From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: drug proponent illiteracy as a measure of drug use effects
Date: 27 Sep 92 13:53:16 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent "This is your brain on drugs" Dolan) writes:
> Sorry, Ra, the mental vacuum rate is running well over half, and is a
> perfectly valid reason for condemning drug-legalization proponents as
> being, ON THE EVIDENCE, too damaged by the substances they promote to
> be trusted to think logically on any subject, least of all that of the
> probable results of their own self-destructive behavior, and the much
> more serious results if they were allowed to generalize that behavior
> to the bulk of society by removing the legal restraints, weak as they
> are, on recreational drug use.

Kent, might I suggest you search your capacious historical memory and dredge
up the identity of the person who whined about my "killing the messenger"?

> Sorry, anyone advocating legalizing recreational drug use that I've
> read here has made no mention of the generation of "safe" drug use
> education of the entire population that would be required before one
> could release drugs into the general stream of commerce without a total
> collapse of the social order.

That's total bullshit and you know it.  CJ and I both went on at some length
about the necessity of making EDUCATED and INFORMED decisions on whether to
take drugs.

I'm now convinced that you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest,
so I don't think there's much point continuing this thread.

> I'd be _delighted_ with intelligent discussion. So far, all I've
> received in email is proof positive that the drug legalization
> proponents who write to me, or whose postings I see, are, with a single
> exception from Hawaii, no longer capable of providing it, either
> through racticonational damage or through emotional damage they've
> sustained, the best bet being, though indulging in what they promote.

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't smoke, I don't drink alcohol,
and I've never taken any controlled substance.

> Apparently this particular mental giant also hasn't yet realized that
> the killing done by tobacco exists scientifically only as a
> correlation, and the courts have as yet denied, lacking proof of
> causation, any responsibility to be assigned to the tobacco companies.

Gosh, Kent, I wonder why that is?  It couldn't be anything to do with the
enormous donations made to political parties by tobacco companies?  Who was
it who bribed the government to make hemp illegal anyway?

The health damage from smoking is far better documented and more
scientifically proven than any health damage from numerous controlled
substances like LSD.

> From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
> > So your suggestion is that we should treat rapists by making sure they don'
> > lose their inhibitions and indulge their desire to rape women?
> 
> Interesting thought that if we merely prevent that inhibition removal,
> in many cases they would not _be_ rapists. The contrary proposal is of
> course to let rape be promoted by whatever means, then make sure to use
> draconian reprisals.
> 
> Why am I not convinced that particular style of judicial overindulgance
> would be any improvement over the current overreaction of reactionary
> politicos to the drug problem?

Because, Kent, you have fallen into the usual dualistic mindset of assuming
that for each problem, there are only two possible answers.


mathew
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO