usenet/YES_Law_Officer_FOR_Legalizing_.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 Dec 7 12:10:23 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.hard,alt.
drugs.culture,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <49v268$9bu@sundog.tiac.net> <4a3en5$aev@solaris.
cc.vt.edu> <4a4dq5$muh@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>Alcohol has some day to day benifit..and is routed in
>all human culture... I agree we'd be better of without it but..
It is not for you to decide if I'd be better off without alcohol.
>it's
>not a battle we can win.
Nor is the war on other drugs.
> And illegal drugs are FAR more dangerous
All available information shows this not to be the case.
> one
>dose of cocane can kill
"One dose" of cocaine is not an accurate measure. Used in controlled
quantities, pure cocaine is quite safe. For example, natives in South
America chew coca leaves and ingest small amounts of the drug. Cocaine is
used medically as an anesthetic; "crack" cocaine has been used
experimentally to treat arthritis. The vast majority of cocaine-related
acute health problems are due to drugs of unknown purity and strength - a
direct result of prohibition.
> I've yet to hear one glass of alcohol being
>fatal
Some of the crap that went around during alcohol prohibition could
certainly ruin your health pretty damn quick.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, debriefed or
numbered. I am not a number. I am a free man." -- _The Prisoner_
From tms Thu Dec 7 12:22:54 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.hard,alt.
drugs.culture,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4a3en5$aev@solaris.cc.vt.edu> <4a4api$a3q@nonews.
col.hp.com> <4a4is6$rbs@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>
>No actually I wasn't refering to myself. I will grant however that I
>maybe mistaken. I will add that of those cannabis users aressted how
>many had plants? were selling or intending to sell? were arrested
>during a dealer bust?
Carl Olsen recently posted his NORML News for November 30, which stated:
Of the 481,098 arrests made for marijuana in 1994,
approximately 83.7 percent (402,717) were for simple
"possession." The remaining 16.3 percent (78,381 arrests) were
for "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation
offenses -- even those intended for personal use.
== 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
"I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, debriefed or
numbered. I am not a number. I am a free man." -- _The Prisoner_
From tms Thu Dec 7 12:37:31 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.hard,alt.
drugs.culture,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4a2g05$qej@sundog.tiac.net> <55g2ezhyn0.fsf@holmes.
engr.sgi.com> <4a4f80$o6r@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>
>I'm not a legistlator nor for the most part have I spoken from the LE
>side of my duties but as a MEDIC yup MEDIC the ones who see before the
>DOC's I have no benifit from telling you lies.... if the drug war
>ends.. my call volume will up I'll see more pain and death
When the drug war ends, you'll have fewer people overdosing because
they were expecting 5% but got 15% of their drug. You won't have children
being caught in the crossfire of gang wars over drug-dealing turf. You
won't have the spread of HIV and hepatitis
Now, why in the world do you think the ending prohibition would
_increase_ the pain and death you will see?
>>Check out
>
>>http://www.hyperreal.com/drugs/stimulants/crack.babies
>
>>for an explaination of why the "crack baby" syndrome is a myth.
>
>Sorry I think I'll trust proof to falsifacation of data.
What `proof'? There is no `proof' of the `crack baby' syndrome. The
turned out to be kids who received poor prenatal care and often suffered
from fetal alcohol syndrome. Here's an excerpt from the referenced article:
Researchers at the National Association for Perinatal Addiction Research
and Education in Chicago have tracked a group of 300 children born
exposed to crack for almost seven years, while helping the kids and
their mothers.
The association's president, Ira Chasnoff, said kids born exposed to
crack, or other drugs, often suffer from a decreased attention span,
more impulsive behavior and have difficulty concentrating. But
environment may play a more key role than drug exposure in the womb, he
said.
In NAPARE's study, researchers found that the IQ scores of children born
exposed to crack were the same as children who were not crack-exposed
but who lived in a similar environment.
Chasnoff painted a dark picture behind society's morbid embrace of
"crack babies."
"The image of the crack baby really moved out there," he said.
"Politicians really picked it up. It worked into the trend of writing
about the underclass. It's sexy, it's interesting, it sells newspapers
and it perpetuates the us-versus-them idea."
In fact, said Chasnoff, "Poverty is the worst thing that can happen to a
child."
>No actually my mind is open..but not to the point of pretending what
>I've seen on the streets didn't happen.
Maybe you need to think more about _why_ it happened. And about all
the responsible drug users you _don't_ see. Think about it - if all you
knew about sex was what you saw at a rape crisis center, you'd be getting a
pretty inaccurate picture. If all you see of drug use is the person who has
such a serious problem that they require emergency medical care, you're
getting a pretty inaccurate picture.
> Point is
>if you need drugs there IS something missing that you cannot attain or
>ar not willing to put the effort into attaining and are substituting
>it with drugs... exception as pointed out by others in cases of
>medical need.
Drug use is a natural drive amoung all higher animals. Almost every
human uses some recreation drug. Have a beer, or a glass of wine, or a cup
of coffee or tea or cola lately? Or a chocolate bar? Drugs, each and every
one.
== 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
"I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, debriefed or
numbered. I am not a number. I am a free man." -- _The Prisoner_
From tms Fri Dec 8 12:56:00 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.hard,alt.
drugs.culture
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <w0t4tvej5hv.fsf@primus.engr.sgi.com> <4a5306$d5b@
sundog.tiac.net> <4a7eaf$ddn@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
g9126007@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kelly T. Conlon) writes:
>
>The number people who have tried cannabis in the United States is
>approximately 30 million. Just how much larger does this number have to
>be before you're convinced that you're wrong?
30 million is about how many people use cannabis in a year. The number
of Americans who've used it at all is about 70 million.
== 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
Arthur C. Clarke's Law :
It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.
From tms Fri Dec 8 13:00:13 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.hard,alt.
drugs.culture,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4a4f80$o6r@sundog.tiac.net> <4a52kv$7lq@cobia.gulf.
net> <4a72bi$bq4@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>
>Sorry Ray but until you come up with a life save record, incedent
>responce log, or years in service equal or greater then mine you are
>seriously out of your element.
And how do any of these things make you an expert on pre-natal
exposure to cocaine?
> Ray if
>one needs pity its the people who are wasting their lives away in a
>drug induced fantasy on the streets who can't even begin to get their
>lives on track.
And you have such pity on them that you want to lock them in cages
with violent criminals? Your compassion overwhelms me.
== 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
Arthur C. Clarke's Law :
It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.
From tms Mon Dec 11 12:49:29 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.culture
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4a9ncq$4bv@sundog.tiac.net> <4aa9hi$dc5@geraldo.
cc.utexas.edu> <30c9dd0b.57691428@199.0.65.9>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net (Firehawk) writes:
>
>>Please decide if you want to reduce human suffering or continue the
>>"moral" WoSD.
>
>My prefered option is to re-engineer the war take out the dealers and
>suppliers.
And the lesson of history is clear as can be for anyone willing to
open their eyes: this is simply not a possible task!
We can't even keep drugs out of our prisions - how the hell do you
propose to keep drugs off our streets without locking down the whole damn
nation tighter than a maximum security prison?
> Treatment and aid for the users.... and let me make this
>clear <JAIL IS NOT TREATMENT!!>
The vast majority of drug users have no need for `treatment'.
== 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 at first you don't succeed, try, try, and try again. Then give
up. There's no use being a damned fool about it." -- W.C. Fields
From tms Wed Dec 13 12:47:34 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.culture
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <30c9dd0b.57691428@199.0.65.9> <4ahqvb$s41@shemesh.
tis.com> <4ak713$eoo@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>> And the lesson of history is clear as can be for anyone willing to
>>open their eyes: this is simply not a possible task!
>
>The lesson of history is a lesson not a forcast
It's the only one we've got.
> becuase it has not
>been done does not mean it cannot be done.
Attempting a stragegy that has repeatedly failed under similar
circumstances is foolish at best. "Those who do not learn from the past are
doomed to repeat it." And indeed we are.
>> We can't even keep drugs out of our prisions - how the hell do you
>>propose to keep drugs off our streets without locking down the whole damn
>>nation tighter than a maximum security prison?
>
>We can't not serve chunky peanut butter in our prisons because we've
>forgotten what a prison is.
Non sequitor. Please answer the question - given that we can't even
keep drugs out of our prisions, how the hell do you propose to keep drugs
off our streets without locking down the whole damn nation tighter than a
maximum security prison?
>>> Treatment and aid for the users.... and let me make this
>>>clear <JAIL IS NOT TREATMENT!!>
>
>> The vast majority of drug users have no need for `treatment'.
>
>That is certainly subject to debate.
Er, no, it's not. Even the DEA admits that most drug users are
productive, employed citizens.
> You don't want to admit or face
>that but take all the "supposed ill effects" out of the picture and
>just opperate on why people do the drugs.
People use drugs socially, religiously, therapeutically,
philosophically, artistically, aesthetically, and recreationally. Why do
people drink tea, or wine, or smoke cigars? Everyone has their own set of
reasons.
>Meaning say that drugs are
>safe as you and others claim <no I do not believe this>. The question
>then comes up why do you want to use them answer in at least 85% to
>get high.
And your source for that figure is...? And define "getting high."
> What is the reason for getting high? Usually to escape from
>reality the feeling of hopelessness.
It doesn't occur to you that people might just find it pleasant?
More significantly, the desire to alter one's conciousness is a
natural urge found in all higher animals.
> Not to mention you don't know the vast majority of drug
>users
Since there's 30 million users of currently illegal drugs, I'm sure
that no one personally knows a majority of them.
> nor are you exposed to as many as LEO's EMS and Fire service
>personell so you really aren't in a position to make that claim.
And as I've explained before, police and paramedics get a grossly
distorted view of drug use. Imagine if the only knowlege of sex you had
came from working in a rape crisis center, or from treating AIDS patients.
> Nor
>is there a study that can be legitimatly upheld to support your
>position any more then there is one to support mine.
To the contrary, there are studies that examine how well users of
currently illegal drugs live and function in society. Might I suggest you
point your browser to:
http://www.calyx.net/~schaffer/LIBRARY/studlist.html
It lists 19 major studies of drug policy from the late 1800s to the 1990s.
Go. Read. Learn.
== 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
Monty Python: "In accordance with our principles of free enterprise and
healthy competition, I'm going to ask you two to fight to the death for it."
From tms Thu Dec 14 17:10:40 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.culture
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4ak713$eoo@sundog.tiac.net> <4an3jq$8fp@shemesh.
tis.com> <4ani9f$qlk@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>
>> Attempting a stragegy that has repeatedly failed under similar
>>circumstances is foolish at best. "Those who do not learn from the past are
>>doomed to repeat it." And indeed we are.
>
>Then you adjust the stradegy.
I haven't heard you proposing any new strategey to control drug abuse
by force.
On the other hand, re-legalization advocates _are_ advocating a change
in strategy. One that has showed success in the places it's been tried,
such as the cannabis-selling coffee houses in Amsterdam, or the
prescription-heroin program in Liverpool.
>>>> We can't even keep drugs out of our prisions - how the hell do you
>>>>propose to keep drugs off our streets without locking down the whole damn
>>>>nation tighter than a maximum security prison?
>>>
>>>We can't not serve chunky peanut butter in our prisons because we've
>>>forgotten what a prison is.
>
>> Non sequitor. Please answer the question - given that we can't even
>>keep drugs out of our prisions, how the hell do you propose to keep drugs
>>off our streets without locking down the whole damn nation tighter than a
>>maximum security prison?
>
>Actually very sequitor we have given inmates more rights then we give
>members of the general public..
<blink> Excuse me? Persons who are subject to being shot if they
attempt to leave a certain building have more rights than the general
public? Persons whose every movement is tracked have more rights than the
general public? Person who are subject to solitary confinement have more
rights than the generally public? It hasn't gotten that bad on the outside
yet, despite the efforts of those running the War on Drugs, Guns, Crime,
etcetera. Not _yet_.
> You want to stop drug in prisons stop
>giving them what they want.
You have once again failed to answer the question. The question is
not, "Are our prisons currently tough enough?" The question is: given that
we cannot keep drugs out of our prisons, where the ratio of inmates to
officers is low, where inmates are under much closer scrutiny than would
ever be possible in the population at large, and where inmates have no
right to privacy, how the hell do you propose to keep drugs off our streets
without locking down the whole damn nation tighter than a maximum security
prison? Either answer the question or admit it can't be done.
>There is a difference between humane
>conditions and what is going on in today's prisons. You are not in
>jail to be pampered but to be punished and deprived.
Punishment and deprivation are pointless. They only serve to harden
the criminal. Beating a mean dog won't make it friendly. Jails must serve
to reform inmates (at least the ones we plan to let out, and we can't lock
everyone up for ever), or they are useless.
>That fact that
>criminals can sue and win over issues of chunky peanut butter is proof
>that society has forgoten what prison is. Of course drugs run
>rampant.
Winning a lawsuit about peanut butter has nothing to do with smuggling
drugs into prison.
>> Even the DEA admits that most drug users are
>>productive, employed citizens.
>
>Or appear to be I belive is more what they meant otherwise why would
>they the major agency in the war continue it??
Because they get off on the power trip. Because they are deathly
afraid that someone might be enjoying a pleasurable experience. Because
they cannot think logically. Because they are well-programmed robots.
Really, I don't know; I'm _glad_ that I don't understand how the twisted
minds of the lying hypocrites at the DEA function.
>>> You don't want to admit or face
>>>that but take all the "supposed ill effects" out of the picture and
>>>just opperate on why people do the drugs.
>
>> People use drugs socially, religiously, therapeutically,
>>philosophically, artistically, aesthetically, and recreationally. Why do
>>people drink tea, or wine, or smoke cigars? Everyone has their own set of
>>reasons.
>
>As you like to say what does this have to do with the fact you seem to
>be ignoring the ill effects?
You asked why people use drugs. I answered the question you asked (I
took it as a question, anyway). You said "take all the `supposed ill
effects' out of the picture", and I did.
However, if you now would like me to address that issue: I am not
ignoring the potential ill effects of currently illegal drugs. You will not
find me recommending that someone smoke freebase cocaine, or shoot heroin.
However, the potential ill effects of these drugs are no worse than the
potential ill effects of currently legal drugs; prohibiting these drugs
only exacerbates the potential health risks, because users deal with drugs
of dubious purity and unknown strength; and locking someone in a cage is
much more of risk to someone's health than the use of currently illegal
drugs. (You've stated that you prefer treatment to jail, but mandatory
treatment _is_ imprisonment; make no mistake about it.)
>>>Meaning say that drugs are
>>>safe as you and others claim <no I do not believe this>. The question
>>>then comes up why do you want to use them answer in at least 85% to
>>>get high.
>
>> And your source for that figure is...? And define "getting high."
>
>getting high is already defined I'm shouldn't have to define it.
Yes, you should. If I have a cup of coffee because it makes me feal
more alert, am I getting high? What if I use a small amount of cocaine
instead, like the amount I'd get chewing a mouthful of coca leaves? If I
have a glass of wine to help me relaxe, am I getting high? What if I use a
small amount of cannabis instead?
I also note that you provided no source for your figure of 85%. Back
it up or retract it.
>I
>have not hard cite but if you know drug users why don't you poll them
Because I'm not stupid enough to think that the couple dozen users of
currently illegal drugs I know personally are a representive sample of the
thirty million in this country.
>with 1>Do you want it for medical use
> 2>do you want it for religious use
> 3>Do you want it for recreational use <ie getting high>
> 4> other
Are you asserting that recreational use is equivalent to getting high?
Maybe you are, since you can't seem to define what you mean by the latter.
Your proposed survey also leaves out the majority of reasons I enumerated,
and lumps them under "other" - does this indicate a conceptual bias on your
part about how drugs might be used? I suspect it does.
>> More significantly, the desire to alter one's conciousness is a
>>natural urge found in all higher animals.
>
>Hmmm you talked to a dolphin or whale lately?
Actaully, aquatic animals may be an exception, unless there are some
psychoactive ocean plants. Good point.
> Could also be natures
>popluation control ya know... get high lose perspective get eaten.
Wild animals generally have little problem with drug use. Go forth and
read _Intoxiction_ by Ronald Siegal (ISBN 0-671-69192-9), the best damn
book about the drive to use drugs around. It is a _must read_ for anyone
who wants to understand drug use and abuse.
>> To the contrary, there are studies that examine how well users of
>>currently illegal drugs live and function in society. Might I suggest you
>>point your browser to:
>
>>http://www.calyx.net/~schaffer/LIBRARY/studlist.html
>
>I will look first time I've see this one. however there are studies
>with conclusions about how much time drug users take out of soceity
>and buisness as well which is right?
If you know of a major study of drug policy which has come out in
favor of prohibtion, post a reference here and send it to
schaffer@smartlink.net, the fellow who maintains the above page. As he put
it:
<begin quote>
The following studies are the most significant studies of drug policy
ever conducted. Much of this information comes from the Drug Policy
Foundation and from T.R. Vallance, author of Prohibition's Second
Failure, an excellent book.
All of these studies recommended a non-criminal approach to drugs.
Over the years I have shown this list to every opponent I have had
occasion to debate, including all sorts of government officials. I
even have direct responses from all three Federal Drug Czars. So far,
not one of them has been able to name any significant study of drug
policy which supported the War on Drugs.
I invite everyone to read the information listed in the studies below,
and send me e-mail at schaffer@smartlink.net if you find any major
study of drug policy that I have missed. You will be the second. Mario
Lap was the first. He named a study in another language entirely but,
of course, it had substantially the same results as the others.
<end quote>
== 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
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." -- Lily Tomlin
From tms Thu Dec 14 17:17:32 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.hard,alt.
drugs.culture,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <ASH.95Dec12153610@mr4.mr.ams.org> <DJJFGD.MLH@eskimo.
com> <4anih7$qlk@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>scotte@eskimo.com (Scott R. Eckelman) wrote:
>
>>Of course they have a choice - anyone who lives to be an adult should
>>realize that the only thing anyone _has_ to do is die. Everything
>>else is optional. In this case, an officer can choose to enforce the
>>law or not; no one is holding a gun to his head, (and even then, they
>>still have a choice). Or, they could choose to quit. I really get tired
>>of the argument "but I _had_ to do it, I was just following orders", (or
>>the law). Bullshit - everyone has the responsibility to disobey such
>>immoral orders and laws. To do otherwise is evil.
>
>A your wrong. It may not mean anything to you but some people still
>believe in the oaths they take. To uphold the law....you break it
>it's my duty to take you in.
"Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on
society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians,
lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should
always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who
believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or
economic status, is a fool."
-- John J. Miller, "And Hope to Die"
(in _Jokertown Shuffle - Wild Cards IX_)
Firehawk, you would have made a fine slave catcher.
"[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that
violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in
particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private
life and the political affiliations of the citizens..."
-- Albert Einstein
== 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
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." -- Lily Tomlin
From tms Thu Dec 14 17:18:09 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.culture
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4an1jk$ehr@imag.imag.fr> <4an5b8$e54@sundog.tiac.
net> <4an8mk$iu6@imag.imag.fr>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
Francis Van Aeken <vanaeken> writes:
>>have to be caught. Only time can tell and still this is not police
>>profit this is simply employment.
>
>Don't you think that the prospect of being unemployed might
>slightly influence objectivity in those who 'fight' drugs when
>it comes to discussing the dangers & benefits?
Indeed, it appears that the unemployment of federal officers after the
the of Prohibtion may have lead directly to the beginnings of thw War on
(Some) Drugs. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed just as
Prohibition was winding down, and many of its original officers, including
(I spit on his name!) Anslinger, its commissioner, were former prohibition
officers.
== 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
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." -- Lily Tomlin
From tms Fri Dec 15 15:48:51 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.culture
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4an98l$2hj@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> <4andpu$m4t@sundog.
tiac.net> <4app8p$s5f@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
g9126007@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kelly T. Conlon) writes:
>In article <4and>
>I have all of the facts at my disposal and I have already provided you
>with a reference to a Web site which contains the pertinent information.
>No legal supply of cannabis for medicinal purposes exists anywhere in the
>United States.
Not quite true; the feds do provide cannabis to the half-dozen or so
people who managed to get presciptions under the old federal IND(?
Investigative new drug? This is from memory, if you know better follow up.)
program. This program no longer exists and no new presciptions are allowed;
even when it was running, it only gave out eight prescriptions during its
history.
But for all practical purposes, your point stands.
== 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
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
-- Nick Diamos
From tms Thu Dec 21 11:13:58 EST 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.
politics.drugs,rec.drugs.psychedelic,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.
cannabis,alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs.culture
Subject: Re: YES Law Officer FOR Legalizing Marijuana - I knew
he had it in him ;-)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4amsbe$3tg@imag.imag.fr> <4an02q$9hp@sundog.tiac.
net> <4b4mik$v9b@hunter.premier.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
Ricky Collins <rcollins@premier.net> writes:
>AS an ex druggie, I can say drugs rob people of any chance of happiness
>and contentment.
Don't project your own problems with drugs on others.
>Everyone wants to be somebody,be financially independent.
Everyone _is_ somebody, and many people have goals much more
worthwhile and interesting than financial independance. Thank goodness.
>When a person gets high they fantasize about starting their on business
>or going back to school.
And you've done extensive studies to discover this, right? Or are you
just taking a wild-assed guess?
>Don't waste your life dreaming just do it.
Yeah, it's a same that drug users like John Lennon, Hunter Thompson,
Samual Coleridge Taylor, Steve Jobs ("self-confessed former acidhead",
according to an article in GQ), and at least a third of the programmers
I've worked with, never amounted to anything.
== 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
"An independant reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed
to the phenomenon nor to the agencies of observation." -- Niels Bohr
]]>
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