From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. These posts data back to the early 1990s; 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[
Subject: Re: Lets go junkie hunting
Author: Thomas Swiss <tms@mail.bcpl.net>
Date: 1998/10/15
Forum: balt.general
Posted on: 1998/10/15
Message-ID: <705cn3$s28@mail.bcpl.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:52:00 EDT
Newsgroups: balt.general
Organization: Baltimore County Public Library
References: <36172917.39AC@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net
X-Trace: news.abs.net 908473920 204.255.212.10 (Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:52:00 EDT)
In article <CE14CB51BC577F57.81A36643F18B6013.5B30DD8A00497C9B@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Lee E. Brown <leebrown@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>So yes, Chuck it might very well be true that the CRIME associated with certain
>drugs might well be lessened by decriminalization. However, the PROBLEMS
>associated with addictions to those drugs still remains and THAT notion is
>frequently "omitted" in these discussions.
Most of the PROBLEMS associated with the use of currently illegal
addictive drugs stem from their legal status, not their pharmacological
effects. A herion addict who can easily get his or her maintence dose in pure
measured form only suffers a few minor annoying physical effects. And they
lose what could be some productive or enjoyable time to sitting around spaced
out - but then, so do most Americans, sitting around watching "Baywatch" and
"Friends". Opiate addiction, in and of itself, is not very debilitating. Many
successful people have had opiate addictions.
The problems of overdose, drug impurities, malnutritiion, HIV and
hepatitis from shared needles, all the sterotypical "junkie" problems, are
the result of Prohibition.
===Tom Swiss/tms(at)infamous.net===http://www.infamous.net==="Born to die"===
"What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would
presumably flunk it." -- Stanley Garn
Subject: Re: Lets go junkie hunting
Author: Thomas Swiss <tms@mail.bcpl.net>
Date: 1998/10/20
Forum: balt.general
Posted on: 1998/10/20
Message-ID: <70iknf$mqo@mail.bcpl.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:28:34 EDT
Newsgroups: balt.general
Organization: Baltimore County Public Library
References: <36172917.39AC@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com> <705cn3$s28@mail.bcpl.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net
X-Trace: news.abs.net 908908114 204.255.212.10 (Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:28:34 EDT)
In article <DD8473BFFE5510BB.3CED2EF56727ACEC.8722469141DECB3E@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Lee E. Brown <leebrown@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>Surely Tom is not intending to assert that *any* serious addiction - to
>opiates or otherwise - is as benign in effect as watching "Baywatch" or
>"Friends."
In the absence of prohibition, the results of drug addiction are whatever
health problems the drugs might cause, and wasted time. The couch-potato
lifestyle also damages health and wastes time.
> I have yet to see anyone fired from their jobs because they are
>too fucked up from a bout of television viewing. Perhaps this is not what
>you meant?
In an environment where they can obtain their maintence does, addicts can
coordicate their use such that they won't report to work under the influence.
Most alcoholics manage to do this. However, under drug prohibtion, the addict
has less control over when to indulge their habit.
>I also submit that opiate addiction goes beyond "a few minor, annoying physical
>effects." For some pople, it results in complete debilitation.
Lee, the worst medical effect of regular use of pure opiates is severe
constipation. Compare that with the liver and nerve damage of alcohol, or
cancer and heart disease from nicotine. All other things being equal, opiates
are much safer.
The debilitating effects of opiate addiction, all the attributes of the
sterotypical strung-out junkie, are the result of addicts failing to keep up
good nutrition and hygine - things that are hard to do when you have to
devote so much time and energy into getting your fix. The junkie is the
product of prohibtion.
===Tom Swiss/tms(at)infamous.net===http://www.infamous.net==="Born to die"===
"What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving
and that's your own self." -- Aldous Huxley
From: tms@mail.bcpl.net (Thomas Swiss)
Newsgroups: balt.general
Subject: Re: Lets go junkie hunting
Organization: Baltimore County Public Library
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <70l20a$bm8@mail.bcpl.net>
References: <36172917.39AC@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com> <DD8473BFFE5510BB.3CED2EF5672
7ACEC.8722469141DECB3E@library-proxy.airnews.net> <70iknf$mqo@mail.bcpl.net> <C9
4B70EA604CD10F.5C1F4C836E20F99B.06E14BDF3E932D41@library-proxy.airnews.net>
Date: 21 Oct 1998 12:26:50 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.255.212.10
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net
X-Trace: news.abs.net 908987246 204.255.212.10 (Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:27:26 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:27:26 EDT
Xref: news.abs.net balt.general:10576
In article <C94B70EA604CD10F.5C1F4C836E20F99B.06E14BDF3E932D41@library-proxy.air
news.net>,
Lee E. Brown <leebrown@jagunet.com> wrote:
>Oops! Moved the goal posts around, did we? The effects of addiction go way
>beyond *medical*side*effects*
Any other effects are the result of social forces. In determining social
policy, therefore, only medical effects - physical and psychological - are
relevant. To do otherwise results in circular reasoning.
>Did you think we wouldn't notice? Or are you now
>extending the fairy tale to include the curious notion that *all* problems
>start and end with prohibition?
Any problems resulting from drug use, abuse, or addiction that are
not physical and psychological effects of the drug must be results of social
forces. Not all problems resulting from drug use are the result of prohibtion,
as the physical and psychological problems encountered by alcoholics, nicotine
addictions, and caffeine junkies show. However, most currently illegal drugs
result in _fewer_ of these physical and psychological problems; the problems
encountered by their users are mostly sociological ones resulting from
prohibition.
>And if you succeed in eliminating the classic "junkie," the problem of being
>addicted to drugs *still*remains*
Indeed it does. But now the addict can step forward to get help without
fear of imprisonment. Now, we redirect the resources we've been using to
lock people up into treating their addiction. Now, those who do not choose to
get treatment, or who have difficulty breaking their addiction, don't have to
spend all their time trying to hustle to get their fix, and have a shot at
a reasonably normal life. Now, addicts don't risk their lives on drugs of
unknown purity and strength, or on dirty needles. Now, the free market acts
to produce designer drugs with the same intoxicating properties but less
addicive potential. Now, we've eliminated black market violence. Sounds
better all around.
> I hear LOTS of talk about eliminating
>prohibition - but precious little beyond that.
True. When one is confronted with egregious wrongs, the first priority
is stopping them. If someone is shooting a gun into a crowd, first you stop
him. Then you worry about how best to treat the wounded. Or, for a historic
example, the Declaration of Independance predated the Constitution by over
a decade.
When the state is using force against people who have harmed no one,
the first priority is stopping that violence.
> Is there some reason why we
>shouldn't be trying to discourage addiction socially and trying to treat it
>medically instead of throwing up our hands?
That's exactly what we should be doing - discouraging addiction socially
and trying to treat it medically. That's a hell of a lot more intelligent than
locking people up.
===Tom Swiss/tms(at)infamous.net===http://www.infamous.net==="Born to die"===
"What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are."
Subject: Re: Lets go junkie hunting
Author: Thomas Swiss <tms@mail.bcpl.net>
Date: 1998/10/22
Forum: balt.general
Posted on: 1998/10/22
Message-ID: <70o53s$ojd@mail.bcpl.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:38:57 EDT
Newsgroups: balt.general
Organization: Baltimore County Public Library
References: <36172917.39AC@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com> <70l20a$bm8@mail.bcpl.net> <8992B3669A85ECDE.57353D120D488D79.0F16B8317C63DB3F@library-proxy.airnews.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net
X-Trace: news.abs.net 909088737 204.255.212.10 (Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:38:57 EDT)
In article <8992B3669A85ECDE.57353D120D488D79.0F16B8317C63DB3F@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Lee E. Brown <leebrown@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>It sure does - particularly if one desires to spend their lives wandering
>around with a buzz on. For those of us who would rather avoid working,
>driving, and living in the vicinity of perpetually-stoned people, it sounds
>like, well, a shitty plan.
First off, very few users of any drug "spend their lives wandering
around with a buzz on."
Perpetually stoned people will end up fired, so don't worry about working
with them. And I've no problem with making addicts get treatment to get on
the dole.
If they can't straighten up to drive, take away their licences and/or
lock 'em up, just like we do drunk drivers. As for living in the vicinity
of drug users, well, tough. I'd rather not live in the vicinity of
narrow-minded twits, racists, born-again Christians, or people who like
country music (well, the new stuff at least - got nothing against Johny Cash
or Willie Nelson). But it's a free country. As long as they do not harm or
credibly threaten to harm anyone, it's none of my business. I have no right
to use force against them.
>> That's exactly what we should be doing - discouraging addiction socially
>>and trying to treat it medically. That's a hell of a lot more intelligent than
>>locking people up.
>
>And simple carte-blanch decriminalization doesn't too terribly much like
>"discouragement" does it?
Lee, are you being deliberately dense? I just don't see how any
intelligent human being can fail to grasp the difference between discouraging
something and criminalizing it. Discouraging is saying "You shouldn't do
that. It's not healthy. You're going to get cancer and rot your brain. It's
rude, crude, disgusting, impolite, and makes you look like Keith Richards."
Criminalizing is saying "We will send people with guns to take away your
property, or lock you in a cage, if you do that." Criminalization is
entirely orthagonal to discouragement. One uses force, one uses words.
===Tom Swiss/tms(at)infamous.net===http://www.infamous.net==="Born to die"===
"What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"America is like a melting pot. The people at the bottom get burned,
and the scum floats to the top." -- Charlie King
]]>
Recent comments
1 week 14 hours ago
2 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 3 days ago
3 weeks 5 days ago
4 weeks 2 days ago
4 weeks 2 days ago
7 weeks 5 days ago
8 weeks 3 days ago
10 weeks 6 days ago
11 weeks 8 hours ago