usenet/HR_135_-_Major_stupidity!.html
From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. Some of these posts are over a decade old. The author may have mellowed with age since these were written, but the basic views remain. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)
<![CDATA[From tms Thu Jan 26 17:32:55 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
So I'm checking out the cool new Web site http://thomas.loc.gov/,
which has bills recently introduced into Congress. I did a query on "drug",
and I damn near went thru the roof when I saw this one:
Anti-Drug Legalization Act (Introduced in the House)
HR 135 IH
104th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 135
To prohibit federally sponsored research pertaining to the legalization of
drugs .
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 1995
Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
A BILL
To prohibit federally sponsored research pertaining to the legalization of
drugs .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Drug Legalization Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the sale, possession and use of drugs pose a pervasive and
substantial threat to the social, educational, and economic
health of the United States;
(2) the impact of drug abuse is reflected in the violence that it
causes and in the disintegration of families, schools, and
neighborhoods;
(3) the effects of rampant drug use is amply illustrated by
national violent crime statistics across the United States;
(4) the overwhelming majority of health care and law
enforcement experts agree that drug legalization would have
disastrous consequences for the people of the United States;
and
(5) recent studies demonstrate that drug use by young people
is on the rise in the United States.
SEC. 3. RESTRICTION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or agency
of the United States Government shall conduct or finance, in whole or
in part, any study or research involving the legalization of drugs .
Ladies and gentlemen, I was stunned. Never, ever, have I seen a
statement so reflective of the attitude "My mind is made up, don't confuse
me with the facts."
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Under any conditions, anywhere, whatever you are doing, there is some
ordinance under which you can be booked." -- Robert D. Sprecht (Rand Corp)
From tms Mon Feb 6 13:14:06 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3g97uq$f71@shemesh.tis.com> <3gngq1$6sb@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>So I suppose I'll get flamed for this one, but I actually think the
>bill is a good idea.
...
>This is the same sort of argument as the PBS/CPB debate. The debate
>is NOT about whether or not drugs should be legalized, it's about
>whether federal money should be used to study the issue. I'm
>surprised everybody here has fallen for it.
You don't think the government should study its the effects of its own
policies and alternatives to them?! Federal money is going to implement the
programs; federal money should be used to determine if they are worthwhile
or not.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Westheimer's Discovery: A coupla months in the laboratory can save a
coupla hours in the library.
From tms Wed Feb 15 13:42:16 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3h3pmn$57c@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <3hdl33$7p0@tymix.
Tymnet.COM> <3hmt0f$f14@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>
>Just a side note: In case you haven't guessed, I do agree with the
>stated goals of the War on Drugs: namely, to eliminate the scourge of
>drugs from this nation.
Including alcohol? Tobacco? Caffeine? Chocolate?
> However, I'm not a statist on this issue, I
>don't agree with some of the egregious search and seizure practices
>that have occurred.
Laws against the use of drugs are inherently statist, in that they
grant the state power over the very bodies of citizens.
> But I do think it is possible to work for the
>eradication of drugs and still maintain our commitment to the Fourth
>Amendment.
History says you're wrong.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Fifth Law of Procrastination: Procrastination avoids boredom; one never has
the feeling that there is nothing important to do.
From tms Tue Feb 21 12:30:23 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3i1jak$slq@crcnis3.unl.edu> <3i5l1n$l9o@mcmail.CIS.
McMaster.CA> <3i96gn$6r8@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>
>Again you're trying to label me unjustly. I say "substance abuse is
>wrong" and suddenly you think I'm trying to make you conform to my way
>of life. Frankly I don't care what you do. Want to kill yourself by
>tripping out once too often?
Assuming by "triping" you mean the use of LSD or psilocybin, this is
not going to happen. Where in the world did you get the idea that some
number of "trips" is fatal?
>Fine. No skin off my nose. I simply do
>not think it should be a matter of governmental policy to encourage
>people to be introduced to potentially harmful substances.
Who's talking about encouraging?!
Great Ghu, man, do you not understand the difference between failing
to lock someone in a cage for smoking certain plant products and actually
encouraging people to smoke certain plant products?
If I say, "If you smoke cigarettes, I won't come over to your house
and break your knees with a baseball bat," would you take that as an
endorsement of smoking?
You can say "substance abuse is wrong" all you like. We all agree that
drug abuse is something to be discouraged. The historical evidence,
however, shows that Prohibition doesn't have much of an effect on drug
abuse, leads to deaths from drugs of unknown purity, creates a violent
black market, and leads to an erosion of civil liberties.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."
--Arthur C. Clarke
From tms Tue Feb 28 12:58:09 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3i94go$6pf@crcnis3.unl.edu> <3ics60$mn5@canopus.
cc.umanitoba.ca> <3imhlj$l9d@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
): Wouldn't you rather
): have your loved one consuming drugs which are less detrimental to
): their health? I know I would...
)
)I wouldn't want my loved ones consuming any mind-altering substances
)at all. What happened to the "none of the above" option?
Gee, you must _really_ love them if you think you have to make their
choice for them.
So what do you do when one of your "loved ones" wants a cigarette,
beer, cup of coffee, iced tea, or choclate bar? ("Mind-altering" substances
all.)
)This distinction is irrelevant when it comes to my argument. The
)rationale for any sort of action should not be "well, everybody's
)doing it anyway".
Agreed.
) I'd rather not have legislation based solely on
)this peer pressure-type of attitude. If this type of rationale were
)valid, then certainly it would also be a valid rationale for
)legalizing any number of forbidden activities, both ones with victims
)and ones without, solely because some number of people do it anyway.
)It would hold true for rape, murder, drug use, prostitution, sodomy
)laws...you name it, it's probably there.
Right.
) This is why the
)victim/victimless issue is not relevant.
This does not at all follow from your previous statement. Try again.
)With this sort of argument, though, you are calling into question the
)existence of drug regulation agencies such as the FDA. Let me ask you
)this: Should the FDA be abolished, and each consumer be permitted to
)make the choice of which drug is OK for a certain purpose?
Yes. At least, the FDA should be relegated to an advisory capacity,
and perhaps certify drugs for purity. They have no business telling me what
drugs I may or may not take. See the .sig.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Tue Feb 28 13:09:09 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3i9573$6pl@crcnis3.unl.edu> <3icu0o$nda@canopus.
cc.umanitoba.ca> <3imj54$la3@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>But why is it necessary for _any_ drugs to be injested?
Because it is a basic drive of all animal species.
>This may be a
>short-term prediction; what I suggest is that the much _much_ longer
>term trend will be for _all_ drug use to stop. Because people will
>find that it's not necessary.
It's not _necessary_ for us to read novels, but so what?
Drug use is older than humanity. The vast majority of humanity uses
some form of drug, whether it be alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, cannabis,
khat, coca, chocolate, peyote, or whatever. Recreational drug use is about
as likely to stop as recreational sex. It's fun, and if done with proper
safeguards harms no one; even if done without proper safeguards, the ones
harmed are those who chose to participate.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Tue Feb 28 13:13:23 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3imj54$la3@crcnis3.unl.edu> <1995Feb25.021243@fnalv.
fnal.gov> <3io3uj$m3e@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>what does THIS button do? (maxwell@fnalv.fnal.gov) wrote:
>: In article <3imj54$la3@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>: > But why is it necessary for _any_ drugs to be injested? This may be a
>: > short-term prediction; what I suggest is that the much _much_ longer
>: > term trend will be for _all_ drug use to stop. Because people will
>: > find that it's not necessary.
>
>
>: Your long-term prediction puts you squarely at odds with the entirety of human
>: history.
>
>If I were a Roman living in, say, 300 AD and if I were to suggest that
>some day we would no longer be using lead pipes, I'd probably be
>ridiculed as well. "We've ALWAYS used lead in our pipes!"
<sigh>
The Romans had been using lead pipes for maybe a century or two.
Animals have been using plant drugs for hundreds of thousands of years.
Drug use predates _Homo Sapiens_.
See the difference?
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Tue Feb 28 13:17:45 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3ibtee$a21@crcnis3.unl.edu> <950222.182206.6P0.rusnews.
w165w@wvolusia.oau.org> <3imovn$lci@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>David Vessell (drdave@wvolusia.oau.org) wrote:
>: I suppose I'm now talking to the wall, since you've said you're getting
>: out of the discussion, but....
>
>Well I'm still bored and probably a little bit stupid for carrying on
>as such, so...
>
>(This is the last time I have a Mello Yello at midnight! :-)
Mello Yello? Isn't that Coca-Cola's version of the caffeine-charged
Mountain Dew?
Are you admitting to being a user of caffeine, the most abused drug in
the United States?
But weren't you just saying that drug use isn't necessary?
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Tue Feb 28 13:25:03 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3ibtht$a23@crcnis3.unl.edu> <950222.173527.0u6.rusnews.
w165w@wvolusia.oau.org> <3immkm$lc6@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>The legality of an item certainly constitutes the lack of the
>government to legislate with respect to that item. In this respect
>legality implies endorsement.
No.
Word: endorse
Cross references:
1. approve
en.dorse \in-'do.(*)rs\ \in-.do.r-'se-, .en-\ \in-'do.r-s*r\ vt [alter. of
obs. endoss, fr. ME endosen, fr. MF endosser, fr.]OF, to put on the back,
fr. en- + dos back, fr. L dorsum 1a: to write on the back of; esp : to sign
one's name as payee on the back of (a check) to obtain the cash or credit
represented on the face 1b: to inscribe (one's signature) on a check, bill,
or note 1c: to inscribe (as an official document) with a title or
memorandum 1d: to make over to another (the value represented in a check,
bill or not e) by inscribing one's name on the document 1e: to acknowledge
receipt of (a sum specified) by one's signature on a do cument 2: to
express definite approval of - en.dors.ee n
Definition 2 is relevent here.
Please explain how stopping locking people in cages for a behavior
constitutes expressing definite approval of that behavior.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Tue Feb 28 13:38:14 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3immkm$lc6@crcnis3.unl.edu> <1995Feb25.030807@fnalv.
fnal.gov> <3io4sd$m3m@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>: You're thinking of a different political system.
>
>I'm thinking of reality here. If a teenager asks his father to borrow
>the car 100 times, and each time he says no, but then if he asks him
>again on the 101st time and the father says yes, what conclusions can
>you draw from this scenario?
Bad analogy. The car is the father's property. The drug user's body is
his or her own.
Imagine if I had to ask my father if I could drive _my own_ car.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Tue Feb 28 13:45:26 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3i96gn$6r8@crcnis3.unl.edu> <3id803$n75@shemesh.
tis.com> <3imlgd$lbn@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>Tom Swiss (tms@tis.com) wrote:
>: jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>: > Want to kill yourself by
>: >tripping out once too often?
>
>: Assuming by "triping" you mean the use of LSD or psilocybin, this is
>: not going to happen. Where in the world did you get the idea that some
>: number of "trips" is fatal?
>
>It was a contrived example. So sue me.
If I were Sandoz, I just might.
It was worse that a contrived example. It was misinformation. If you
knew better, I was a lie. If you didn't know better, it was ignorance.
>Well let's think about the message that the government would be
>sending if it decided to legalize all drugs. Would it be a positive
>one? (Let's try to be semi-realistic too.)
LAWS ARE NOT FOR SENDING MESSAGES.
Telephones and e-mail are. TV commercials, if you can afford them.
Newspaper editorials, radio broadcasts. Not laws.
>: Great Ghu, man, do you not understand the difference between failing
>: to lock someone in a cage for smoking certain plant products and actually
>: encouraging people to smoke certain plant products?
>
>: If I say, "If you smoke cigarettes, I won't come over to your house
>: and break your knees with a baseball bat," would you take that as an
>: endorsement of smoking?
>
>Is the converse also true? (Or is it inverse? I always forget.)
If you don't know what the question is, I'm sure I can't answer it.
Try again.
>You are talking about the current brand of prohibition practiced today
>though. As I have previously stated, I too think that the War on
>Drugs is misguided. I think we do need to spend more money on
>education and less money on law enforcement.
Make it 100% on education and 0% on law enforcment and you'll be
talking reasonably.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Tue Feb 28 13:50:47 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3imk34$la8@crcnis3.unl.edu> <1995Feb25.023336@fnalv.
fnal.gov> <3io5aq$m3u@crcnis3.unl.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
>
>: Depends on what part of the WosD you're talking about. But you're right, the
> ^^^^
>
>Wo_s_D? What does the "s" stand for?
"Some." As you may have noticed, it doesn't target alcohol, tobacco,
or caffeine.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
From tms Wed Mar 1 11:39:09 EST 1995
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HR 135 - Major stupidity!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3id803$n75@shemesh.tis.com> <3imlgd$lbn@crcnis3.
unl.edu> <3ivqr4$6q8@shemesh.tis.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
Dropped a phrase in my last post:
I wrote:
)jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
)>Tom Swiss (tms@tis.com) wrote:
)>: jwoodfor@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) writes:
)>: > Want to kill yourself by
)>: >tripping out once too often?
)>
)>: Assuming by "triping" you mean the use of LSD or psilocybin, this is
)>: not going to happen. Where in the world did you get the idea that some
)>: number of "trips" is fatal?
)>
)>It was a contrived example. So sue me.
)
) If I were Sandoz, I just might.
)
) It was worse that a contrived example. It was misinformation. If you
)knew better, I was a lie. If you didn't know better, it was ignorance.
^ "better, I'd say it was a lie..."
)
)>Well let's think about the message that the government would be
)>sending if it decided to legalize all drugs. Would it be a positive
)>one? (Let's try to be semi-realistic too.)
)
) LAWS ARE NOT FOR SENDING MESSAGES.
)
) Telephones and e-mail are. TV commercials, if you can afford them.
)Newspaper editorials, radio broadcasts. Not laws.
)
)>: Great Ghu, man, do you not understand the difference between failing
)>: to lock someone in a cage for smoking certain plant products and actually
)>: encouraging people to smoke certain plant products?
)>
)>: If I say, "If you smoke cigarettes, I won't come over to your house
)>: and break your knees with a baseball bat," would you take that as an
)>: endorsement of smoking?
)>
)>Is the converse also true? (Or is it inverse? I always forget.)
)
) If you don't know what the question is, I'm sure I can't answer it.
)Try again.
)
)>You are talking about the current brand of prohibition practiced today
)>though. As I have previously stated, I too think that the War on
)>Drugs is misguided. I think we do need to spend more money on
)>education and less money on law enforcement.
)
) Make it 100% on education and 0% on law enforcment and you'll be
)talking reasonably.
=Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled
your affairs." -- Rinzai
]]>
3 days 22 hours ago
6 days 16 hours ago
1 week 8 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
2 weeks 10 hours ago
2 weeks 11 hours ago
2 weeks 23 hours ago
2 weeks 2 days ago