From: jon.taylor@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (JON M. TAYLOR)
Subject: Re: Stupidity on Drugs (was:Re: Usual offtopic junk)
Organization: The University of Utah
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:37:33 GMT

In article <1gbca2INN6vv@newsman.csu.murdoch.edu.au> torban@csuvax1.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Torban Bennett) writes:
>From: torban@csuvax1.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Torban Bennett)
>Subject: Re: Stupidity on Drugs (was:Re: Usual offtopic junk)
>Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:38:26 GMT
>jon.taylor@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (JON M. TAYLOR) writes:
>
>>	Sorry for cntinuing this off-topic discussion, folx, but I can't let 
>>this go unanswered.
>
>You know what, after hours infront of a kermit terminal (my 386 25/4/80
>mini-tower) my eyes get sort of bleary, then I have to read pages and pages
>of this stuff (not that I mind the off-topic, honest) its just after a while
>I can't work out who's arguing for what!  Please, try to summerise your
>ideas folks, and remember to edit articles you are replying to, to cut down
>size.  
>
>Well, here I go....

	The last time I tried that (in an unrelated thread) I got flamed.  
Just can't win, I guess.

>
>>In article <92342.020608CMS129@psuvm.psu.edu> Chris "Slothman" Stoy <CMS129@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 02:06:08 EST
>>>From: Chris "Slothman" Stoy <CMS129@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>>Subject: Stupidity on Drugs (was:Re: Usual offtopic junk)
>>>(Sorry, I just had to respond to this load of stupidity)
>>>
>>>In article <Paula_Lieberman.07ey@amicol.UUCP>, Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP
>>>(Paula Lieberman) says:
>>>>
>>>>somebody was saying the the US should keep drugs illegal because of crack
>>>>babies -- maybe if the stuff were legalized and controlled, the number of
>>>>crack babies would DROP, because there'd be big fat warnings on opiates
>>>>that they're bad news for fetuses, and because the distribution channels
>
>Ok, I think Paula's supporting some sort of controlled legalisation of
>some of the currently illegal drugs.  I gotta say, I think this option
>should definately be looked into.
>>>
>>>Obviously you were high when you wrote this.  Anyone who hasn't just crawled
>>>out from under a rock knows that cigerett smoking leads to lung desease and
>>>hurt unborn babies. Hell, they come out and tell you on the package, yet people
>>>still go along and smoke the stuff, killing themselves, their babies, and the
>>>people around them.
>
>I guess Chris is less than happy whis idea.
>
>>	So what?  If I wanna do something unhealthy, that's my perogative.
>
>Oh dear, this must mean Jon's on our side.  
>Let us procede anyway... 
>
>[quite a few lines of discussion deleted - see that wasn't hard ;-)]
>>>
>>>You don't live in a vacuum buddy. Every action you do affects others.  How
>>>about your friends?  How do you think it makes them feel to see you go out and
>>>get wasted all the time?  Especially when you lose control and take life's
>>>problems out on them...
>
>Oh ow, I sense tempers are starting to fray.
>
>>	It's none of their fucking buisness.  I have no moral obligation to 
>>be a nice person.
>
>Oh yes!!  Will the non-nice people please step forward.  If you want to be
>part of a society, there are certain obligations.  If you don't like it, you
>can go live in the wild.  Thanks, but no thanks Jon, I think Paula is better
>off without you 'helping out'

	I was not 'helping Paula out'.  I was putting my $0.02 in in the 
time-honored USENET tradition.  An what I meant was that I don't have a 
moral obligation to be a nice person *by their definition of nice*, which 
means nice=not doing drugs.

>[But I guess then we'd all miss the flame fest, I'm supprised Mike hasn't
>entered this debate with all the subtlety of a...well a not very subtle person]

	Knock on wood |->

>
>[blah, more blah, plus a list of ways people croak, enlightening(yawn)]
>
>
>>	Drinking 1%+ milk (cardiovascular disease)
>>	DRINKING (several hundred K deaths EVERY YEAR)
>>	SMOKING (Same as above)
>
>>	I emphasize the last three because EACH ONE kills more people EACH 
>>YEAR than all currently illegal drugs COMBINED.  Anyone who is for keeping 
>
>Well for once I agree with you, alcohol and smokes have a lot to answer for
>(and it would be perposterous to try to ban them, just look at the problems
>it would cause.  These same arguments can be used to support the controlled
>legalisation of some illicit drugs)
>BUT - would somebody please explain the milk thing??????

	It has been estabished that one of the reasons that we have so much 
heart disease in the US is that we as a nation drink a *huge* amount of 
milk, which (except for skim) contains a lot of fat.

>
>>those drugs legal but keeping the others illegal is a hypocrite of the 
>>worst stripe.  BTW, the total recorded deaths attributed to pot smoking EVER 
>>is: 0.  Same for LSD.  This is just "poisoning" deaths, not "drove-and-ran-
>>into-a-phone-pole" type deaths.  Lots of people who smoke cigs never run 
>>into trees, but they die anyway.  food for thought...
>
>Agreed
>
>>	-Jon
>
>Torban Bennett -- torban@murdoch.edu.AU ---

	-Jon
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy