to ingest a
    substance that will alter his/her rational thought OR the person wanting to
    enjoy his/her 'happiness'?

    Message: 57743
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: TARANTO
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 00:02:16

         Why shouldn't I be able to commit murder or rape in my own home?  I'll
    u why - Because I'm not murdering & raping myself.  Those are actions
    committed on another person.

         As far as drug use in public goes - if the use were legal, the abuse
    should be handled much in the same way the abuse of alcohol is handled now.
    Driving under the influence of ANY drug (whether it be pot or booze) is a
    crime.

    Message: 57744
    Author: David Roe
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: rape
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 01:33:47

            Hey, I raped myself before.  Could I be arrested?

    Message: 57746
    Author: Woodrow Smith
    Category: Tales & Tall Stories
    Subject: Spirit Departure
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 02:09:35

    Mr. Albert Sykes reports the following experience: "I was sitting having
    biscuits with some friends when I felt my spirit leave my body and go make a
    telephone call.  For some reason, it called the Moscowitz Fiber Glass
    Company.  My spirit then returned to my body and sat for another twenty
    minutes or so, hoping nobody would suggest charades.  When the conversation
    turned to mutual funds, it left again and began wandering around the city.
    I am convinced that it visited the Statue of Liberty and then saw the stage
    show at Radio City Music Hall.  Following that, it went to Benny's Steak
    House and ran up a tab of sixty-eight dollars.  My spirit then decided to
    return to my body, but it was impossible to get a cab.  Finally, it walked
    up Fifth Avenue and rejoined me just in time to catch the late news.  I
    could tell that it was reentering my body, because I felt a sudden chill,
    and a voice said, 'I'm back.  You want me to pass those raisins?'"

    Message: 57747
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 06:47:02

     Would you like to differentiate for us between the drug pusher (or sales
    clerk if drugs were legalized) who puts a substance in a kid's hands that
    alters his mind to a point of suicide ("Look at me! I can fly!" as he jumps
    off a building) and the murderer who puts a gun to the kid's head and pulls
    the trigger? The results are the same, no matter how you want to pretty them
    up to support your position.

    Message: 57749
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Taranto
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 07:06:08

     I have repeatedly said that there are no pat "boilerplate" solutions to the
    drug problem. Granted, I do have some ideas on the subject, and harsher
    penalties for the distribution chain is a prime one, but I agree with you
    that discipline and education are probably some of the most effective
    weapons existent. They are not without some built-in problems of their own
    however. Discipline in the schools? How is a teacher or school administrator
    to discipline children, when any attempt to do so is to invite a lawsuit by
    ignorant, sue-happy parents? How much more time are school systems to spend
    on drug education at the expense of the three "R"s, only to be frustrated by
    peer and parental pressures and laxity?

     Exposure of drug users and employers' tests may be good, but the ultimate
    dismissal and resultant unemployment would only increase the possibility of
    criminal activity, once the user loses his source of legitimate income. To
    say that viewing drug users as unproductive is to stereotype is to deny the
    facts in evidence that this is usually the case. While there undoubtedly are
    some productive members of society who occasionally use drugs, there can be
    no denying that drugs are addictive, (crack, for instance, is referred to as
    instantly addictive), and, once addicted, a person's usefulness is
    adversely affected, to say the least.

     While legalization MAY take a few dollars out of the coffers of organized
    crime, it will not make narcotics less addictive, nor will it negate the
    need for addicts without visible sources of income to resort to criminal
    activity to support their addiction.

    Message: 57750
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/#57726
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:10:20

    Your quote: Perhaps the real reason you want to legalize marijuana is purely
    self-serving behind that big red paper thin banner"??? Sorry! I do not
    understand that statement fully - especially about 'red paper thin banner'!
    I DO understand that it is sarcasm of course and it's obvious you are
    misunderstanding me. I DO NOT want to legalize marijuana because I want to
    use it! I thought I had made it clear in many posts that it doesn't agree
    with me. But I do not think that other's should be denied using it. I know
    it is not as bad as drinking, so why NOT legalize it. Perhaps a lot of
    alcholics will use it instead. Marijuana is the most 'over rated' drug
    around! Unless someone totally over indulges in it, it will not do as much
    harm as booze will when taken moderately.

    Re: Organized crime - of course I know it will not be eliminated if drugs
    are made legal. But it will sure take a big bite out of their profits. I am
    concerned with the little pushers - the guy on the street! The people that
    would ordinarily hold down factory jobs and be useful to their families and
    society. Instead, they make lots of big bucks pushing drugs - getting the
    young started on the stuff! Why would they hold a factory job when they can
    make triple the money on expensive drugs? AND the addicts themselves - if it
    were legal, they wouldn't need a life of crime to feed their habit! Also,
    some of the hard stuff could be used legally in the medicine world. That is
    one of the real shames here - it can't be used on patients dying in horrible
    pain! I'm NOT saying this is a perfect answer to the problem but what we are
    doing or not doing now is failing and always will. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57751
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/my brother!
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:27:53

    But you see Daryl, that's exactly what you are saying really -- "Just say no
    brother" because that's all we have to offer right now! Your description of
    a drug addict was right - that's the way they can turn out. He is a ZOMBIE
    that can't control his own life at that point and does need help. In the
    beginning, it WAS his choice and no others. Now, he has no choices.
    Re: my personal reaction to this if it was my brother (BTW I do not have a
    brother) ---- First, if he was living with us and started taking drugs, we'd
    kick him out if he didn't stop. (not marijuana) If he got to the stage to
    which you described, we'd take him back in - try to steer him into
    rehabilitation and give him all the help we could. We'd give him money to feed
    his habit (within reason of course) and may even buy it illegally for him!
    At this point, he is sick regardless of what is making him sick. He will
    probably die young(ish). This can and does happen with drinking too. But
    you see, my point is - my brother is an addict and it's illegal! Nothing
    stopped him! But perhaps he started at 13 years old - got started by some
    friend of his that urged him to 'have a little fun' - the one that sells it
    at great profit and the ONLY way he is making that great profit is by
    getting people hooked. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    P.S. If my husband was dying of cancer horribly, I'd certainly purchase
    heroin for him regardless of the risks. I'd expect the same from him.

    Message: 57752
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: News Today
    Subject: In the paper
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:51:24

    These are a few little tid-- bits the U.S. Attorney General Thornburg said
    this morning in the paper regarding drugs:

    "The war on drugs will be won on the battlefield of values"

    "This is a battle in which everyone in the United States must enlist if
    we're going to win it"

    "An outraged community is going to say to the drug user that their behavior
    will no longer be tolerated"

    Whew! What fighting words they are!!! But I can't figure out what I'm
    supposed to do as a member of a community?! Am I for instance, going to the
    local high school (where I know that drug use is the norm) and face those
    drug using turkeys and tell them a thing or two? Should I stand on the
    street corner - handing out pamphlets on the horrors of drug use? Should I
    picket in front of the school? Should I lug around a big heavy cross on my
    back and preach to them that Christ died for their sins, so repent?
    Battlefield of values?? Sounds like some patriotic war song. Or better yet,
    a politician's 'gobble - dee - gook' speech! What nonsense! And the funny
    part about it is - It's been done before - time and time again with hardly a
    dent! -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57753
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Taranto/Drugs
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 13:46:40

    But can we in our right mind truly eliminate one evil by legalizing another
    greater evil? (Recreational drug use, not the drug itself, though in this
    day and age they walk happily hand in hand.)

    Message: 57754
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Ex-Christian
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 13:51:25

    The problem is, anyone can call themselves a Christian. However, whether
    someone decides to tack the name on for convenience and go on doing what
    they're doing, or truly dedicate their lives to serving the Lord, confuses
    only us lowly humans. God can tell the difference, and trust me, these
    "Christians of Convenience" have already received their reward in full.
    [Matthew 6:1-4]

    Message: 57755
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 13:58:40

    Whether you decide to smoke, toke, shoot, and snort your way to oblivion is
    not my decision. You have decided that you are happy in your happy little
    drug-clouded quasi-reality, and darned if I am going to stop you. But what
    about our children? What about those whose minds haven't been infected yet?
    Look, you are going to continue to buy drugs whether they are illegal or
    not, and nobody (short of the law) is going to stop you. I think that if any
    body wants to corrupt their mind with drugs, it is a decision that they are
    going to make whether the law says they can or not. The way things are now,
    I am quite satisfied with. Personally, I cannot understand the foggy logic
    that people try to use to justify their desire for the freedom to destroy
    themselves. You wanna know what the problem is, Rod? THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT
    HERE THAT CARE. Now you may find that to be a problem, but...

    Message: 57756
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: James/57749
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 14:05:07

    You made some good points in that message, James. Arresting the user (unless
    that user has committed a crime) accomplishes little. However, the points
    that you brought up are good ones. It may point out to the drug user that
    the only doors that are closing on him/her via drug abuse are not just those
    that he/she is closing on him/herself.

    Message: 57758
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Petrisko
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 16:34:31

    Well, you have invalidated your own analogy.  Since the Bible is not treated
    legally the same way alcohol is, then drugs are not equivalent to the Bible
    if they are to be treated as alcohol is.  You will have to come up with a
    better argument.

    Message: 57759
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Savage
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 16:38:35

    As I have pointed out, the economics of the drug trade are such that an
    anti-drug strategy cannot center on efforts directed against suppliers of
    drugs.  There is, I suppose, a moral argument to be made for including such
    efforts along with efforts against users.  But if our goal is to minimize
    the use of illicit drugs, we must concentrate on efforts against the users.
    As for education, it would be absurd to further neglect the "three R's" in
    the name of devoting more time to drug education.  In fact, better education
    in academic fundamentals would itself help stop drug abuse by giving kids
    some sense of purpose.

    Message: 57760
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: WESTFALL
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 16:42:38

    YOU ASK WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO LEGALIZE A GREATER EVIL (I.E., DRUG USE)
    IN ORDER TO STOP A LESSER EVIL (I.E., PROPERTY AND VIOLENT CRIME BY ADDICTS
    TO SUPPORT THEIR HABITS).  THIS IS A MISLEADING QUESTION.  WHAT WE SHOULD BE
    ASKING IS TO WHAT EXTENT THE LEGALIZATION OF DRUG USE IS GOING TO INCREASE
    SUCH ACTIVITY, AND TO WHAT EXTENT IT IS GOING TO STOP VIOLENT CRIME.  IT MAY
    BE THAT DRUG USE WOULD NOT INCREASE APPRECIABLY UNDER LEGALIZATION BUT CRIME
    WOULD DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY, IN WHICH CASE THE ARGUMENT FOR LEGALIZATION IS
    QUITE POWERFUL INDEED.  OR IT MAY BE THAT DRUG USE WOULD GO WAY UP BUT CRIME
    WOULD REMAIN ABOUT THE SAME.  IN THIS CASE, OBVIOUSLY, DRUGS SHOULD NOT BE
    LEGALIZED.

    Message: 57762
    Author: Mike McCarter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: MSG#57761
    Date: 03/21/89  Time: 19:13:16

    I LIKE THAT LAST MESSAGE. VERY MOVING, HAS SPIRIT, LAUGHS, CRIES.
    I GIVE IT 3 STARS!!!

    Message: 57764
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 03/22/89  Time: 05:05:30

    Once again your position is as full of holes as Swiss cheese, but it is
    probably pointless to show you the credibility gaps. However, for the sake o
    discussion:

    1. Those "little pushers" who, if it were not for the profits realized in
    peddling poison would hold down factory jobs. HA! The pusher types are
    stereotypical ne'er do wells who, if they weren't dealing drugs would "eke
    out" a living doing other laborless things such as fencing stolen goods,
    stealing themselves, pimping for a few "ladies" or some other nefarious
    occupation.

    2. The addicts, most of whom have no visible means of support since their
    addiction prevents them from holding down a real job, would not suddenly
    find honest work if dope was legal. They would still have to rob, steal and
    kill for their next fix.

     3. As to those "poor, suffering souls" who are dying agonizing deaths from
    cancer or whatever, the medical profession has and uses plenty of pain
    killing drugs, including hallucinogens, to make the last days or hours of
    these people as comfortable as possible. THey don't need crack, meth or
    any other street drug to do their thing.
    Why do you insist on hanging on to lame duck alibis for legalization that
    have never held water better than a sieve? Probably because there is no real
    justification for it.

    Message: 57765
    Author: $ Ralph Blehm
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 03/22/89  Time: 06:12:54

    Why are you always right and everybody else is wrong?

              Ralph

    Message: 57766
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/drugs
    Date: 03/22/89  Time: 07:43:44

    Perhaps you are right Paul - the pushers would just go on to other things
    like becoming pimps - the addicts still would not work at a honest living.
    But a lot would be eliminated if drugs were legal -- all I'd hope for. The
    pusher that lures children into drugs for one. The countries who grow and
    ship the stuff would have to find other 'farming' to do. (Some little
    countries - that is their main income) I don't profess that legalizing it
    would cure everything - it may even make it worse, I don't know. I just say
    it's worth a try because we're not getting anywhere the way things are!
    There's 'BIG TALK' in the paper of punishing the users - even the casual
    ones. But I don't see how that can be accomplished do you? If there's 1
    pusher to every 100 users - how can we even begin to think of punishing the
    user if we can't control the pusher now? I know it's been used as an example
    MANY times - but remember what happened during prohibition? They finally ended
    up legalizing it again because they were getting no where and people like Al
    Capone were living like kings. He wasn't the only one either. Half the
    people in the country were braking the law!

    Re: using drugs in medical cases - in the last stages of cancer (some) the
    drugs they use now do not cut the pain. Morphine is the main one that
    is used and it is good only up to a point. Why on earth would you be against
    using Heroin if it let them die peacefully and pain free? Morphine is
    addicting too and what difference does it make if these people become
    addicts? I'm curious as to your answer on this. -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57767
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Last
    Date: 03/22/89  Time: 10:53:59

    You say that you don't know if legalizing it would make things better or
    worse. Then why are you so blindly willing to make it legal? Ok, what if
    things DID get worse? We'd just simply make them illegal again, right? I
    don't think so. Your reference to the Prohibition was a prime example. To
    legalize them COULD be going from bad to worse. In an offhand way, I would
    say your statement agrees to that. To try and and instill a "Prohibition"
    after legalization COULD make things even worse YET. James is right, we need
    to use a little creativity in whatever finally comes about. To simply argue
    the black/white point of legalization vs. status quo is too short-sighted.
    If they WERE legalized, what ELSE would need to be done? If they aren't
    legalized, what should we start doing right NOW? We can't just close our
    eyes to the possible consequences and just say "OK, let's do it." We need to
    open our eyes as wide as we can, and research all aspects and possible
    outcomes.

    Message: 57768
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 03/22/89  Time: 14:12:52

            You are sick.  Your religion has damaged your brain.  You are also
    blind.  Oh yeah, and you and a brick wall have a lot in common.

            Dean Hathaway left a number of good, logical posts on drug
    legalization but I bet you didn't see them.  The logic of them most probably
    made your little mind go blank.  How convenient. -Rod

    Message: 57769
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Taranto/#57740
    Date: 03/22/89  Time: 16:28:51

       You seem to have developed an unusual version of libertarian principles.
    What you are prescribing is prior restraint against any activity which
    could conceivable result in impairment. That is not a libertarian argument
    (it is a totalitarian one). If drug use resulted in noticeable impairment
    of a high percentage of people who used them, we wouldn't be having this
    discussion because not many people would be using them. If the drugs were
    legal the chances of that impairment would be much reduced from what they
    are now anyway, since a manufacturer would take all reasonable steps to
    prevent liability.

       Since my position on drugs has never been tried, and it is the only one
    I can see working out in the long run, I can't accept your statement that
    mine is a 'stock' answer which is preventing the state from winning its war
    on drugs (which is really a war on people). It is an answer based on
    individual freedom and responsibility, but since it does not add to the
    power of the state or fulfill the needs of the crusaders among us, it will
    be ignored while the 'War On Drugs' piles up casualties in the form of
    trampled freedoms and ruined lives.

       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 57770
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hathaway
    Date: 03/22/89  Time: 16:45:11

    Your premise appears to be that drug use does not impair the ability to
    think rationally or to function as part of a community.  If this is true,
    then opposition to drug use is simply a superstition and there is no
    rational way anyone can disagree with you.  However, I think your premise is
    clearly false.

    Message: 57773
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ralph
    Date: 03/23/89  Time: 05:04:54

    I am not always right and everybody else wrong Ralph. While I agree with a
    lot of people and a lot of opinions, I just happen to be vocal enough to
    voice disagreement with those of different views. That's what the essence of
    debate and discussion is all about. Bottom line, that's what BBSing is all
    about. Wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed on everything?

    Message: 57774
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 03/23/89  Time: 05:14:31

     Personally, I don't agree with the present emphasis on jailing casual
    users. It's more an admission of defeat than anything. I think that more and
    tougher drives against the distribution chains are necessary, and a few less
    bleeding hearts on the judicial benches and in such organizations as the
    ACLU would help also. Maybe what we really ought to do is what Sam Steiger
    suggested a long time ago, and kill all the lawyers, since they are the ones
    really making the big bucks in a lot of these cases, just as they are in
    some other matters around town that are bleeding the taxpayers for their
    benefit, but that's another subject entirely.

     As to the legitimate medicinal use of those drugs that are now illegal, I
    understand that marijuana can be purchased legally by prescription for
    certain problems. In the case of terminal cancer victims, I'm sure that if
    the medical profession was convinced that heroin or other such drugs would
    alleviate suffering any more than the drugs they now use, they would be able
    to get those drugs through legal sources. Such hard evidence simply does not
    exist however, and I'm sure that medical research is concentrating their
    efforts on what they consider more important things. Like a cure for cancer,
    for example.

    Message: 57775
    Author: $ Ralph Blehm
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Drugs
    Date: 03/23/89  Time: 06:32:05

    Prohibition has been over a number of years, why then is Moonshine
    made? If drugs were legal someone would find something else to sell
    that is not legal.

        So just shoot them all

        Love all you legal people

     Ralph

    Message: 57776
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/drugs
    Date: 03/23/89  Time: 08:33:10

    I am not for 'blindly' legalizing it! I've thought long and hard on the
    subject. The rest of your post was vague like 'research all aspects' -
    'creative ideas' - 'possible outcomes' etc. I'm sure these statements are
    going to put the fear of God into hard core drug users, pushers and other
    countries. In the meantime, people are getting murdered, being lured into
    drugs by pushers, getting rich, our taxes going way up fighting the problem,
    while you are thinking of 'all aspects and possible outcomes! Don't you
    think that every avenue has been well thought out by people that know a lot
    more about it than you?
    There are just two things that will end this mess - (1) - legalize it
    (2) line them all up and use Ralph's advice! I prefer number one.

         -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57777
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/medicine
    Date: 03/23/89  Time: 08:49:40

    Our medical profession is both good and bad. They are behind regarding the
    use of heroin and they WON'T use other countries as proof until they
    research for YEARS themselves. England for instance uses heroin and I
    would say that is 'hard evidence'! It is ILLEGAL here and can't even test it
    without permission. Morphine is the hardest pain fighter we have - heroin
    will not only take away the pain - it gives a person calmness, peace of
    mind, takes away fear. The person can function even in the last stages of
    cancer. Some have even been able to go home and die peacefully. A couple of
    years ago there was a TV show shown on cable that was filmed in England.
    They showed the people before and after taking heroin and there was no
    comparison! They also didn't have to take it as often as morphine. Most, got
    out of bed, went out side, looked at the birds, flowers, trees. It may have
    been for the last time, but at least they did it. They didn't die horribly,
    screaming out in pain. Now I'd say that's a step just as important as
    finding a cure for cancer! Your right - they do use marijuana in some cases,
    so I ask - why not heroin also? -=3D*) ANN (*=3D-

    Message: 57778
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Drugs and the Law?
    Date: 03/23/89  Time: 10:50:54

            I have been offered drugs several times and I also know I can easily
    get them if I wanted them...  I just say "No", they are illegal!

            If they were legal, I would still say "No"!  So why not make them
    legal and COLLECT billions in taxes from them instead of SPENDING billions
    fighting them?  People who don't want drugs will still not want them no
    matter what the law is... and people who do want to use drugs, get them
    anyway despite the law!   Look at the lives that would be saved if drugs
    were legalized...  Lives of good people that would not use drugs regardless
    of the law.  How many lives are lost each year trying to save drug addicts?
    Is it worth it?  Hell no....

            I say legalize drugs and tax the heck out of it and it will be safer
    and still cheaper than the garbage now available.  Drug users that want help
    will seek help and not be afraid of arrest and prosecution.  People of
    painful diseases would be able to make the choice to buy good clean drugs
    and die in a less painful peace... without wiping out the family bank roll.
    Syringes and other supplies would be cleaner and available for drug users
    and that would help in easing the spread of AIDS.  And last, the TAX
    $dollars collected from drugs plus not having to spend billions in tax
    dollars might put this nation in good health again.

            Common $ense, if you ask me!   (Good posts everyone on both sides)

            See UU

    Message: 57779
    Author: $ Ralph Blehm
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Drugs
    Date: 03/23/89  Time: 14:48:34

    Ann heroin was legal on prescription, that was back in the early 40s. The
    store I worked in had a supply that we were able to use, but the Dr.
    did not prescribe so we turned our supply into the narcs. At that time
    Narcs were secret service.

    Message: 57780
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Post I
    Date: 03/24/89  Time: 01:06:50

    Personally, I don't care who uses drugs. As long as they stay off the road
    and any place else where they can breach someone else's rights. Rod can toke
    and smoke and choke all he wants, it makes no never mind to me. But if he
    wants to buy drugs (which apparently he has no trouble doing now), he should
    be willing to accept the consequences, were he to be caught, rather than wax
    fanatic over how his rights are being trampled upon by those who really give
    a ****. There is no way for me to stop someone from doing something (whether
    rational or stupid) if they already have their mind set upon it. All I am
    doing is voicing my opinions as to why I think it should be kept illegal.
    Personally, it would be interesting to see what kind of person Rod would be
    today were he never introduced to drugs. Toke away, Rod.

    Post Office command:S

    To send mail to operator use

    First name:DARYL
    Last name:WESTFALL
    Send mail to Daryl Westfall:Yes
    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop

     1:        Hey Mr. Westfall.  I haven't used drugs in over a year.  So why in the
     2:fuck do you continue to blow off about me using drugs?
     3:      -Rod
     4:Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  I love you.  You have a lot of wit.  It is just
     5:too bad that religion has fucked your mind.

    Bulletin Board command:$RC

    Message: 57791
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/57783
    Date: 03/24/89  Time: 01:11:44

    No, Rod. Turn it around. You're looking at the picture side.

    Message: 57793
    author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sysop (Cliff?Sandy?)
    Date: 03/24/89  Time: 04:47:22

     I will have to agree that there have been some excellent posts written by
    those on both sides of this discussion, but we apparently are at another of
    those unmarked crossroads at which no-one is willing to concede the right of
    way. We have not seen any minds changed, nor anyone giving an inch in the
    matter, and probably won't, but it has been an interesting debate. Maybe
    it's time to move on to something else.

    Message: 57804
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: JT
    Date: 03/24/89  Time: 16:50:14

          It can be argued that if illegal drugs cause brain malfunctions
    in individuals then from a Libertarian stance they could be kept
    illegal.  This opposes the well known Libertarian Party stance
    that drugs should be made legal.  This is nonsense.

          Watching television for more than an hour a day or eating too
    much chocolate or drinking lots of coffee can cause brain malfunction.
    There are probably very few veterans of wars who do not have some sort
    of stress related brain malfunction.

         Society itself causes brain malfunction.

          I would argue that smoking marijuana is a pressure release for
    everyday stresses and without it our society would be much worse off.
    I know for a fact that it is safer than using alcohol.  There are
    probably no completely sane people on this planet.  I think that if
    and when an individual finds sanity they make arrangements to 'check
    out' as quickly as possible.  -Rod