From: kam@hpcvxkm.cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington)
Subject: spelling this out clearly
Reply-To: kam@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Organization: UTD-CV Corvallis, OR
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:09:50 GMT


(I suppose that my undertaking of this response places me into Kent's
category of "drug addled, brain damaged, and enfeebled."  But what the
heck, I've been called worse than that in the past.)


Fron t.p.d:

>> -- Larry Morris
>  -- Kent Paul Dolan

>> Not everyone who find you annoying is a contemptable, drug
>> crazed fool.

>Well, in your case I'll have to leave out the "drug crazed";
>you still demonstrate the usual t.p.d legalization proponent
>inability to read, write, or think.

Your dismissal as stupid of all with differing opinions about drugs 
and drug legalization is most annoying.  But that is off the subject.

>>> Had we known at the beginning what we know now, alcohol, tobacco, and
>>> caffeine would never have been legalized in the first place.

>> I guess I missed that legislation.  When did we legalize these things.  I
>> didn't think they were originally illegal.  In fact, I didn't think
>> our founders had a very large list of things that were illegal.

>Sigh. Reading comprehension 101 for you. I don't say anywhere in there
>that they were once illegal, nor is that a necessary precondition for
>something being legalized. We have today a well known organization, the
>FDA, whose job it is to pass as to the efficacy, wholesomeness, and
>legality of most substances entering the body. Until they pass on a
>drug, that drugs status is a limbo equivalent to "illegal", even though
>it has never formally been outlawed. Had we known about 20,000 years
>ago what we know now, we'd have instituted such an organization then,
>and never made legal those substances which would prove in the interim
>to have such high social cost.

>That says in ten lines what you should have been able to understand from
>the two I originally wrote.  Engage brain before hitting "r"eply key.

Sigh.  Remedial logic 101 for you.  First, the FDA has been in
existence for just half a century.  It is not their charter to approve
all drugs and substances that humans had ingested in the past, or may
ingest in the future.  And to make the leap of illogic you made, that
having no explicit FDA approval means the status of a substance is
"illegal", is categorically unsupportable.

Additionally, many of us out in the world believe as our founding
fathers did.  That is, we are endowed with certain inalienable rights.
And because of that, we object most strenuously to the patriarchy you
espouse.  This "good of society" argument you are so fond of trotting
our is patent nonsense.  Society has always had, and will always have,
a certain percentage of its population that is predisposed to chemical
alteration on an on-going basis.  Past attempts to proscribe these
behaviors have all failed, as I expect all future attempts at
proscription will fail.

>>>> Perhaps this should also apply to eggs, since cholesterol causes lots  

>>> Proving only that any argument can be taken to extremes to ridicule it.

>> Please provide evidence that this is an extreme.

>I am not in business here to provide handholding for the comprehension
>impaired. I wrote it, you read it. If you can't manage to understand a
>concept that simple, if your formal debating skills are that weak, you
>are just an impediment who needs to retire from the discussion.

Again, you resort to ad hominem attacks when asked for clarification.
There are many types of foodstuffs that have been linked to
disease when consumed over the long term.  It would serve the "good
of society" to reduce or eliminate the consumption of these dangerous
foodstuffs.  And that is your primary concern, is it not?  This
argument is not ridiculous in the least.  You above stated that it was
the FDA's job to "pass as to the efficacy, wholesomeness, and
legality of most substances entering the body."  Could you please cite
the law or decree that pronounced eggs as one of the APPROVED
substances.  If not, then per your above argument, eggs are illegal.

>>>> Personally, I prefer a state that doesn't need to be your parent  
>>>> because it's not in the business of taking care of you.

>>> You must hate college.

>> Not sure I see the point.

>Why am I not surprised.  Hint, but it's in Latin, not easy for the
>uneducable to recall to mind:  "in loco parentis".

Oh Kent, please.  Enough ridicule.  It is quite annoying!

<deletions for the sake of bandwidth savings>

>Doubt the many _benefits_ to you of the military will ever penetrate
>your self indulgent awareness; freedom is rarely held valuable by those
>who have enjoyed it from birth. You seem a total follower, incapable of
>independent thought, and now happily jump on the politically correct
>"military bashing" bandwagon that is all the vogue.

Again, you resort to attacks.  This is most tiresome.  Engage in
debate and please stop labelling those who disagree with you with
disparaging labels.

To criticize the excesses of the current military establishment is not
"bashing."  You have absolutely no way of knowing the full thoughts of
the previous poster with regards to the military.  You simply magnified
the single statement regarding the large amount of money being
expended on the military to an entire anti-military mindset.  Quite a
leap, if you ask me.  

>It makes no impact on your including it in your note that this is
>totally unrelated to the matter being discussed, but it is a way your
>enfeebled mind thinks you can "score points", so in it goes.

This paragraph is certainly correct.  The inclusion of this in YOUR
article does exactly the same thing.  And again, you resort to name
calling, proclaiming the poster "enfeebled."  No points for you here!

>Drug legalization attracts a lot of your kind.  Why am I not surprised?

>Another big hint: this discussion is not about scoring points; it is
>about permitting or prohibiting the destruction of western civilization
>by legalizing, or failing to interdict, substances with the known
>potential to cause that destruction.

Here you are correct.  That is the discussion.  So let's get back to
it.  

It is estimated that, at a minimum, 50 million people in this country
have "experimented" with a certain THC containing plant.  Now,
according to what I can make of your beliefs, if these people had
regular access to this plant, they would become, as a group, wholly
enslaved to their self-indulgent selves and fall into a never-ending
cycle of addiction, unemployment, and societal burdening.  Is this a
fair characterization of your beliefs?

If it is, then we have a problem!  They DO have access to the drug.
It is available in every town, large and small, in these United
States!  Granted, the price is kind of high right now, but it is still
available.  Why isn't the nation burdened by these 50 million
addicts?  Or if you believe that it is, please cite your references.

>Next idiot, please.  This one has lost its capability to amuse, but
>Barnum's law says the net will never run out of successor idiots, and
>I'm still vastly amused by the lot of them, though in small quantities
>per each.

Once again, you resort to belittling and name-calling.  I'm beginning
to think that perhaps you have some problem accepting the idea that
there are opinions out in the world that are different than yours.  I
have found your articles interesting becuase they so eloquently point
out the patriarchal mindset I find so annoying.  And the liberal
sprinkling of name-calling and ridicule that your are so fond of
reinforces my firm belief that to live in "The World According to
Kent" would be a form of hell lower than Dante's lowest circle.

Thank you, Kent, for doing so much to strengthen my convictions.  You
have no idea how much you have done to my resolve to preach acceptance
and tolerance.


Keith Marchington