Natalia wrote:
>| 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.****
The U$ "war on drugs" is an Orwellian fraud like its "war on terror", both
internationally and domestically. Due to U$ intervention, Afghanistan
now supplies 90% of the heroin world market, and the prices even in CH
fell dramatically. The situation in NOLA arose out of the _opposite_
of my approach, both in terms of prevention and enforcement.
>| 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 $400-500 US. Addicts do not have that.
Gun-less mugging? Interesting. Dubya could learn from this on the world stage.
> Gang members are another story--weapons are provided for them.
See. I thought there's hardly a mugger acting alone (he wouldn't survive
for long), but I guess you know more about mugging than I ever will.
>| The comparison is ridiculous, because people can be without food for days,
>| and even starving people don't lose their marbles, but drug addicts without
>| stuff get very crazy very quickly.
>| ****If you've ever even cared for a kid for an afternoon, you can
>experience first hand what deprivation of food can do to a child.
Depends on diet -- a child accustomed to junkfood, deficient in vitamins
and minerals, will indeed crave food soon after meals again. The simple
sugars let blood sugar go thru the roof, leading to an insulin overreaction,
leading to a feeling of hunger. Loads of fake sweeteners make it even worse.
That's why U$ kids are obese and get "adult" diabetes at age 10. Also
prime candidates for drug addictions of all sorts. Guess why I'm opposed
to refined sugar & white flour too?
>| > 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.
"More"? You'll have a hard time finding one suit psycho who doesn't take
cocaine or similar stuff. Even Keith Hudson admitted this fact.
> 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.
Then why is there a 0.5% limit on blood alcohol for motorists in Europe?
> The case against legalizing alcohol is far, far greater than for your
>selective crucade.
As you know, I'm against all drugs, so this accusation doesn't stick.
Anyway, really strong alcoholics aren't a big quantitative problem
in public because they can't drive and are usually institutionalized.
> 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.****
We agree that the U$ WoD is a fraud.
> 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,
"Forced"?? Not more than McDeath and Big Pharma are "forcing" their junk
down people's throats, anyway. Most people are forced to eat out, where
they are forced to eat junk loaded with refined sugar, white flour, MSG,
animal fats, etc., deprived of nutrients. The "forced" is in the
junkfood junta -- I should know, I can't eat out because there simply
is no healthy food available in restaurants.
If the offers would be healthy, people would eat healthy
without even noticing the difference (except in the outcomes!),
starting in the cradle where they get used to sugar addiction today.
The same goes for exercise -- the offers affect the choices,
and habits are formed in early development. It's not really fun
to be a couch potato (like it's no fun to be a drug addict).
> Given that alcohol is the way way bigger problem, should your
> methodology not be relevant to it as well?
It is. The biochemical pathways of addiction are pretty similar for the
various addictions.
> 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? ****
This part would only be a temporary problem anyway, until the present crop
of alcoholics has died off naturally. Once the trade is outlawed, the
few remaining alcohol dealers can easily be caught with today's technology.
Note that alcohol trade is much more bulky than cocaine trade.
Given good treatment programs, consumers would have no incentive to choose
illegality, this also goes for taking up arms for a drink. Enforcement by
young ("dry") police, with the resources freed by the loads of today's
alcohol-related crime and accidents.
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
