Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:13:29 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>> The result of our anti-drug laws. The solution: repeal the anti-drug
>laws.
>
>The other questions: Why do blacks, who make up no more that 13% of
>drug users, make up nearly 60% of those serving prison sentences for
>drugs?
>
>Are the drug laws really the problem, or just a symptom of the real
>problem?
>
The bad news: Just a symptom of the problem.
The good news: It can be cured with drugs.
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:22:42 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
> The other questions: Why do blacks, who make up no more that 13% of
> drug users, make up nearly 60% of those serving prison sentences for
> drugs?
Because a disproportionate number of blacks are underclass and are not
properly raised by intact families. Shit breeds shit.
>
> Are the drug laws really the problem, or just a symptom of the real
> problem?
>
Yes. We have too many people in the jug for possession and sale. If drug
laws were repealed such folk would not be taking up expensive prison space.
Bob Kolker
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 05:14:51 -0800
--------
robert j. kolker wrote:
> Quirk wrote:
> > The other questions: Why do blacks, who make up no more that 13% of
> > drug users, make up nearly 60% of those serving prison sentences
for
> > drugs?
> Because a disproportionate number of blacks are underclass and are
not
> properly raised by intact families. Shit breeds shit.
Shit must have bread you then.
Please read more carefully, Blacks only make up 13% of drug users, yet
60% of those serving sentences.
How does your upbringing make you more or less likely to be ARRESTED
versus an equally "guilty" party from another demographic?
Blacks and Whites use drugs at almost exactly the same rates, yet Black
gets locked up more. The only "upbringing" I can see that effects this
is the upbringing of racists scum like you.
> > Are the drug laws really the problem, or just a symptom of the real
> > problem?
> Yes. We have too many people in the jug for possession and sale. If
drug
> laws were repealed such folk would not be taking up expensive prison
space.
The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are just
a pretense for oppression.
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:53:20 GMT
--------
On 25 Feb 2005 05:14:51 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
>
>The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are just
>a pretense for oppression.
>
Why retards like you continue to vote Democrat or Republican, nothing
will change, you are right.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:17:51 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are just
> a pretense for oppression.
We live in a democracy. When the voters decide that it is time to end
the oppression it will end.
Bob Kolker
>
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 07:50:22 -0800
--------
robert j. kolker wrote:
> > The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are
just
> > a pretense for oppression.
> We live in a democracy. When the voters decide that it is time to end
> the oppression it will end.
AFAIK, according to polls more people support drug law liberalization
than voted for your president.
Oppression will not end so long as the ruling class benefits from it
and the rest of you think the dog-and-pony show the elite put on for
you every few years is Democracy.
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:25:08 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> Oppression will not end so long as the ruling class benefits from it
> and the rest of you think the dog-and-pony show the elite put on for
> you every few years is Democracy.
Do you think 100,000,000 voters constitute the ruling class? It is not a
dog and pony show. Unfortunately it is an excercise by the
intellectually incompetent in self mis-government. Can you think of a
workable alternative. I can't. A revolution won't change a thing and
tyranny or autocracy is even worse.
Bob Kolker
>
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 08:36:33 -0800
--------
robert j. kolker wrote:
> Quirk wrote:
> > Oppression will not end so long as the ruling class benefits from
it
> > and the rest of you think the dog-and-pony show the elite put on
for
> > you every few years is Democracy.
> Do you think 100,000,000 voters constitute the ruling class?
Do you think they are potted petunias?
They are the RULED class. They are the dupes of the ruling class.
> It is not a dog and pony show.
Yes it is, the dog narrowly beat the pony, however both are the loyal
mutts of the ruling class.
> Unfortunately it is an excercise by the intellectually incompetent in
self
> mis-government.
Nope. The people that controll them got their money's worth. The rest
of you got screwed.
> Can you think of a workable alternative. I can't. A revolution won't
change
> a thing and tyranny or autocracy is even worse.
Americans becoming more aware and interested in genuine alternatives
would help.
Admitting their system is one that depends on systemic exploitation is
a good start.
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:38:55 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Americans becoming more aware and interested in genuine alternatives
> would help.
>
> Admitting their system is one that depends on systemic exploitation is
> a good start.
What if they are enjoying the system? After all they have 16 hours a day
to waste.
Bob Kolker
>
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:41:20 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Americans becoming more aware and interested in genuine alternatives
> would help.
Yoda says: Do not your breath hold for that any difference to make young
Quirk, else purple turn you will you.
Bob Kolker
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 10:22:24 -0800
--------
robert j. kolker wrote:
> Yoda says: Do not your breath hold for that any difference to make
young
> Quirk, else purple turn you will you.
Not holding by breath, spreading the word.
The US Peso is at 0.7557 Euro today, and even having lost 35% of it's
value since 2002, the bottom is still no where to be seen.
I think average Americans will start waking up when the ruling class
can no longer ply them into stupidity with the booty from the
productivity of foreign countries.
The era of US dollar hegemony is almost done.
Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:36:50 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>> > The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are
>just
>> > a pretense for oppression.
>
>> We live in a democracy. When the voters decide that it is time to end
>
>> the oppression it will end.
>
>AFAIK, according to polls more people support drug law liberalization
>than voted for your president.
>
>Oppression will not end so long as the ruling class benefits from it
>and the rest of you think the dog-and-pony show the elite put on for
>you every few years is Democracy.
>
bread and circuses
PLURAL NOUN:Offerings, such as benefits or entertainments,
intended to placate discontent or distract attention from a policy
or situation.
ETYMOLOGY:Translation of Latin pnem et circnss,
a phrase coined by the Roman poet Juvenal :
pnem, accusative singular of pnis, bread + et,
and + circnss, circus games.
Correspondent:: Les Cargill
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:23:26 GMT
--------
Quirk wrote:
> robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
>>Quirk wrote:
>
>
>>>The other questions: Why do blacks, who make up no more that 13% of
>>>drug users, make up nearly 60% of those serving prison sentences
>
> for
>
>>>drugs?
>
>
>>Because a disproportionate number of blacks are underclass and are
>
> not
>
>>properly raised by intact families. Shit breeds shit.
>
>
> Shit must have bread you then.
>
> Please read more carefully, Blacks only make up 13% of drug users, yet
> 60% of those serving sentences.
>
> How does your upbringing make you more or less likely to be ARRESTED
> versus an equally "guilty" party from another demographic?
>
> Blacks and Whites use drugs at almost exactly the same rates, yet Black
> gets locked up more. The only "upbringing" I can see that effects this
> is the upbringing of racists scum like you.
>
>
>>>Are the drug laws really the problem, or just a symptom of the real
>>>problem?
>
>
>>Yes. We have too many people in the jug for possession and sale. If
>
> drug
>
>>laws were repealed such folk would not be taking up expensive prison
>
> space.
>
> The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are just
> a pretense for oppression.
>
That is not why they will not be repealed. They will
not be repealed because they are immensely popular.
--
Les Cargill
Correspondent:: "Ghost"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 14:42:07 -0800
--------
If that was the case surely one of the power bases would hook into it
gain power.
Countries are run by the money men, the conglomerates, generally right
wing, white christian purists who seek salvation in the togetherness of
the 2 parent family for all, or pretend to do sobut in fact are only
interestedin protecting their power base from their seemingly moral
standpoint. Like bad shit doesn't happen in 2 parent family homes!!!
Anyway, its irrelevent, as orwell said - "The party is not concerned
with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, as long as
the hierarchial structure remains intact"
Its the dirty bastard child of capitalism; they have the power and the
money and they will kill to keep it that way. See Iraq. Common
political tactic to take emphasis away from home unrest, create a
foreign enemy, a fear and then wage war on that fear thus "protecting"
your average voter.
Sick but true,
Ghost
Correspondent:: Les Cargill
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:12:49 GMT
--------
Ghost wrote:
> If that was the case surely one of the power bases would hook into it
> gain power.
It really doesn't work that way. There's significant hubris
in black marketeering, and people can't be very rational
while doing it. See also the Al Pacino version of "Scarface".
> Countries are run by the money men, the conglomerates, generally right
> wing, white christian purists who seek salvation in the togetherness of
> the 2 parent family for all, or pretend to do sobut in fact are only
> interestedin protecting their power base from their seemingly moral
> standpoint.
That is not particularly true, either. It's really run
as it appears to be run. It's us that are the problem.
Democracy devolves to a latency problem.
> Like bad shit doesn't happen in 2 parent family homes!!!
> Anyway, its irrelevent, as orwell said - "The party is not concerned
> with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, as long as
> the hierarchial structure remains intact"
A heirarchical structure in the face of significant
competition fails, every time. See the Tatar invasion
of Europe for examples.
Hierarchies hold out against raw entropic forces better than
anarchies. Anarchies burn bright and short.
> Its the dirty bastard child of capitalism; they have the power and the
> money and they will kill to keep it that way. See Iraq.
I see Iraq. And I see the scion of a former CIA chief trying
to upgrade Iraq into the 21st century. Perhaps it's foolish
in the sense that Churchill was foolish at Gallipoli.
But we won't know, will we?
> Common
> political tactic to take emphasis away from home unrest, create a
> foreign enemy, a fear and then wage war on that fear thus "protecting"
> your average voter.
>
> Sick but true,
>
I suppose it is most unfortunate that orwell never really explained
the backstory of "1984" - he didn't feel he had to . In Hitchen's
book about him, it's made pretty clear what that is.
This isn't a failure per se of any person - it's an
educational opportunity. Determinism/positivism couldn't
work because the warp and weave of the plane it operates on
can't work that way.
As much vitriol has been flung at it, it really was a semi
honest mistake increasingly implemented by dishonest people.
> Ghost
>
--
Les Cargill
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 26 Feb 2005 07:09:46 -0800
--------
Les Cargill wrote:
> > The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are
just
> > a pretense for oppression.
> That is not why they will not be repealed. They will
> not be repealed because they are immensely popular.
Backwards IMO, whatever popularity they have is because of deliberate
propaganda from the ruling class, to whom the drug laws are a usefull
tool of oppression.
And despite this, they are not that popular, a good portion, if not the
majority of the US support some degree of liberlization of the drug
laws.
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:35:19 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Backwards IMO, whatever popularity they have is because of deliberate
> propaganda from the ruling class, to whom the drug laws are a usefull
> tool of oppression.
That is a very arrogant assumption. You assume over 150,000,000 are shit
stupid. They may be self interested and narrow in their views, but
stupid? I think not.
>
> And despite this, they are not that popular, a good portion, if not the
> majority of the US support some degree of liberlization of the drug
> laws.
You have just contradicted yourself. The People are both enslaved by
propaganda and not enslaved by propaganda. Which is it?
Bob Kolker
>
Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:49:37 GMT
--------
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
>
>
>Quirk wrote:
>> Backwards IMO, whatever popularity they have is because of deliberate
>> propaganda from the ruling class, to whom the drug laws are a usefull
>> tool of oppression.
>
>That is a very arrogant assumption. You assume over 150,000,000 are shit
>stupid. They may be self interested and narrow in their views, but
>stupid? I think not.
>
>>
>> And despite this, they are not that popular, a good portion, if not the
>> majority of the US support some degree of liberlization of the drug
>> laws.
>
>You have just contradicted yourself. The People are both enslaved by
>propaganda and not enslaved by propaganda. Which is it?
>
>Bob Kolker
>
>>
Depends if you believe your own propagada, or not--
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:01:23 -0500
--------
König Prüße wrote:
>
> Depends if you believe your own propagada, or not--
I asked which of two contradictory assertions is the case. I am not
getting an answer.
Bob Kolker
>
Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:15:29 GMT
--------
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
>
>
>König Prüße wrote:
>>
>> Depends if you believe your own propagada, or not--
>
>I asked which of two contradictory assertions is the case. I am not
>getting an answer.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
>>
I'm certain that Quirk will jump one way or the other;
he's not the sort to try to jump in both directions, although
I expect some "double-think"
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:41:10 GMT
--------
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:35:19 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
wrote:
>Quirk wrote:
>> Backwards IMO, whatever popularity they have is because of deliberate
>> propaganda from the ruling class, to whom the drug laws are a usefull
>> tool of oppression.
>
>That is a very arrogant assumption. You assume over 150,000,000 are shit
>stupid. They may be self interested and narrow in their views, but
>stupid? I think not.
Think again. Half have IQs of 100 or less. Just think about what
that implies.
Many years ago, I worked on a research project to examine the
relationship between IQ and opinion on a broad spectrum of issues.
One of our strongest results was a negative correlation between IQ and
support for the War on Drugs.
>> And despite this, they are not that popular, a good portion, if not the
>> majority of the US support some degree of liberlization of the drug
>> laws.
>
>You have just contradicted yourself. The People are both enslaved by
>propaganda and not enslaved by propaganda. Which is it?
False dichotomy.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: Dan Clore
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:00:13 -0800
--------
royls@telus.net wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:35:19 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
> wrote:
>>Quirk wrote:
> Think again. Half have IQs of 100 or less. Just think about what
> that implies.
Like they say in the Church of the SubGenius, you know how
dumb the average guy is? Well, by definition, half of them
are even dumber than that!
> Many years ago, I worked on a research project to examine the
> relationship between IQ and opinion on a broad spectrum of issues.
> One of our strongest results was a negative correlation between IQ and
> support for the War on Drugs.
Any information on-line about this?
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:23:01 GMT
--------
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:00:13 -0800, Dan Clore
wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> Many years ago, I worked on a research project to examine the
>> relationship between IQ and opinion on a broad spectrum of issues.
>> One of our strongest results was a negative correlation between IQ and
>> support for the War on Drugs.
>
>Any information on-line about this?
Don't think so. I just Googled some key words and came up empty.
I've lost touch with the guy who had the data, but I do have a hard
copy of the results sitting around somewhere. Anything in particular
you'd like to know?
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 28 Feb 2005 02:09:13 -0800
--------
robert j. kolker wrote:
> Quirk wrote:
> > Backwards IMO, whatever popularity they have is because of
deliberate
> > propaganda from the ruling class, to whom the drug laws are a
usefull
> > tool of oppression.
> That is a very arrogant assumption. You assume over 150,000,000 are
shit
> stupid. They may be self interested and narrow in their views, but
> stupid? I think not.
Now that is shit stupid, however I hope most Americans are smarter than
you.
People are influenced by propaganda, not only the stupid, this is well
understood by everyone from socialogist to advertisers to Macheavelian
despots.
> > And despite this, they are not that popular, a good portion, if not
the
> > majority of the US support some degree of liberlization of the drug
> > laws.
> You have just contradicted yourself. The People are both enslaved by
> propaganda and not enslaved by propaganda. Which is it?
No contradiction, while support for drug laws is higher that it may be
in absence of propaganda, it is still not that high.
What is so hard to understand?
Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:50:57 GMT
--------
"Quirk" wrote:
>
>robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>> Quirk wrote:
>> > Backwards IMO, whatever popularity they have is because of
>deliberate
>> > propaganda from the ruling class, to whom the drug laws are a
>usefull
>> > tool of oppression.
>
>> That is a very arrogant assumption. You assume over 150,000,000 are
>shit
>> stupid. They may be self interested and narrow in their views, but
>> stupid? I think not.
>
>Now that is shit stupid, however I hope most Americans are smarter than
>you.
>
>People are influenced by propaganda, not only the stupid, this is well
>understood by everyone from socialogist to advertisers to Macheavelian
>despots.
About 60% of the general population are susceptible to
primary suggestibility, about 20% more are susceptible to
secondary suggestibility (weak arguments) and the rest
are hard to sway because they are rational or irrational.
Drink Coca-Cola!
Correspondent:: Les Cargill
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:29:44 GMT
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>>The point is that drug laws will not be repealed, because they are
>
> just
>
>>>a pretense for oppression.
>
>
>>That is not why they will not be repealed. They will
>>not be repealed because they are immensely popular.
>
>
> Backwards IMO, whatever popularity they have is because of deliberate
> propaganda from the ruling class, to whom the drug laws are a usefull
> tool of oppression.
>
I'm afraid not. Really. When Reagan re-warmed
the WOD, it was because of a grass-roots group
of affluent housewives from a suburb of Atlanta.
No mainstream politician can publically oppose
the policy, because there are so many horror
stories.
It has immense popular support.
> And despite this, they are not that popular, a good portion, if not the
> majority of the US support some degree of liberlization of the drug
> laws.
>
--
Les Cargill
Correspondent:: MS
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:40:40 GMT
--------
robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> Quirk wrote:
>
>> The US, "the land of the free," has the biggest prison population in
>> the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries
>> - including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by
>> US armed forces.
>
>
> The result of our anti-drug laws. The solution: repeal the anti-drug laws.
OMG! For once we agree with each other. :-)
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:56:42 GMT
--------
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:40:40 GMT, MS wrote:
>
>robert j. kolker wrote:
>>
>>
>> Quirk wrote:
>>
>>> The US, "the land of the free," has the biggest prison population in
>>> the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries
>>> - including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by
>>> US armed forces.
>>
>>
>> The result of our anti-drug laws. The solution: repeal the anti-drug laws.
>
>OMG! For once we agree with each other. :-)
>
Count me in, too. Freedom works every time, not just in economic
matters.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:20 GMT
--------
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:56:42 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:40:40 GMT, MS wrote:
>>
>>robert j. kolker wrote:
>>>
>>> Quirk wrote:
>>>
>>>> The US, "the land of the free," has the biggest prison population in
>>>> the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries
>>>> - including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by
>>>> US armed forces.
>>>
>>> The result of our anti-drug laws. The solution: repeal the anti-drug laws.
>>
>>OMG! For once we agree with each other. :-)
>
>Count me in, too. Freedom works every time, not just in economic
>matters.
It is obvious to anyone with an IQ in three digits that the only
beneficiaries of drug prohibition are the drug dealers and those in
their employ, and the prison industry. Those in positions of
authority, political or academic, who voice support for drug
prohibition are invariably on the payroll of either the drug dealers
or the prison industry.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 10:48:23 -0800
--------
r...@telus.net wrote:
> It is obvious to anyone with an IQ in three digits that the only
> beneficiaries of drug prohibition are the drug dealers and those in
> their employ, and the prison industry.
It's a shame so many Americans can't see that, and instead chose to
believe racist ideas.
But I would go further, I think it goes much wider than that, the
existence of an underclass has many direct and indirect benefits to the
ruling class, and the drug laws are part of the apparatus to keep them
down, thus enabling there exploitation.
Who benefits from this exploited underclass?
The list is pretty is pretty long, starting with the two you mention,
along with the military-industrial complex, slumlords, employers of
unskilled labour, etc.
"If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is
wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black
babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and
make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for
America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her,
then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend
our own people right here in this country."
-- Malcolm X , Nov. 1963, New York City.
Correspondent:: "Ghost"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 11:26:42 -0800
--------
Im sure you dont really belive that. Did alcohol prohibition work? Oh
no.
Freedom of individual choice that will not harm another is the only way
forward. if i want to shoot up I will, no matter what law says i
shouldn't. I dont, but i fully back an individuals free will to do so.
Oh, and the drug Barons are certainly not in favour of prohibition, a
standardised, legal and controlled system of drug dispensing would take
away their mass revenue. The only payoffs happening are to the corrupt
officials you elect to turn a blind eye.
The masses against the classes,
Ghost
Correspondent:: Manny Davis
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:36:35 GMT
--------
Ghost wrote:
> Im sure you dont really belive that. Did alcohol prohibition work? Oh
> no.
> Freedom of individual choice that will not harm another is the only way
> forward. if i want to shoot up I will, no matter what law says i
> shouldn't. I dont, but i fully back an individuals free will to do so.
> Oh, and the drug Barons are certainly not in favour of prohibition, a
> standardised, legal and controlled system of drug dispensing would take
> away their mass revenue.
Government standards? Government controlled?
No thanks.
Correspondent:: "Ghost"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 12:08:11 -0800
--------
I never said government standards or government controlled.
However, under the present rule that would be the only possibility, and
quite frankly a step forward for indiviual freedoms.
That said, i think it more likely to happen here in the uk than under
George W, but even then its an outside chance.
The masses dont care for results, past present or future, if it sounds
good(no matter how flawed in reality and practice) come election time,
the uninformed masses will vote the same way.
Lets face it, the majority votes on what will be the best for them, the
indiviual, rather than the good of all.
Drugs are taboo because people are fed untrue statistics and are made
to fear "drugs", sorry, the illegal drugs, and not one major party in
the uk or us would dare to lose votes even if they thought it the way
forward to legalize.
Its funny how alcohol and cigarette related crime never really seem to
crop up in election run ups, just crime unemployment and drugs.
Who takes the larger proportion of drugs, commits the crimes? The lower
classes. Why? Its an escapism from the shite existence they lead,
knowing they'll never get further than their 9-5 because the primary
role of governments is to protect property from the majority. Or worse
still from unemployment. Is it an indiviuals problem they cant get a
job? No, its an economic problem. Why? Capitalism. "In competitive
behaviour there is always a loser" John Nash, Mathematics Genius and
Nobel prize winner.
"Mr Lenin awaken the boy"
Ghost
Correspondent:: Manny Davis
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:20:39 GMT
--------
Ghost wrote:
> I never said government standards or government controlled.
You wrote:
"...a standardised, legal and controlled system of drug dispensing would
take away their [drug baron's] mass revenue."
If you were not referring to government, who is it you had in mind
to do the drug controlling and the drug dispensing?
> However, under the present rule that would be the only possibility, and
> quite frankly a step forward for indiviual freedoms.
I don't see how that is a possibility within the current prescription drug
system.
> That said, i think it more likely to happen here in the uk than under
> George W, but even then its an outside chance.
> The masses dont care for results, past present or future, if it sounds
> good(no matter how flawed in reality and practice) come election time,
> the uninformed masses will vote the same way.
>
> Lets face it, the majority votes on what will be the best for them, the
> indiviual, rather than the good of all.
I think it would be more accurate to say that legislators vote in a way
that is best for them, rather than the good of all.
> Drugs are taboo because people are fed untrue statistics and are made
> to fear "drugs", sorry, the illegal drugs, and not one major party in
> the uk or us would dare to lose votes even if they thought it the way
> forward to legalize.
> Its funny how alcohol and cigarette related crime never really seem to
> crop up in election run ups, just crime unemployment and drugs.
> Who takes the larger proportion of drugs, commits the crimes? The lower
> classes. Why? Its an escapism from the shite existence they lead,
> knowing they'll never get further than their 9-5 because the primary
> role of governments is to protect property from the majority. Or worse
> still from unemployment. Is it an indiviuals problem they cant get a
> job? No, its an economic problem. Why? Capitalism. "In competitive
> behaviour there is always a loser" John Nash, Mathematics Genius and
> Nobel prize winner.
>
> "Mr Lenin awaken the boy"
>
> Ghost
>
Correspondent:: "What the..."
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:56:03 -0500
--------
"Quirk" wrote in message
news:1109265248.051817.51940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
A Prison State, If Not a Police State
Almost one-half million Americans are in prison for drugs-only
offenses.
And is this the reason that arsonists, burglars, bank robbers and
other major criminals are often put right back out on the streets
within a month or two after their arrests?
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:00:36 GMT
--------
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:56:03 -0500, "What the..."
wrote:
>"Quirk" wrote in message
>news:1109265248.051817.51940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>
>Almost one-half million Americans are in prison for drugs-only
>offenses.
>
>And is this the reason that arsonists, burglars, bank robbers and
>other major criminals are often put right back out on the streets
>within a month or two after their arrests?
Of course. There is no money for the police/prison state in catching
or incarcerating actual criminals. Fabricated criminals, OTOH, are an
excellent source not only of government money, but of bribe money,
seized assets, and of course primo drugs for police officer
consumption.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: "Dr. Zarkov"
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:28:31 -0500
--------
The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just due
to conservatives. Clinton fired his own surgeon general for having the
guts to suggest that we should at least consider drug decriminalization.
Neither he nor Gore nor Kerry nor any other Democrat or "liberal" of
note has had the courage to attack the war on drugs or the prison
industry. In fact, "liberal" Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of
New York has been one of the most prominent proponents of the war on
drugs and the most vigorous opponents of legalization/decriminalization.
As far as prison privatization goes, it's effect is trivial compared to
public prisons. In many states, including my own, the public prison
guards represent a strong voting block. The politicians, including the
so-called "liberal" Democrats who control the state, have refused to do
anything to antagonize them. This is in spite of the fact that
investigations have shown many guards routinely rack up $150,000 a year
with overtime.
As for Walter Mondale and the Child Protective Services--Mondale was one
of the most prominent "liberal" Democrats. And Janet Reno, Clinton's
attorney general, made her mark in Florida prosecuting people in the
"child abuse" witch hunt of the 80s.
Quirk wrote:
> A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>
> by Paul Craig Roberts
>
> The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
> state.
> The US, "the land of the free," has the biggest prison population in
> the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries
> - including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by
> US armed forces.
>
> Even China, with one party rule and a population that is 4.5 times
> larger than the US population, has 30% fewer total prisoners than the
> US. China's per capita rate is a small fraction of the US rate.
>
> The US prison population per capita is three times higher than "axis of
> evil" country Iran, five times higher than Tanzania, and seven times
> higher than a civilized European country like Germany.
>
> One out of every 142 Americans is in prison - and this does not include
> military prisons or INS jails.
>
> The conservatives' war on drugs, launched during President Reagan's
> first term, bears much of the blame. Between 1980 and 2000, a period
> during which the US population grew by 21%, the number of state and
> federal inmates soared by 312%.
>
> Almost one-half million Americans are in prison for drugs-only
> offenses. Many of them are innocent or were encouraged by federal
> agents or informers posing as friends to transport small amounts of
> drugs as a favor.
>
> Consider Elaine Bartlett, pardoned by New York Gov. George Pataki in
> 2000 after serving 16 years of a 20-year-sentence. Bartlett was tricked
> by an acquaintance, who turned out to be a government informant, into
> taking four ounces of cocaine to Albany. Bartlett was given 20 years
> even though she had no history of arrests or convictions and left 4
> children behind, the oldest being 10 years old.
>
> Most government informants are real criminals who escape charges or are
> given lenient plea bargains in exchange for helping prosecutors boost
> their conviction rates by entrapping innocent people. It is a disgrace
> to the US legal system that judges permit such false convictions.
>
> Many other innocents are in jail because police dropped small packets
> of drugs - or in the Texas cases bags of ground up wallboard - into
> their cars when stopped, allegedly for traffic offenses.
>
> Society gained nothing but more criminals by locking up Bartlett. Her
> six-year-old son was traumatized by his mother's absence. At the end of
> every prison visit he had to be forcefully removed by prison guards
> from clinging to his mother. By the time he was 10 years old, he was a
> drug runner. He bought his first gun at age 12 and was in prison by age
> 16. You can read the whole story in the book, Life on the Outside, by
> Jennifer Gonnerman.
>
> With a legal system that mass-produces criminals, prisons are being
> constructed at a breathtaking rate. An Urban Institute study, "The New
> Landscape of Imprisonment," released on April 29, documents the boom in
> prison construction during the last two decades.
>
> Jeremy Travis, one of the authors, says: "The prison network is now
> deeply intertwined with American life, deeply integrated into the
> physical and economic infrastructure of a large number of American
> counties. It provides jobs for construction workers and guards, and
> because the inmates are counted as residents of the counties where they
> are incarcerated, it means more federal and state funding and greater
> political representation for these counties."
>
> A number of states now have prisons in almost one-third of their
> counties. Florida has at least one prison in 78% of its counties! In
> 1923 there were only 61 prisons in the entire US.
>
> Another conservative idea - prison privatization - has created a
> contractual monster that must be fed with a constant stream of inmates.
> A variety of new police Gestapos have been created that help to keep
> the massive prison complex - our own Gulag Archipelago - filled.
>
> The most dangerous is Child Protective Services, created by Walter
> Mondale in response to his constituency of anti-family feminists and
> "child therapists" in need of employment. CPS was set up on the insane
> assumption that a large percentage of families committed "child abuse."
> CPS offices are everywhere, and employees outnumber child abusers.
>
> The child sex abuse witch hunt in Wenatchee, Washington, was set off
> when the local CPS office was told to find some cases to justify its
> budget. It took years to expose and overturn one of the greatest cases
> of prosecutorial misconduct in human history. Dozens of families were
> destroyed and 50 children were put into foster care.
>
> The latest report from Child Protective Services Watch documents that
> children placed in our "child protection system" are 5 times more
> likely to die from physical abuse and 11 times more likely to be
> sexually abused than they would be from remaining in the homes from
> which they are removed!
>
> Mondale and his "child advocates" got their Gestapo legislation passed
> in 1974. A quarter century later there are 500,000 US kids in the
> "child protection system." Soon there will be one million because of
> the perverse incentive that funds the system. The federal government
> pays state and country child welfare services a bounty for each child
> seized from a family. Linda Wallace Pate, a California attorney
> specialized in foster cases, calls it a "kids for cash" system.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming that children are extremely traumatized by
> being ripped from families and placed in foster care.
>
> It turns out that the overwhelming majority of abused children suffer
> the abuse from their single mother's live-in boyfriends or overnight
> lovers.
>
> Child abuse is rare in two-parent families, so CPS has expanded abuse
> to cover spanking - even playground bruises are grounds for seizing
> children - and shouting ("verbal abuse").
>
> The war on crime has turned even parenting into a dangerous occupation.
>
>
> One can't help but wonder whether the US itself is in need of
> liberation.
>
> May 4, 2004
>
> Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political
> Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a
> former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former
> assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The
> Tyranny of Good Intentions.
>
>
> Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
>
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 24 Feb 2005 10:33:35 -0800
--------
Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just
due
> to conservatives.
Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.
Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
any nation on earth? And further, why is the racial makeup of the
prison population so different from the population at large?
Correspondent:: Gordon Sande
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:59:56 GMT
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
>
>>The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just
>
> due
>
>>to conservatives.
>
>
> Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.
>
> Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
> why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
> any nation on earth? And further, why is the racial makeup of the
> prison population so different from the population at large?
>
Where is David Lloyd-Jones (of sci.econ) when you need him?
His question was always "Why do prison guards make more than teachers?"
His claim was that education deserves better staffing than prisons.
Seems like a rather sensible question.
Correspondent:: "Rev. Richard Skull"
Date: 24 Feb 2005 17:29:32 -0800
--------
>>Where is David Lloyd-Jones (of sci.econ) when you need him?
His question was always "Why do prison guards make more than teachers?"
His claim was that education deserves better staffing than prisons.
Seems like a rather sensible question. <<
I don't know. Down South where the Prisons are full and the Guards I.Q.
and wages are low, anyone who can feed their family is considered
"overpaid"
Correspondent:: israel
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:47:08 GMT
--------
"Rev. Richard Skull" writes:
>>>Where is David Lloyd-Jones (of sci.econ) when you need him?
>
> His question was always "Why do prison guards make more than teachers?"
Market forces.
There are always more people willing to teach than there are who want to be prison guards.
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:20:27 GMT
--------
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:47:08 GMT, israel
wrote:
>"Rev. Richard Skull" writes:
>
>>>>Where is David Lloyd-Jones (of sci.econ) when you need him?
>>
>> His question was always "Why do prison guards make more than teachers?"
>
>Market forces.
>There are always more people willing to teach than there are who want to be prison guards.
?? Uh, part of the point here is that many of the people who might
not mind being prison guards are currently on the other side of the
bars.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: "Dr. Zarkov"
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:01:33 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
>
>>The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just
>
> due
>
>>to conservatives.
>
>
> Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.
>
> Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
> why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
> any nation on earth?
But that's part of the problem: Unfortunately, the U.S. has a two-party
system, and neither has the guts to address the reasons--a main one
being that about 37% of those imprisoned are there for drug offenses.
The other, related one being that the war on drugs and prison industry
now comprise a vast army of parasites (in law enforcement, prisons,
various agencies) who represent a major power block and voting block.
All of which of course is one of the snags of "democracy."
Correspondent:: Les Cargill
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:06:15 GMT
--------
Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> Quirk wrote:
>
>> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just
>>
>>
>> due
>>
>>> to conservatives.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.
>>
>> Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
>> why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
>> any nation on earth?
>
>
>
> But that's part of the problem: Unfortunately, the U.S. has a two-party
> system, and neither has the guts to address the reasons--a main one
> being that about 37% of those imprisoned are there for drug offenses.
> The other, related one being that the war on drugs and prison industry
> now comprise a vast army of parasites (in law enforcement, prisons,
> various agencies) who represent a major power block and voting block.
> All of which of course is one of the snags of "democracy."
The other defect is that one entry into professional
politics is as an elected District Attorney. DA's
invariably run on ther conviction record.
--
Les Cargill
Correspondent:: "Rev. Richard Skull"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 10:16:59 -0800
--------
The other defect is that one entry into professional
politics is as an elected District Attorney. DA's
invariably run on ther conviction record
Or if your in Illinios, the umber of innocent people who you put on
death row!
Correspondent:: "angelicusrex"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:17:12 -0700
--------
> Or if your in Illinios, the umber of innocent people who you put on
> death row!
Or if you are Governor of Texas looking to be President, how many retards
and niggers you executed who were on Death Row for less than one year.
A.P.
Correspondent:: "Dr. Zarkov"
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:23:59 -0500
--------
Les Cargill wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> Quirk wrote:
>> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>>>
>>>> The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just due
>>>> to conservatives.
>>>
>>> Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.
>>>
>>> Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
>>> why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
>>> any nation on earth?
>>
>> But that's part of the problem: Unfortunately, the U.S. has a
>> two-party system, and neither has the guts to address the reasons--a
>> main one being that about 37% of those imprisoned are there for drug
>> offenses. The other, related one being that the war on drugs and
>> prison industry now comprise a vast army of parasites (in law
>> enforcement, prisons, various agencies) who represent a major power
>> block and voting block. All of which of course is one of the snags of
>> "democracy."
>
>
> The other defect is that one entry into professional
> politics is as an elected District Attorney. DA's
> invariably run on ther conviction record.
Right, and when they cite their conviction rate, they don't tell you
that they only go to trial with the cases they're pretty sure they can
win. Thus you'll hear rates of 90% to even near 100%. But the actual
rate of persons convicted for total crimes committed is around 1%.
A lot of prosecutors made their name during the "child abuse" witch
hunts--including Janet Reno. It was later shown that many (possible
most) of those convicted were innocent, but the prosecutors never had to
take any of the blame for it--nor did the police or anyone in
government. See:
_No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of
Our Times_
by Dorothy Rabinowitz 2003 Wall Street Journal book, Free Press, NY, NY
http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Rabinowitz_interview.htm
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:25:53 -0500
--------
Quirk wrote:
>
> Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
> why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
> any nation on earth? And further, why is the racial makeup of the
> prison population so different from the population at large?
Anti-drug laws account for the bulk of the prison populations. Why are
so many blacks in trouble. Because so many are brought up out of wedlock
and improperly socialized and educated. The barbarian is not just AT the
gate. The barbarian is INSIDE the gate.
If a male is not properly socialized and domesticated by the time he is
fifteen he is a chronic problem to society, and that is true regardless
of race. Black males are among the most improperly brought up people in
our country. Too much testosterone and not enough self control. A bad
combination.
Bob Kolker
>
Correspondent:: "Ghost"
Date: 24 Feb 2005 15:26:42 -0800
--------
Thats such racist shit. You cant generalize like that and blame all
your society woes on black males, "The barabrians inside the gate"! Who
brought the "barbarian" inside the gate to work as slaves, then beat,
raped, tortured and killed them for the privelidge. You reap what you
sow. The biggest fucking criminals in your country are the good ol'
white boys who pass the laws and the power playing capitalists behind
them. Try looking at your gun laws if your wondering why you have so
much crime, or the poverty imposed by a capitalist system. "If white
America told the truth for just one day it's whole world would fall
apart"
Ghost
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:58 -0500
--------
Ghost wrote:
> Thats such racist shit. You cant generalize like that and blame all
> your society woes on black males, "The barabrians inside the gate"! Who
> brought the "barbarian" inside the gate to work as slaves, then beat,
> raped, tortured and killed them for the privelidge.
Well it sure wasn't me are any of my relatives. My people came in
steerage in the late 1890-s.
Bob Kolker
Correspondent:: "Ghost"
Date: 24 Feb 2005 17:16:06 -0800
--------
Didn't say it was you Bob, but you are compounding the it by pointing
your rightwing stick at blacks and blaming they for state of society.
Got to look at the root cause and that goes all the way back to the
founding days of America. Surely one of the underlying principles of
anarchism is egalitarianism not fascism?
The spilling of innocent blood stains us all.
Ghost
Correspondent:: Les Cargill
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:12:03 GMT
--------
robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> Ghost wrote:
>
>> Thats such racist shit. You cant generalize like that and blame all
>> your society woes on black males, "The barabrians inside the gate"! Who
>> brought the "barbarian" inside the gate to work as slaves, then beat,
>> raped, tortured and killed them for the privelidge.
>
>
> Well it sure wasn't me are any of my relatives. My people came in
> steerage in the late 1890-s.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Then there's a surprisingly high probability
one of 'em in the '10s, '20s or '30s was a
gangster.
The Jewish gangs did not survive the '30s push by
J. Edgar and others. There was no Jewish Cosa
Nostra offshore as an example and resource. But
Chicago and New York had very significant Jewish
gangs - I think the Purple Gang was mostly Jewish.
They could wear Jules from "Pulp Fiction"'s "Bad
M*********" wallet.
It's only significant in gang history because gangs
tended to be organized on ethnic lines.
--
Les Cargill
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:40:43 -0500
--------
L>
> Then there's a surprisingly high probability
> one of 'em in the '10s, '20s or '30s was a
> gangster.
I know all my relatives to way back then. No gangsters. First generation
were laborers. My maternal grandfather and his uncle and another partner
opened up Pechters Bakery in the Bronx. They made Silverloaf Whitebread.
Most of my folks were either laborers of low grade professionals like
accountants/bookkeeps. Some opened stores. No gangsters.
Some of my relatives may have paid protection money, but that was not
all that common.
Bob Kolker
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:54:56 GMT
--------
In article <1109287602.174577.185500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ghost" wrote:
> Thats such racist shit. You cant generalize like that and blame all
> your society woes on black males, "The barbarians inside the gate"!
Well, no. The simple fact is that most of the world's problems are due
to Whitey. There's no dearth of monsters and assholes, true, but Whitey
has the longest global reach and has, so far at least, been the most
crafty at milking your mammy's dugs until her face ended up draped over
her cheekbones like tattered flags.
Whitey has brought about much good in the world by being resourceful
and creative, but likewise, the arrogance that has accompanied so much
if it has often turned the honey green. So by all means, let's lay the
proper responsibility for The Bad Things at the feet of those who
willfully generate them with ignorance, greed and testosteronolicious
foolishness, but always remember that at the end of the day, kicking
Whitey in the ass is richly deserved.
If you need proof, consider that I today saw 4" high rubber Boobahs on
sale at Wal-Mart for a dollar. They were originally $3, they were made
with near-slave labor in China, are composed of poisonous goo and are on
sale at Wal-Mart. Woe be unto thee, Babylon! Nyuk nyuk!
--
HellPope Huey
Composer, Decomposer,
Poseur, EpiscoPopopalian
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it
because the only people who really know where it is
are the ones who have gone over."
-Hunter S. Thompson
"I dreamed I went to Heaven,
but they realized it wasn't my time,
so they sent me back to a brewery."
- "Family Guy"
Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:19:58 GMT
--------
"Ghost" wrote:
>Thats such racist shit. You cant generalize like that and blame all
>your society woes on black males, "The barabrians inside the gate"! Who
>brought the "barbarian" inside the gate to work as slaves, then beat,
>raped, tortured and killed them for the privelidge. You reap what you
>sow. The biggest fucking criminals in your country are the good ol'
>white boys who pass the laws and the power playing capitalists behind
>them. Try looking at your gun laws if your wondering why you have so
>much crime, or the poverty imposed by a capitalist system. "If white
>America told the truth for just one day it's whole world would fall
>apart"
>
>Ghost
>
That's true, so true! In sociology we studied that the "dominant culture"
is legitimate, but could not exist "as is" without the illegitimate sub-cultures.
So, it would appear that "first-class citizens" require "second-class citizens"
to do their shit-work for them. Stop picking-up Whitey's garbage for a while,
and things slow down considerably quick, Remember the Memphis Sanitation
Worker's Strike?
http://www.afscme.org/about/memphist.htm
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Work Union! Live Better!
Correspondent:: Les Cargill
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:04:48 GMT
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
>
>>The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just
>
> due
>
>>to conservatives.
>
>
> Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.
>
> Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
> why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
> any nation on earth?
For one, it's the most heterogenous society
on earth. For another, it has the widest
distribution of income. For another, the
drug prohibtion laws tend to incrminate
large swaths of people who would otherwise
not be criminals.
Some of this is just Puritanism, in
multiple ways.
But remember also - prison as a concept was
invented in America, in the form of
the penitentiary system. Penitentiary design was
the original American architectural form - and
its building still bear the mark. Almost all
modern high school buildings bear a striking
resemblance to the 2-story cellblock . It's a
compact way to get maximum use of space.
"The History Channel"'s "The Big House" is
quite informative on the subject.
> And further, why is the racial makeup of the
> prison population so different from the population at large?
>
The makeup of prison poulations roughly
follows the poverty curve. Poverty is
unequal along racial barriers. Also,
peoplpe of means ar emuch more likely
to be able to afford better legal
counsel, much reducing the probability
of incarceration.
--
Les Cargill
Correspondent:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:58:02 GMT
--------
Les Cargill wrote:
>Quirk wrote:
>
>> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just
>>
>> due
>>
>>>to conservatives.
>>
>>
>> Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.
>>
>> Splitzing the blame between the parties does not address the question,
>> why does the USA have the highest percentage of incarcerated people of
>> any nation on earth?
>
>
>For one, it's the most heterogenous society
>on earth. For another, it has the widest
>distribution of income. For another, the
>drug prohibtion laws tend to incrminate
>large swaths of people who would otherwise
>not be criminals.
>
>Some of this is just Puritanism, in
>multiple ways.
>
>But remember also - prison as a concept was
>invented in America, in the form of
>the penitentiary system. Penitentiary design was
>the original American architectural form - and
>its building still bear the mark. Almost all
>modern high school buildings bear a striking
>resemblance to the 2-story cellblock . It's a
>compact way to get maximum use of space.
>
>"The History Channel"'s "The Big House" is
>quite informative on the subject.
>
> > And further, why is the racial makeup of the
>> prison population so different from the population at large?
>>
>
>The makeup of prison poulations roughly
>follows the poverty curve. Poverty is
>unequal along racial barriers. Also,
>peoplpe of means ar emuch more likely
>to be able to afford better legal
>counsel, much reducing the probability
>of incarceration.
>
>--
>Les Cargill
I think that Bentham's "Panopticon" may have been the model.
Theory of Surveillance: The PANOPTICON
The PANOPTICON was proposed as a model prison
by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), a Utilitarian philosopher
and theorist of British legal reform.
http://cartome.org/panopticon1.htm
Correspondent:: "Quirk"
Date: 25 Feb 2005 05:31:15 -0800
--------
Les Cargill wrote:
> For one, it's the most heterogenous society
> on earth.
Other places are quite similarly heterogeneous, visit Canada,
especially Toronto (circa 50% foreign born), or even England or
Australia, yet do not have the incarceration rights. Canada's, for
instance is 1/6th.
> For another, it has the widest
> distribution of income.
Yes. And this wide distribution is a result of a regime of systemic
oppression.
> For another, the
> drug prohibtion laws tend to incrminate
> large swaths of people who would otherwise
> not be criminals.
Is this an accident? Or is this part of the design of the system of
oppression?
> Some of this is just Puritanism, in
> multiple ways.
Nope. If that where the case we'd be saying middle class white kids
being arrested too.
> > And further, why is the racial makeup of the
> > prison population so different from the population at large?
> The makeup of prison poulations roughly
> follows the poverty curve.
Bingo! We have a winner!
> Poverty is
> unequal along racial barriers.
And why is that? Systemic exploitation perhaps?
> Also,
> peoplpe of means ar emuch more likely
> to be able to afford better legal
> counsel, much reducing the probability
> of incarceration.
Unequal legal representation is a part of it, but what accounts for the
probability of *arrest*?
Black Drug Dealers More Likely To Be Arrested
December 1, 2003
By Liz Rocca
A new study says Seattle police unfairly target minorities in drug
arrests.
SEATTLE - Seattle police deny arrests are based on race, but a new
study claims officers are four times more likely to arrest black
dealers than whites.
"There's a lot of evidence that many whites deliver drugs but do not
face any kind of risk of being arrested for doing so," said Professor
Katherine Beckett.
Beckett, a University of Washington professor, analyzed Seattle Police
arrest reports and polled drug users and dealers at Seattle's Needle
Exchange.
Beckett determined that nearly two-thirds of those arrested for selling
drugs are black. Only 19 percent are white, and other racial groups
make up the rest.
Yet Beckett says the vast majority of users and dealers in Seattle are
white. On Capitol Hill, they make up 95 percent of dealers.
"In Seattle I think we are going farther than others have in showing
that white people do constitute the majority of offenders," said
defense attorney Lisa Daugaard.
Daugaard commissioned the study hoping to get the cases of 19 black
defendants dismissed. The defendants are accused of selling small
amounts of cocaine and heroin to undercover officers in downtown
Seattle. The combined weight of the drugs they were selling was less
than the weight of six plain M & M's. The street value was just $600.
Yet, combined, the defendants were facing 150 years behind bars.
With so much at stake, defense attorneys say the law had better be
applied fairly.
"This case is one of the leading examples nationally of an attempt to
ask the court system to take some action when a racial disparity in
drug arrests like this is demonstrated," said Daugaard.
The Seattle Police Department says drug enforcement patrols are often a
response to citizen complaints about illegal street activity.
And the police chief insists drug arrests are based on evidence - not
race.
Next February a King County judge will decide if the drug cases should
be thrown out based on the study results.
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:13:10 GMT
--------
"Dr. Zarkov" wrote in message
news:4IWdnSFWyr9PgYPfRVn-3w@rcn.net...
> The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just due to
> conservatives. Clinton fired his own surgeon general for having the guts to
> suggest that we should at least consider drug decriminalization. Neither he
> nor Gore nor Kerry nor any other Democrat or "liberal" of note has had the
> courage to attack the war on drugs or the prison industry. In fact,
> "liberal" Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York has been one of
> the most prominent proponents of the war on drugs and the most vigorous
> opponents of legalization/decriminalization.
>
> As far as prison privatization goes, it's effect is trivial compared to
> public prisons. In many states, including my own, the public prison guards
> represent a strong voting block. The politicians, including the so-called
> "liberal" Democrats who control the state, have refused to do anything to
> antagonize them. This is in spite of the fact that investigations have
> shown many guards routinely rack up $150,000 a year with overtime.
>
Which suggests a currious question. What if prisoners or ex-prisioners
(ex-felons) were allowed to vote?
Bill
> As for Walter Mondale and the Child Protective Services--Mondale was one of
> the most prominent "liberal" Democrats. And Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney
> general, made her mark in Florida prosecuting people in the "child abuse"
> witch hunt of the 80s.
>
> Quirk wrote:
>
>> A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>>
>> by Paul Craig Roberts
>>
>> The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
>> state.
>
>> The US, "the land of the free," has the biggest prison population in
>> the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries
>> - including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by
>> US armed forces.
>>
>> Even China, with one party rule and a population that is 4.5 times
>> larger than the US population, has 30% fewer total prisoners than the
>> US. China's per capita rate is a small fraction of the US rate.
>>
>> The US prison population per capita is three times higher than "axis of
>> evil" country Iran, five times higher than Tanzania, and seven times
>> higher than a civilized European country like Germany.
>>
>> One out of every 142 Americans is in prison - and this does not include
>> military prisons or INS jails.
>>
>> The conservatives' war on drugs, launched during President Reagan's
>> first term, bears much of the blame. Between 1980 and 2000, a period
>> during which the US population grew by 21%, the number of state and
>> federal inmates soared by 312%.
>>
>> Almost one-half million Americans are in prison for drugs-only
>> offenses. Many of them are innocent or were encouraged by federal
>> agents or informers posing as friends to transport small amounts of
>> drugs as a favor.
>>
>> Consider Elaine Bartlett, pardoned by New York Gov. George Pataki in
>> 2000 after serving 16 years of a 20-year-sentence. Bartlett was tricked
>> by an acquaintance, who turned out to be a government informant, into
>> taking four ounces of cocaine to Albany. Bartlett was given 20 years
>> even though she had no history of arrests or convictions and left 4
>> children behind, the oldest being 10 years old.
>>
>> Most government informants are real criminals who escape charges or are
>> given lenient plea bargains in exchange for helping prosecutors boost
>> their conviction rates by entrapping innocent people. It is a disgrace
>> to the US legal system that judges permit such false convictions.
>>
>> Many other innocents are in jail because police dropped small packets
>> of drugs - or in the Texas cases bags of ground up wallboard - into
>> their cars when stopped, allegedly for traffic offenses.
>>
>> Society gained nothing but more criminals by locking up Bartlett. Her
>> six-year-old son was traumatized by his mother's absence. At the end of
>> every prison visit he had to be forcefully removed by prison guards
>> from clinging to his mother. By the time he was 10 years old, he was a
>> drug runner. He bought his first gun at age 12 and was in prison by age
>> 16. You can read the whole story in the book, Life on the Outside, by
>> Jennifer Gonnerman.
>>
>> With a legal system that mass-produces criminals, prisons are being
>> constructed at a breathtaking rate. An Urban Institute study, "The New
>> Landscape of Imprisonment," released on April 29, documents the boom in
>> prison construction during the last two decades.
>>
>> Jeremy Travis, one of the authors, says: "The prison network is now
>> deeply intertwined with American life, deeply integrated into the
>> physical and economic infrastructure of a large number of American
>> counties. It provides jobs for construction workers and guards, and
>> because the inmates are counted as residents of the counties where they
>> are incarcerated, it means more federal and state funding and greater
>> political representation for these counties."
>>
>> A number of states now have prisons in almost one-third of their
>> counties. Florida has at least one prison in 78% of its counties! In
>> 1923 there were only 61 prisons in the entire US.
>>
>> Another conservative idea - prison privatization - has created a
>> contractual monster that must be fed with a constant stream of inmates.
>> A variety of new police Gestapos have been created that help to keep
>> the massive prison complex - our own Gulag Archipelago - filled.
>>
>> The most dangerous is Child Protective Services, created by Walter
>> Mondale in response to his constituency of anti-family feminists and
>> "child therapists" in need of employment. CPS was set up on the insane
>> assumption that a large percentage of families committed "child abuse."
>> CPS offices are everywhere, and employees outnumber child abusers.
>>
>> The child sex abuse witch hunt in Wenatchee, Washington, was set off
>> when the local CPS office was told to find some cases to justify its
>> budget. It took years to expose and overturn one of the greatest cases
>> of prosecutorial misconduct in human history. Dozens of families were
>> destroyed and 50 children were put into foster care.
>>
>> The latest report from Child Protective Services Watch documents that
>> children placed in our "child protection system" are 5 times more
>> likely to die from physical abuse and 11 times more likely to be
>> sexually abused than they would be from remaining in the homes from
>> which they are removed!
>>
>> Mondale and his "child advocates" got their Gestapo legislation passed
>> in 1974. A quarter century later there are 500,000 US kids in the
>> "child protection system." Soon there will be one million because of
>> the perverse incentive that funds the system. The federal government
>> pays state and country child welfare services a bounty for each child
>> seized from a family. Linda Wallace Pate, a California attorney
>> specialized in foster cases, calls it a "kids for cash" system.
>>
>> The evidence is overwhelming that children are extremely traumatized by
>> being ripped from families and placed in foster care.
>>
>> It turns out that the overwhelming majority of abused children suffer
>> the abuse from their single mother's live-in boyfriends or overnight
>> lovers.
>>
>> Child abuse is rare in two-parent families, so CPS has expanded abuse
>> to cover spanking - even playground bruises are grounds for seizing
>> children - and shouting ("verbal abuse").
>>
>> The war on crime has turned even parenting into a dangerous occupation.
>>
>>
>> One can't help but wonder whether the US itself is in need of
>> liberation.
>>
>> May 4, 2004
>>
>> Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political
>> Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a
>> former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former
>> assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The
>> Tyranny of Good Intentions. Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
>>
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:57:31 GMT
--------
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:28:31 -0500, "Dr. Zarkov"
wrote:
>
>The war on drugs and the prison industry are most certainly not just due
>to conservatives. Clinton fired his own surgeon general for having the
>guts to suggest that we should at least consider drug decriminalization.
>
Indeed! Both parties are to be blamed for this.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: "angelicusrex"
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:21:51 -0700
--------
"Quirk" wrote in message
news:1109265248.051817.51940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
A Prison State, If Not a Police State
by Paul Craig Roberts
The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
state.
The US, "the land of the free," has the biggest prison population in
the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries
- including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by
US armed forces.
That's because the other countries just kill the fucking criminals and
sometimes their families. The only pissy part is that "criminal" there means
something different than criminal here. A criminal activity in Thailand is
chewing gum on the subway, That's a death sentence right there! In Iraq of
course first the criminal is given to the artists in residence in the Rape
Rooms, then they are benutted, bedicked, bebreasted and/or beheaded and fed
to the jackals in the desert, or they are simply gassed.
Being a criminal elsewhere in the world is like being the damned in hell,
here it's three hots and a cot every day and they teach you how to do
laundry, ride rodeo or make shivs and license plates, or better yet, as New
Mexico did, they make you a director of tourism and you give out tour
information the live long day!
Giving out tours in the hot sun, I fought the law and I'm glad they won!
A.P.
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:22:30 GMT
--------
"angelicusrex" wrote in message
news:3872b7F5h3jq7U1@individual.net...
>
>
> "Quirk" wrote in message
> news:1109265248.051817.51940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>
> by Paul Craig Roberts
>
> The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
> state.
>
> The US, "the land of the free," has the biggest prison population in
> the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries
> - including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by
> US armed forces.
>
>
> That's because the other countries just kill the fucking criminals and
> sometimes their families.
Canada is a good example. I'm sure you can think of others.
>The only pissy part is that "criminal" there means something different than
>criminal here. A criminal activity in Thailand is chewing gum on the subway,
>That's a death sentence right there!
I suspect you are thinking of Singapore. And the max. penalty is caning.
>In Iraq of course first the criminal is given to the artists in residence in
>the Rape Rooms, then they are benutted, bedicked, bebreasted and/or beheaded
>and fed to the jackals in the desert, or they are simply gassed.
>
Still?
Bill
> Being a criminal elsewhere in the world is like being the damned in hell,
> here it's three hots and a cot every day and they teach you how to do
> laundry, ride rodeo or make shivs and license plates, or better yet, as New
> Mexico did, they make you a director of tourism and you give out tour
> information the live long day!
>
> Giving out tours in the hot sun, I fought the law and I'm glad they won!
>
> A.P.
>
Correspondent:: Duncan Patton
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:27:18 GMT
--------
On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800
"Quirk" wrote:
> A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>
> by Paul Craig Roberts
>
> The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
> state.
>
[]
And most of 'em are african-american men. Sounds like a eugenics
pogrom t'me.
>
> It turns out that the overwhelming majority of abused children suffer
> the abuse from their single mother's live-in boyfriends or overnight
> lovers.
>
This is so.
> Child abuse is rare in two-parent families, so CPS has expanded abuse
> to cover spanking - even playground bruises are grounds for seizing
> children - and shouting ("verbal abuse").
>
This is also true, and from my observation, regardless of the parents'
sex. Children are a lot of work and brain-strain, more than most
people are up to by themselves.
> The war on crime has turned even parenting into a dangerous occupation.
>
>
> One can't help but wonder whether the US itself is in need of
> liberation.
>
> May 4, 2004
>
> Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political
> Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a
> former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former
> assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The
> Tyranny of Good Intentions.
>
>
> Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
>
--
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!
Sun Ðhu
???????????????????????????????????????
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:17:14 GMT
--------
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:27:18 GMT, Duncan Patton
wrote:
>On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800
>"Quirk" wrote:
>
>> Child abuse is rare in two-parent families, so CPS has expanded abuse
>> to cover spanking - even playground bruises are grounds for seizing
>> children - and shouting ("verbal abuse").
>>=20
>
>This is also true, and from my observation, regardless of the parents'
>sex. Children are a lot of work and brain-strain, more than most=20
>people are up to by themselves.
Especially if they are working full time to support a parasitic
landowning class as well.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: Duncan Patton
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:03:09 GMT
--------
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:17:14 GMT
royls@telus.net wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:27:18 GMT, Duncan Patton
> wrote:
>
> >On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800
> >"Quirk" wrote:
> >
> >> Child abuse is rare in two-parent families, so CPS has expanded abuse
> >> to cover spanking - even playground bruises are grounds for seizing
> >> children - and shouting ("verbal abuse").
> >>=20
> >
> >This is also true, and from my observation, regardless of the parents'
> >sex. Children are a lot of work and brain-strain, more than most=20
> >people are up to by themselves.
>
> Especially if they are working full time to support a parasitic
> landowning class as well.
>
> -- Roy L
Nah. It's needs four eyes to watch yard-apes, and most folks don't got three.
Dhu
--
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!
Sun Ðhu
???????????????????????????????????????
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:51:29 GMT
--------
On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
>
>A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
>state.
>
Yeap, this is sad, and mainly due to the silly War on Drugs that both
major parties embrace so fondly.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: Big Dog <>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:10:44 -0600
--------
On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
>A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>
>by Paul Craig Roberts
>
>The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
>state.
>
Not necessarily a problem. The US crime rate is also falling, while
countries with fewer people in jail are seeing a rising crime rate.
Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
drug makers.
[deleted]
Thanks,
Big Dog
Correspondent:: "robert j. kolker"
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:11:26 -0500
--------
Big Dog wrote:
>
> Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
> decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
> inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
> drug makers.
Decriminalize both sale and use. Over half of the prison population walks.
Bob Kolker
Correspondent:: Big Dog <>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:12:35 -0600
--------
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:11:26 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
wrote:
>Big Dog wrote:
>
>> Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
>> decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
>> inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
>> drug makers.
>
>Decriminalize both sale and use. Over half of the prison population walks.
That is my understanding. I could be wrong. This makes you unhappy,
or what?
Thanks,
Big Dog
Correspondent:: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Date: 2 Mar 2005 10:29:21 -0500
--------
In article , Big Dog <> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:11:26 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
> wrote:
>
>>Big Dog wrote:
>>
>>> Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
>>> decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
>>> inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
>>> drug makers.
>>
>>Decriminalize both sale and use. Over half of the prison population walks.
>
>That is my understanding. I could be wrong. This makes you unhappy,
>or what?
This is foolish and nonsensical. Right now, kids are living in the ghetto
who see hatred and destruction and poverty all around them. And then a bright
ray of light shines in their life: the drug dealer. The drug dealer drives
a fancy car, he has diamond rings and gold chains and clearly lives the good
life. Kids see the drug dealer and they know their is a way out of their
grinding poverty. They see that selling drugs can bring them a better life.
If you legalize drugs, these children will have no hope. Their neighborhoods
will no longer be patrolled by drug dealers, and these children will lose
the only role models they have. When marijuana is available at the local
convenience store, there will no longer be any profit in selling drugs on
the street. Money that would have been going to the deserving poor in the
ghetto will be going to rich bankers and tobacco companies.
The prohibition of alcohol was a fine thing. It brought boating and aviation
to a huge new audience of private citizens who would never have learned about
such freedom without it. It helped shore up and solidify local governments
in many American cities. It brought us a whole new upper class, people like
the Kennedies who saw alcohol as a way up the social ladder.
When the Volstead act was repealed, the economy of West Virginia collapsed
completely with the loss of their major export. More than half a century
later, it still has yet to recover.
Think of the children, and keep drugs illegal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:18:40 GMT
--------
On 2 Mar 2005 10:29:21 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>In article , Big Dog <> wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:11:26 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Big Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
>>>> decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
>>>> inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
>>>> drug makers.
>>>
>>>Decriminalize both sale and use. Over half of the prison population walks.
>>
>>That is my understanding. I could be wrong. This makes you unhappy,
>>or what?
>
>This is foolish and nonsensical. Right now, kids are living in the ghetto
>who see hatred and destruction and poverty all around them. And then a bright
>ray of light shines in their life: the drug dealer. The drug dealer drives
>a fancy car, he has diamond rings and gold chains and clearly lives the good
>life. Kids see the drug dealer and they know their is a way out of their
>grinding poverty. They see that selling drugs can bring them a better life.
You forget the pimp: he also has a fancy car, etc. Keeping
prostitution illegal (and prostitutes enslaved) gives ghetto kids a
role model, too.
>If you legalize drugs, these children will have no hope. Their neighborhoods
>will no longer be patrolled by drug dealers, and these children will lose
>the only role models they have. When marijuana is available at the local
>convenience store, there will no longer be any profit in selling drugs on
>the street. Money that would have been going to the deserving poor in the
>ghetto will be going to rich bankers and tobacco companies.
>
>The prohibition of alcohol was a fine thing. It brought boating and aviation
>to a huge new audience of private citizens who would never have learned about
>such freedom without it. It helped shore up and solidify local governments
>in many American cities. It brought us a whole new upper class, people like
>the Kennedies who saw alcohol as a way up the social ladder.
>
>When the Volstead act was repealed, the economy of West Virginia collapsed
>completely with the loss of their major export. More than half a century
>later, it still has yet to recover.
>
>Think of the children, and keep drugs illegal.
Hehe. I bet a lot of people would take your post seriously.
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 2 Mar 2005 13:08:09 -0800
--------
yah. who?'
Is't she a dumb bitch?
Correspondent:: brthrn@dangermedia.org
Date: 2 Mar 2005 13:15:51 -0800
--------
"Swxcrrerimkiinalaliszatgion
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:23:00 GMT
--------
wrote in message news:nqa221tuo4fmqq7ih670ejqbghradeeoto@4ax.com...
> On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
>
>>A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>>
>>by Paul Craig Roberts
>>
>>The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
>>state.
>>
> Not necessarily a problem. The US crime rate is also falling, while
> countries with fewer people in jail are seeing a rising crime rate.
>
Part of that is demographics - older people are less likely to comit crimes
and as the population ages the rate of a particular crime per 100,000 people
would drop. And part is due to the excellent techniques introduced by Braton &
Co. in NYC and now elsewhere.
I'm not familiar with the trends in Canada, but they would have a long way to
go to catch up to the US in terms of the proportion of citizens in prision.
What I would do is, once we are out of Iraq and could afford it, make a big
push on intercepting hard drugs at the border - perhaps using troops. Less
drugs on the streets automatically implies less addicts. This is not from a
moral or crime point of view but rather that people really do kill themselves
and destroy their lives with this stuff.
Bill
> Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
> decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
> inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
> drug makers.
>
>
> [deleted]
>
> Thanks,
> Big Dog
>
>
Correspondent:: Peter White
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:29:07 GMT
--------
Bill wrote:
> wrote in message news:nqa221tuo4fmqq7ih670ejqbghradeeoto@4ax.com...
>
>>On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>>>
>>>by Paul Craig Roberts
>>>
>>>The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
>>>state.
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily a problem. The US crime rate is also falling, while
>>countries with fewer people in jail are seeing a rising crime rate.
>>
>
>
> Part of that is demographics - older people are less likely to comit crimes
> and as the population ages the rate of a particular crime per 100,000 people
> would drop. And part is due to the excellent techniques introduced by Braton &
> Co. in NYC and now elsewhere.
>
> I'm not familiar with the trends in Canada, but they would have a long way to
> go to catch up to the US in terms of the proportion of citizens in prision.
>
> What I would do is, once we are out of Iraq and could afford it, make a big
> push on intercepting hard drugs at the border - perhaps using troops. Less
> drugs on the streets automatically implies less addicts. This is not from a
> moral or crime point of view but rather that people really do kill themselves
> and destroy their lives with this stuff.
>
And of course you would make it illegal for people to consume trans fats.
You are so noble! Such a concept of liberty and freedom.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>>Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
>>decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
>>inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
>>drug makers.
>>
>>
>>[deleted]
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Big Dog
>>
>>
>
>
>
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:41:37 GMT
--------
"Peter White" wrote in message
news:DUcUd.10309$oh4.376355@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>> news:nqa221tuo4fmqq7ih670ejqbghradeeoto@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A Prison State, If Not a Police State
>>>>
>>>>by Paul Craig Roberts
>>>>
>>>>The US has a unique distinction: It is the world's greatest prison
>>>>state.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily a problem. The US crime rate is also falling, while
>>>countries with fewer people in jail are seeing a rising crime rate.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Part of that is demographics - older people are less likely to comit crimes
>> and as the population ages the rate of a particular crime per 100,000
>> people would drop. And part is due to the excellent techniques introduced
>> by Braton & Co. in NYC and now elsewhere.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the trends in Canada, but they would have a long way
>> to go to catch up to the US in terms of the proportion of citizens in
>> prision.
>>
>> What I would do is, once we are out of Iraq and could afford it, make a big
>> push on intercepting hard drugs at the border - perhaps using troops. Less
>> drugs on the streets automatically implies less addicts. This is not from a
>> moral or crime point of view but rather that people really do kill
>> themselves and destroy their lives with this stuff.
>>
>
> And of course you would make it illegal for people to consume trans fats.
> You are so noble! Such a concept of liberty and freedom.
>
>
>
>
No. That would be similar to the argument a tobacco executive made equating
gummy bears to cigarettes. But thanks for the compliment anyway.
Bill
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>>Having said that, I must admit that, if I had my way, the US would
>>>decriminalize drug use. As I understand it though, only about 20% of
>>>inmates are in jail for drug use. Another 30% are distributors or
>>>drug makers.
>>>
>>>
>>>[deleted]
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Big Dog
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Correspondent:: Dan Clore
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:06:51 -0800
--------
Bill wrote:
> wrote in message news:nqa221tuo4fmqq7ih670ejqbghradeeoto@4ax.com...
>>On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
> What I would do is, once we are out of Iraq and could afford it, make a big
> push on intercepting hard drugs at the border - perhaps using troops. Less
> drugs on the streets automatically implies less addicts. This is not from a
> moral or crime point of view but rather that people really do kill themselves
> and destroy their lives with this stuff.
Won't work worth a damn. You might lower the supply, but
that would raise the price and hence both increase the
associated crime by addicts who need a fix, and increase the
incentive to go into the business. Also, focusing on
stopping drugs at the border would only shift use to drugs
that don't need to be imported, such as methamphetamines,
made from OTC cold medicines. By decreasing the choices
among drugs, you increase the likelihood of people choosing
more harmful drugs.
You're right that people destroy their lives and even kill
themselves with drugs, but the law enforcement approach
maximizes the harm done, rather than minimizing it.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT
--------
"Dan Clore" wrote in message
news:38d6caF5h6vmsU1@individual.net...
> Bill wrote:
>> wrote in message
>> news:nqa221tuo4fmqq7ih670ejqbghradeeoto@4ax.com...
>>>On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" wrote:
>
>> What I would do is, once we are out of Iraq and could afford it, make a big
>> push on intercepting hard drugs at the border - perhaps using troops. Less
>> drugs on the streets automatically implies less addicts. This is not from a
>> moral or crime point of view but rather that people really do kill
>> themselves and destroy their lives with this stuff.
>
> Won't work worth a damn. You might lower the supply, but that would raise
> the price and hence both increase the associated crime by addicts who need a
> fix, and increase the incentive to go into the business. Also, focusing on
> stopping drugs at the border would only shift use to drugs that don't need
> to be imported, such as methamphetamines, made from OTC cold medicines. By
> decreasing the choices among drugs, you increase the likelihood of people
> choosing more harmful drugs.
I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and place
such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the local
level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
Bill
>
> You're right that people destroy their lives and even kill themselves with
> drugs, but the law enforcement approach maximizes the harm done, rather than
> minimizing it.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
>
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:07:01 GMT
--------
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>
>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and place
>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
>ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the local
>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
>
Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
Could anyone please tell me where the hell do these fascists come
from? Maybe there is a way to close the damn hole...
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT
--------
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and place
>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
>>ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the local
>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
>>
>
> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>
For you, please eat more. :)
Bill
> Could anyone please tell me where the hell do these fascists come
> from? Maybe there is a way to close the damn hole...
>
>
>
>
> --
> "A society that robs an individual of the product of his
> effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
> gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:06:42 GMT
--------
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>
>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>
>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and place
>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
>>>ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the local
>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>
>
>For you, please eat more. :)
>
Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: Wraith
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:31:46 -0700
--------
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>
>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>
>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and place
>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
>>>>ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the local
>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>
>>
>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>
>
>
> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>
>
Dear empire,
I am considering a Herod-esque cleansing in order to eliminate this new
tyrant who has been seen under certain aliases. To the respectable and
disrespectable-but-prostrating, get your things in order and take your
people inside.
//
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT
--------
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and
>>>>place
>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
>>>>ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the local
>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>
>>
>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>
>
> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>
>
It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock answers to
fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
Bill
> --
> "A society that robs an individual of the product of his
> effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
> gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:10:40 GMT
--------
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>
>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>
>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and
>>>>>place
>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
>>>>>ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the local
>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>>
>>>
>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>
>>
>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>
>>
>
>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock answers to
>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
>
You want to control what people do with your own bodies. You may not
see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:36:30 GMT
--------
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and
>>>>>>place
>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that if you
>>>>>>ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less addicts. On the
>>>>>>local
>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law enforcement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock answers
>>to
>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
>>
>
> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
Certainly. But I have but 1.
>You may not
> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>
>
Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local level and
more help to people at the local level. In part because drugs are infectious -
they spread one to the other. And in part because people become addicted -
they have no control. If you see this a tyrannical, that's OK with me. I do
not.
Bill
> --
> "A society that robs an individual of the product of his
> effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
> gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: Manny Davis
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:01:31 GMT
--------
"Bill" wrote in
news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
> news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>
>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia
>>>>>>>and place
>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that
>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>>>>>>>enforcement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock
>>>answers to
>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
>>>
>>
>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>
> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>
>>You may not
>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local
> level and more help to people at the local level. In part because
> drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I choose to
use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or are only
the drugs you don't like infectious?
> And in part
> because people become addicted - they have no control.
More nonsense. Millions of people have quit alcohol, tobacco, heroin,
cocaine, demonstrating that they have control. Sure it can be difficult,
but breaking any habit can be difficult.
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:09:01 GMT
--------
"Manny Davis" wrote in message
news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
> "Bill" wrote in
> news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>
>>
>> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>> news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia
>>>>>>>>and place
>>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that
>>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>>>>>>>>enforcement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
>>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock
>>>>answers to
>>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>>
>> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>>
>>>You may not
>>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local
>> level and more help to people at the local level. In part because
>> drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
>
> What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I choose to
> use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
>
> Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or are only
> the drugs you don't like infectious?
>
>
Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>> And in part
>> because people become addicted - they have no control.
>
> More nonsense. Millions of people have quit alcohol, tobacco, heroin,
> cocaine, demonstrating that they have control. Sure it can be difficult,
> but breaking any habit can be difficult.
>
>
Yes. But it can be very very difficult. And the health effects of heroin can
be very severe.
And again I assert that a country has a right to control its boarders.
Bill
>
>
>
>
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:59:29 GMT
--------
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:09:01 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>
>"Manny Davis" wrote in message
>news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
>> "Bill" wrote in
>> news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>> news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia
>>>>>>>>>and place
>>>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that
>>>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>>>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>>>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>>>>>>>>>enforcement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
>>>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock
>>>>>answers to
>>>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>>>
>>> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>>>
>>>>You may not
>>>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local
>>> level and more help to people at the local level. In part because
>>> drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
>>
>> What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I choose to
>> use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
>>
>> Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or are only
>> the drugs you don't like infectious?
>>
>>
>
>Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>
More retarded shit coming out of your mouth.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:55:40 GMT
--------
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
news:k2g621phu1a8li641p30bg0qt00rgplhrj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:09:01 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>"Manny Davis" wrote in message
>>news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
>>> "Bill" wrote in
>>> news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>> news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia
>>>>>>>>>>and place
>>>>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that
>>>>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>>>>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>>>>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>>>>>>>>>>enforcement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
>>>>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock
>>>>>>answers to
>>>>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>>>>
>>>>>You may not
>>>>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local
>>>> level and more help to people at the local level. In part because
>>>> drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
>>>
>>> What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I choose to
>>> use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
>>>
>>> Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or are only
>>> the drugs you don't like infectious?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>>
>
> More retarded shit coming out of your mouth.
>
>
>
ploink. You are incapable of reasoned discussion and more into name calling.
> --
> "A society that robs an individual of the product of his
> effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
> gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: Socialism is a Mental Disease
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:16:51 GMT
--------
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:55:40 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>
>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>news:k2g621phu1a8li641p30bg0qt00rgplhrj@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:09:01 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>
>>>"Manny Davis" wrote in message
>>>news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
>>>> "Bill" wrote in
>>>> news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>> news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia
>>>>>>>>>>>and place
>>>>>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>>>>>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>>>>>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>>>>>>>>>>>enforcement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do with
>>>>>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same stock
>>>>>>>answers to
>>>>>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another hamburger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>>>>>
>>>>>>You may not
>>>>>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local
>>>>> level and more help to people at the local level. In part because
>>>>> drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
>>>>
>>>> What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I choose to
>>>> use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
>>>>
>>>> Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or are only
>>>> the drugs you don't like infectious?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>>>
>>
>> More retarded shit coming out of your mouth.
>>
>>
>>
>ploink. You are incapable of reasoned discussion and more into name calling.
>
I don't want any reasoned discussion with tyrants.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Correspondent:: "Rump Ranger"
Date: 28 Feb 2005 14:25:41 -0800
--------
Bill wrote:
> "Manny Davis" wrote in message
> news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
> > "Bill" wrote in
> > news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
> >
> >>
> >> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
> >> news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
message
> >>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
message
> >>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control
ammonia
> >>>>>>>>and place
> >>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear
that
> >>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
> >>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
> >>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
> >>>>>>>>enforcement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do
with
> >>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same
stock
> >>>>answers to
> >>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another
hamburger.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
> >>
> >> Certainly. But I have but 1.
> >>
> >>>You may not
> >>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local
> >> level and more help to people at the local level. In part because
> >> drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
> >
> > What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I
choose to
> > use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
> >
> > Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or are
only
> > the drugs you don't like infectious?
> >
> >
>
> Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>
Wrong. People still have a *choice* in the matter. This isn't a case
of "public health" like the flu where if I spread it the people who get
it don't have a choice to reject it.
> >> And in part
> >> because people become addicted - they have no control.
> >
> > More nonsense. Millions of people have quit alcohol, tobacco,
heroin,
> > cocaine, demonstrating that they have control. Sure it can be
difficult,
> > but breaking any habit can be difficult.
> >
> >
>
> Yes. But it can be very very difficult. And the health effects of
heroin can
> be very severe.
>
As can the health effects of alcohol, tobacco, spray paint (which is
inhaled), etc.
> And again I assert that a country has a right to control its
boarders.
>
But few if any can seal them off entirely. Go ahead and send more
people down to the borders. It'll just be more money wasted.
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:41:30 GMT
--------
"Rump Ranger" wrote in message
news:1109629541.423655.307910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill wrote:
>> "Manny Davis" wrote in message
>> news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
>> > "Bill" wrote in
>> > news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in message
>> >> news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
> message
>> >>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>> >>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
> message
>> >>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control
> ammonia
>> >>>>>>>>and place
>> >>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear
> that
>> >>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>> >>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>> >>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>> >>>>>>>>enforcement.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every week?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do
> with
>> >>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same
> stock
>> >>>>answers to
>> >>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another
> hamburger.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>> >>
>> >> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>> >>
>> >>>You may not
>> >>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the local
>> >> level and more help to people at the local level. In part because
>> >> drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
>> >
>> > What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I
> choose to
>> > use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
>> >
>> > Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or are
> only
>> > the drugs you don't like infectious?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>>
>
> Wrong.
No. It is absoluetly true. I "learned" to smoke from peers around me, for
example. So as I said users tend to make other people users. Obviously they
have a choice. This is not an issue I raised,
> People still have a *choice* in the matter. This isn't a case
> of "public health" like the flu where if I spread it the people who get
> it don't have a choice to reject it.
>
>> >> And in part
>> >> because people become addicted - they have no control.
>> >
>> > More nonsense. Millions of people have quit alcohol, tobacco,
> heroin,
>> > cocaine, demonstrating that they have control. Sure it can be
> difficult,
>> > but breaking any habit can be difficult.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes. But it can be very very difficult. And the health effects of
> heroin can
>> be very severe.
>>
>
> As can the health effects of alcohol, tobacco, spray paint (which is
> inhaled), etc.
>
Per dose, I think heroin is worse. You rarely hear of people overdosing on
tobacco, for example, it is more a long term thing.
>> And again I assert that a country has a right to control its
> boarders.
>>
>
> But few if any can seal them off entirely. Go ahead and send more
> people down to the borders. It'll just be more money wasted.
>
That is what I propose. Along with other things - More fences. Use of more
technology etc. In effect, place most of the empasis there rather than in
other aspects of the drug war - except to also provide more assistance to
those who want to get clean.
Bill
Correspondent:: Manny Davis
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:11:57 GMT
--------
"Bill" wrote in
news:ta%Ud.15291$hU7.1722@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "Rump Ranger" wrote in message
> news:1109629541.423655.307910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> "Manny Davis" wrote in message
>>> news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
>>> > "Bill" wrote in
>>> > news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
>>> >> message news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>>> >>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
>> message
>>> >>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>> >>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
>> message
>>> >>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control
>> ammonia
>>> >>>>>>>>and place
>>> >>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear
>> that
>>> >>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>>> >>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>>> >>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>>> >>>>>>>>enforcement.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every
>>> >>>>>>> week?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do
>> with
>>> >>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same
>> stock
>>> >>>>answers to
>>> >>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another
>> hamburger.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>>> >>
>>> >> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>>> >>
>>> >>>You may not
>>> >>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the
>>> >> local level and more help to people at the local level. In part
>>> >> because drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
>>> >
>>> > What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I
>> choose to
>>> > use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
>>> >
>>> > Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or
>>> > are
>> only
>>> > the drugs you don't like infectious?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> No. It is absoluetly true. I "learned" to smoke from peers around me,
> for example. So as I said users tend to make other people users.
> Obviously they have a choice. This is not an issue I raised,
It isn't true as written. How about if reword your claim to something
like "Users sometimes influence other people into using."
But the opposite of that claim is also true. People who use drugs like meth
and crack often have the opposite effect on non users. One can see a meth
addict and quickly realize that you want nothing to do with that drug.
Furthermore, why limit this idea to just drugs? You, for instance, have the
idea in your head that government agents should shoot people who cross the
border of a country. In my mind this is horribly wrong. Yet you are
"infecting" others by talking about it here on usenet, and perhaps others
will begin to think like you do. The "infection" you are spreading
is far more pernicious than that of a peaceful drug user.
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:14:19 GMT
--------
"Manny Davis" wrote in message
news:Xns960C681B29F15nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
> "Bill" wrote in
> news:ta%Ud.15291$hU7.1722@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
>
>>
>> "Rump Ranger" wrote in message
>> news:1109629541.423655.307910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> "Manny Davis" wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns960BAC7E7570nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...
>>>> > "Bill" wrote in
>>>> > news:y5yUd.4346$DW.4279@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
>>>> >> message news:gt9521hkjj6vpb6c85vjt0s7v8l97nd9ge@4ax.com...
>>>> >>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:38:26 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
>>> message
>>>> >>>>news:og642150e7fdjgg5qc7j4na53ngeb5ihgk@4ax.com...
>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:22 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>"Socialism is a Mental Disease" wrote in
>>> message
>>>> >>>>>>news:g9s22114p013o5fjfrm925nv91eps39v45@4ax.com...
>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:37:15 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control
>>> ammonia
>>>> >>>>>>>>and place
>>>> >>>>>>>>such cold medications behind pharmacy counters. It is clear
>>> that
>>>> >>>>>>>>if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be less
>>>> >>>>>>>>addicts. On the local
>>>> >>>>>>>>level, I would put more emphasis on support rather than law
>>>> >>>>>>>>enforcement.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Hey, how about controlling how many burgers I eat every
>>>> >>>>>>> week?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>For you, please eat more. :)
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Do you have some sick pleasure in controlling what people do
>>> with
>>>> >>>>> themselves? Is that a tyrant gene I see in your DNA?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>It is pretty much the opposite. But you seem to have the same
>>> stock
>>>> >>>>answers to
>>>> >>>>fit all situations whether they apply or not. Have another
>>> hamburger.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> You want to control what people do with your own bodies.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Certainly. But I have but 1.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>You may not
>>>> >>> see yourself as a tyrant but a tyrant you are.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Actually, I am emphasizing control at the boarder not at the
>>>> >> local level and more help to people at the local level. In part
>>>> >> because drugs are infectious - they spread one to the other.
>>>> >
>>>> > What nonsense. Ingesting a drug is a volitional decision. If I
>>> choose to
>>>> > use a drug I am not being "infected" by someone else.
>>>> >
>>>> > Do you consider alcohol and tobacco to be "infectious" also? Or
>>>> > are
>>> only
>>>> > the drugs you don't like infectious?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Probably. What I mean is that users tend to make other people users.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No. It is absoluetly true. I "learned" to smoke from peers around me,
>> for example. So as I said users tend to make other people users.
>> Obviously they have a choice. This is not an issue I raised,
>
> It isn't true as written. How about if reword your claim to something
> like "Users sometimes influence other people into using."
>
> But the opposite of that claim is also true. People who use drugs like meth
> and crack often have the opposite effect on non users. One can see a meth
> addict and quickly realize that you want nothing to do with that drug.
>
> Furthermore, why limit this idea to just drugs? You, for instance, have the
> idea in your head that government agents should shoot people who cross the
> border of a country.
I never suggested any such thing. In fact I have said the opposite. People
should not be shot but an attempt made to capture - as happens today.
> In my mind this is horribly wrong. Yet you are
> "infecting" others by talking about it here on usenet, and perhaps others
> will begin to think like you do. The "infection" you are spreading
> is far more pernicious than that of a peaceful drug user.
>
>
I'm not even sure where this discussion started but I think it was my
suggestion that people are sometimes introduced to drugs by others in social
situations and if they were very scarce this would be less likely to happen.
This still seems true.
Bill
Correspondent:: royls@telus.net
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:10:27 GMT
--------
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:14:19 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>I'm not even sure where this discussion started but I think it was my
>suggestion that people are sometimes introduced to drugs by others in social
>situations and if they were very scarce this would be less likely to happen.
>This still seems true.
But you don't seem to have a handle on the concepts of "cost" and
"benefit." Addictions imply a certain level of cost to society, but
so does enforcement. Spending $1G on enforcement to eliminate $1M in
addiction costs does not make a lot of sense; but at the
zero-tolerance margin, that is what you are proposing, and worse.
Think of it this way: if at any given level of drug importation you
could cut drug imports in half by spending $1G on enforcement, how
much would you have to spend on enforcement to eliminate drug imports
entirely? How much benefit would you get by spending $1G to reduce
total imports from a gram to half a gram?
-- Roy L
Correspondent:: "Bill"
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:55:02 GMT
--------
wrote in message news:4224bd28.8238933@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:14:19 GMT, "Bill" wrote:
>
>>I'm not even sure where this discussion started but I think it was my
>>suggestion that people are sometimes introduced to drugs by others in social
>>situations and if they were very scarce this would be less likely to happen.
>>This still seems true.
>
> But you don't seem to have a handle on the concepts of "cost" and
> "benefit." Addictions imply a certain level of cost to society, but
> so does enforcement. Spending $1G on enforcement to eliminate $1M in
> addiction costs does not make a lot of sense; but at the
> zero-tolerance margin, that is what you are proposing, and worse.
Actually that is not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is more focus on
the border and less on the local level and less on criminalization and more
and helping people. But I do understand your concept. But there are also
unmeasurable costs - e.g. fatherless familes, beyond the direct govt. costs.
However, I did not suggest you could cut things to zero.
> Think of it this way: if at any given level of drug importation you
> could cut drug imports in half by spending $1G on enforcement, how
> much would you have to spend on enforcement to eliminate drug imports
> entirely? How much benefit would you get by spending $1G to reduce
> total imports from a gram to half a gram?
>
> -- Roy L
Correspondent:: "Rump Ranger"