Chris,
Comments below.****
Natalia
All mail scanned by NAV
----- Original Message -----
From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Drugs and Martial Law
| > Please, just because the media (or the mayor) reports that druggies are
| > the ones with the guns, you choose to believe it because you're against
| > legalization of drugs?
| What I believe of media reports is irrelevant for this.
****It is relevant because you think this is an appropriate opportunity to
lecture Ed on his previously expressed views. Interestingly enough, this
situation alledged to be one of dangerous druggies with guns, is arising out of
the "O" tolerance for drugs policy, which, as most are aware, has only forced
US illegal drug consumption way up.****
| Ed justified shoot-to-kill with the dangers from armed druggies
("A lot of the addicts have not been able to get their drugs
| since the hurricane. They are, understandably, in a state of
| high tension and, with guns, are very dangerous. Even I might
| consider shooting to kill under the circumstances."),
| so I pointed out the implications of Ed's earlier pro-drug-leg. stance.
|
|
| > the usually very poor (as in unable to afford a gun) drug addicts.
|
| Are we kidding? Hint: Drug addicts can "afford" pretty expensive drugs
| on a daily basis, so they surely can "afford" a gun... If they're poor
| they simply mug the cash, and for mugging they already have a gun anyway...
| ****Negative. They can barely afford their next ten dollar hit. If they had a
gun, they would only pawn it for cash to buy drugs. A gun on the street usually
starts at $400-500 US. Addicts do not have that. Dealers do. Gang members are
another story--weapons are provided for them.The average flag-waving American
Joe can afford guns, and they are, as I mentioned, quite addicted to this right
to bear arms. It is also their first instinct, in too many cases, to exercise
their right to use them to protect their property. Gang members and other
organized crime circles would cetainly be using their weapons to keep patrols
away from their newly acquired goods, too.****
|
| > Remember that the non-druggie type people who crave food and water are
| > addicts too, food and water being the first addiction, then to coffee,
| > tea, white flour products, meat, and sugar. Excepting the food and water,
| > I fully realize you don't approve of any of these either. Those desperate
| > enough, as these people were (and still are in many cases), are bound to
| > be rather pissed, and given the right to bear arms as another wide spread
| > and respectable addiction, who ya gonna blame but the drug addicts for
| > shooting and looting?
|
| The comparison is ridiculous, because people can be without food for days,
| and even starving people don't lose their marbles, but drug addicts without
| stuff get very crazy very quickly.
| ****If you've ever even cared for a kid for an afternoon, you can experience
first hand what deprivation of food can do to a child. Or sleep deprivation.
Adults are no different. And remember that these are not the 3rd world already
so malnourished starved people, these are 4-5 days hungry, sleep deprived
people with the right to bear arms. They are not going to be nearly as
quiet****.
|
| > It's not the drug addicts we worry about, because they are mostly only
| > harmful to themselves, it's the ones who are suit-psychos, addicted to
| > controlling the masses, who are the problem.
|
| The suit-psychos are druggies too, they just use more expensive drugs
| like cocaine, which make them even more psychopathic.
****Sure they are, but more of the suit psychos are drinkers/legal drug users
than anything else. Government sessions and corporate think tanks are riddled
with liquor. But your comments are usually about the ten dollar fix types, and
the kids who smoke pot. It's the hard drugs importers and distributors who
deserve most of your crticism, and it is these that the "O" tolerance policies
fail to address. Of course, they are often protected by the Feds and narcotics
police alike. Since the war on drugs (still about 25% of all US arrests are
simply for soft drugs and small quantities of same), domestic abuse/assault
takes a backseat to finding mostly passive smokers, policing streets and parks
is a thing of the past, and investigating government crime effectively is
practically taboo. ****
****Searching for illegal weapons would be easy if druggies had them. They're
too weak to move fast, especially after a hit, they can't aim, and police know
exactly where to find them.****
And guess what
| makes "controlling the masses" easiest? Drugged masses.
****You still fail to acknowledge that alcohol is the legal drug of choice,
world round. None of your rants ever demonizes it. You have gone so far as to
say you don't partake, to the best of your knowledge, in any addictive
substances. But alcohol is the biggest addiction, and tolerated because most
people are addicted to aggression and enjoy the licence to become legally even
more aggressive. The case against legalizing alcohol is far, far greater than
for your selective crucade. In New Orleans, alcohol is exceedingly a greater
problem than drugs. It was totally legal to drink it on the buses, as long as
it was in a paper cup! The bars and restaurants there were fantastically
opulent because of its vast consumption. Again, gun-toting alcoholics who ain't
got their booze are going to be pretty mean to try and deal with.****
All this just
| supports my anti-drug stance. In the long run, even the death penalty
| for drug dealers and total enforcement against them on all levels
| would kill MUCH less people than laisser-faire.
****But in the US they arrest mostly the soft drug users, who are carrying very
little on them, inspite of having penalties of lengthy sentences for dealers in
order to prosecute. The dealers have impressive lawyers, and anyone making good
money buys their way out. "O" tolerance is aimed at the little guy, easy and
inexpensive to catch, to make the police look like heroes. But this method of
law enforcement is no different when it applies to Enron execs (a la ten year
sentence only for its chief) Commander-In-Chief at the White House, or any
other white collar criminal who affects people adversely. You just have to be
white or rich in America.****
The preventive
| approach I outlined long ago would be even better than that.
| But nobody can seriously advocate drug use or even legalization and
| at the same time whine about "psychos controlling the masses".
****Chris, you had some good ideas, but as I recall, forced diet change for
everyone world-wide, forced exercise, and magically reshaping the American
government that thinks it's doing just fine to agree with you was not going to
convince anyone that you have the answers to the deeper, collective
psychological problems that underlie drug use. Given that alcohol is the way
way bigger problem, should your methodology not be relevant to it as well? How
would that work? Who would you arrest and put to death immediately? Would all
consumers be thrown in jail or treatment programs? Who would be left to enforce
these edicts? How would you control the addicted masses--also addicted to the
right to bear arms? ****
| ****Natalia****
| Chris
|
|
|
|
|
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
| "igve".
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Futurework mailing list
| [email protected]
| http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
