From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:50:44 GMT

ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes:

I don't know why I am even bothering to respond - but, I will make
another effort. I hope you can keep it clear this time about who
wrote what.

: >Why should it be uncommon - it is a valid comparison. If a person abuses
: >drugs and, in doing so, endangers others or drives recklessly - the result
: >is the same. The point is, using drugs is not dangerous - as I have pointed
: >out to you a number of times. If it was, we would have millions of people
: 
: You may have pointed it out to me but you haven't proven anything to me.
: All I've heard from you is talk and nothing to back up your claims, no
: statistics, no results of studies.  Sure, you did quote a 15 second sound
: bite from CNN that claimed there was no such thing as crack babies.

Nope - twas someone else. I pointed out the studies that had been done on
the subject.

As has been pointed out before, you are the one making the claims of adverse
effects. As such, it is your responsibility to proved evidence to prove this.
All you have to do is cite the case studies that support your claims.

: I would not suggest that anyone wrap their life or their unborn child's
: welfare around a 15 second sound bite from a media that is known for
: it failure to accurately report the news or to accurately report
: complex issues.  These people are only journalists who read cue cards
: which are merely condensed and sometimes rediculous versions of the
: turth.  They in no way resemble medical mental giants.

Nor, apparently, were the original researchers. They have themselves
admitted that their conclusions are without basis. See the literature
for documentation.

: And what a blanked statement, ie; "drugs are not dangerous".  I suppose
: you include all the currently used illegal street drugs in this
: statement.  Folks, how would you like this guy to be your kids teacher
: and tell them that NO drugs are dangerous to use???

Drugs are not dangerous. I know of no drug that will harm you if you just
leave it sitting on the shelf. Nor will a firearm, or an automobile or
other item of your choice.

You are correct, I have claimed that the use of ANY drug is not dangerous.
However, I have stated that the misuse/abuse of drugs (among many other
things) can be lethal. What I would like to see in schools is an honest
education program - pointing out the effects (both positive and negative)
as well as the hazards of various drugs. This is far more likely to get
the children's attention than the current efforts - where they are told
outright lies. When they find out that one of the things they are taught
is a lie, then they tend to disbelieve all the rest. This is harmful, and
not in the best interest of the children.  If you are unwilling to tell
them the truth, then don't tell them anything. Hopefully, they will be
able to find out the facts elsewhere.

: >dying from drug usage every year. It is the abuse of drugs that is the
: >danger- that, and accidental overdose from inconsistent strengths as well
: >as poisoning from impurities/adulterants.
: 
: >Bill
: 
: Thousands DO die every year from drugs.  And many more are injured, some
: permanently.  And these are not just from OD's, they are because some of

Agreed.

: these drugs are just plain lethal to the body's system.  Coke raises the
: blood pressure to dangerous levels resulting in strokes and heart attacks.

For a few individuals, usually from overdose. But, the same thing can happen
to some people, from injesting caffine - or MSG.

: I have a picture of a damaged heart from a coke user.  There is a violent
: tear down the side of the heart muscle which resulted in the instanteous
: death of the owner of said heart.

Right. Are you sure that your are not confusing coke with strychnine? Coke
does not cause massive and violent contractions of muscle tissue.

: Coke is also known to cause arteries to spasm shutting off the blood supply
: to parts of the body, if it is the heart then you have a heart attack.

It can reduce the supply - possibly. It cannot shut off the supply. 

: Coke and crack are also extremely psychologically addictive, much more so
: than most other drugs.

Psychological addiction depends on the person, not the drug. Coke and crack
are more physically addicting than some other drugs. By the governments own
figures - about 30% of regular users of coke become addicted - whether this
addiction is physical or psychological or a combination of both is not
specified. Note that that is 30% of regular users. 

: If people did these drugs as often as they indulged in tobacco and alcohol
: products then you would surely see a dramatic rise in deaths and injury.

I doubt it. The accidental deaths would surely decrease.

: Can you imagine the results if a person did coke and crack every 20 or 30 
: minutes all day long as people currently do with tobacco?  And if the numbers 
: who did this were 60 million people, the current number of tobacco addicts.
: We would then see just how dangerous some of these drugs are.  

The difference is, if a person did that much coke and crack, they would be
non functional - something that is not true for chain smokers. If people took
a strong shot of alcohol every 20 or 30 minutes, then you would see that it
is even more hazardous when abused in that manner.

: I would suggest that rather than take Bill's word or any other pro-legalization
: advocate's word that people call up drug centers and find out for themselves
: what is already well known and well established concerning the dangers of
: drug use.  You may also want to find out about crack and coke babies.  You
: will be told that babies are born addicted and that some babies have
: mal-formed kidneys and that some babies have heart attacks and strokes 
: either before they are born or afterwards.  These are not tobacco babies

Depends on who you ask.

I suggest that people take a look at the literature, not what drug treatment
centers might have to say. They have profit motives for their statements,
just as the government has profit motives for continuing this stupid war
that cannot be won.

: as Bill would have us believe but are the result of mothers using coke
: and crack during pregnancy.  If such things occured from smoking then
: we would see untold numbers of such cases since so many mothers smoke.

I said nothing about tobacco smoking mothers - I believe someone else did.
I have stated that the cause is due to general malnutrition of the mother,
as well as possible alcohol poisoning of the foetus. This is born out by
the studies.  

: I'm not saying that tobacco doesn't harm the fetus, I would not make such
: wild claims as Bill and others do.  Tobacco harms the fetus just as it

No, but you do make unsubstantiated claims about what I have said - much
less about drug effects. Most of what you claim has been shown to be false
by the researchers. The literature is available, all you have to do is 
read it.

: harms the users.  But what they are seeing is something different than
: just the resut of mothers smoking during pregnancy.  They are seeing
: the result of coke and crack use during pregnancy and these are called
: crack babies.

Funny, you are one of the few people I have seen still promoting this
idea. Have you noticed that the term is no longer used in the press or
television news broadcasts? Maybe that should tell you something. When
the sensationalistic news media accept something as false, then you can
bet that it is.

Bill