Follow the $$$$'s
Natalia
All mail scanned by NAV
----- Original Message -----
From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Drugs and Martial Law
| Natalia wrote:
| >| What I believe of media reports is irrelevant for this.
| >****It is relevant because you think this is an appropriate opportunity to
| >lecture Ed on his previously expressed views. Interestingly enough, this
| >situation alledged to be one of dangerous druggies with guns, is arising
| >out of the "O" tolerance for drugs policy, which, as most are aware, has
| >only forced US illegal drug consumption way up.****
|
| The U$ "war on drugs" is an Orwellian fraud like its "war on terror", both
| internationally and domestically. Due to U$ intervention, Afghanistan
| now supplies 90% of the heroin world market, and the prices even in CH
| fell dramatically. The situation in NOLA arose out of the _opposite_
| of my approach, both in terms of prevention and enforcement.
$$$$Agree with the first part. But your approach, not yet clearly and
systematically outlined, has barely been touched upon. I do recall that from my
point of view it failed to get at the root cause of drug consumption, which is
usually going to be found in untoward domestic, social and environmental
upbringing. Usually years of psychological/sexual/physical abuse, as I tried so
hard to get through to you before, cannot be addressed by simple physical
answers. The problem lies in the mind that tells the body what to do.
|
|
| >| Are we kidding? Hint: Drug addicts can "afford" pretty expensive drugs
| >| on a daily basis, so they surely can "afford" a gun... If they're poor
| >| they simply mug the cash, and for mugging they already have a gun anyway...
| >| ****Negative. They can barely afford their next ten dollar hit. If they
| >had a gun, they would only pawn it for cash to buy drugs. A gun on the
| >street usually starts at $400-500 US. Addicts do not have that.
|
| Gun-less mugging? Interesting. Dubya could learn from this on the world
stage.
| $$$$Again, you're presuming the mugging is being done for drugs, or money for
drugs. Have you not heard of knives? How about simple physical presence,
numbers, or behavior inspiring fear? Muggings are often done out of boredome,
out of prejudice, because of poverty, etc.
|
| > Gang members are another story--weapons are provided for them.
|
| See. I thought there's hardly a mugger acting alone (he wouldn't survive
| for long), but I guess you know more about mugging than I ever will.
| $$$$Muggers act alone most often. Yeah, you really are out of the loop. And
your bear no mark of street smarts whatsoever.You could use a trip to Harlem,
or even the Village.
|
| >| The comparison is ridiculous, because people can be without food for days,
| >| and even starving people don't lose their marbles, but drug addicts without
| >| stuff get very crazy very quickly.
| >| ****If you've ever even cared for a kid for an afternoon, you can
| >experience first hand what deprivation of food can do to a child.
|
| Depends on diet -- a child accustomed to junkfood, deficient in vitamins
| and minerals, will indeed crave food soon after meals again. The simple
| sugars let blood sugar go thru the roof, leading to an insulin overreaction,
| leading to a feeling of hunger. Loads of fake sweeteners make it even worse.
| That's why U$ kids are obese and get "adult" diabetes at age 10. Also
| prime candidates for drug addictions of all sorts. Guess why I'm opposed
| to refined sugar & white flour too?
| $$$$Wrong again. All kids lose energy quickly, as do hard working adults. No
difference in a hungry well-nourished kid's reaction to hunger, nor an Organic
farmer. True that people's addiction to the mono's will result in elevated
crankiness, but hunger, thirst, and fatigue affect and effect in the same way.
And you've forgotten that the victims in N.O. were restricted to roof tops
without shade--24/7, to which they would have to physically adhere through
extreme drowsiness. No shelter for the night, or warmth. And putrid waters,
with scarry things constantly floating by. Addicts or not--too much to bear.
$$$$But again, you absolutely chose to ignore the high percentage of alcoholics
suffering from withdrawl, and all of the legally drugged people, including
diabetics, those with epilepsy, those placed on morphine to relieve pain,
etc.---many of whom would also be addicted to their guns.
|
| >| > It's not the drug addicts we worry about, because they are mostly only
| >| > harmful to themselves, it's the ones who are suit-psychos, addicted to
| >| > controlling the masses, who are the problem.
| >|
| >| The suit-psychos are druggies too, they just use more expensive drugs
| >| like cocaine, which make them even more psychopathic.
| >****Sure they are, but more of the suit psychos are drinkers/legal drug
| >users than anything else.
|
| "More"? You'll have a hard time finding one suit psycho who doesn't take
| cocaine or similar stuff. Even Keith Hudson admitted this fact.
| $$$$Nice to see you pay even a backhanded compliment to Keith, and I'm sure
he'll be impressed that in your defensiveness, you call on his remarks to help.
But you missed his point with respect to the widespread use of illegal drugs
in the upper classes. He didn't say they were all addicts, or users. He was
saying that inspite of the popularity of cocaine, users are not necessarily
dysfunctional as a result of taking it, and that they seem to put it aside when
required. The overall point made was that most people will not become addicted
to recreational drugs, only a small percentage--and particularly those of
disadvantaged and impoverished backgrounds.
|
| > And guess what
| >| makes "controlling the masses" easiest? Drugged masses.
| >****You still fail to acknowledge that alcohol is the legal drug of
| >choice, world round. None of your rants ever demonizes it. You have gone
| >so far as to say you don't partake, to the best of your knowledge, in any
| >addictive substances. But alcohol is the biggest addiction, and tolerated
| >because most people are addicted to aggression and enjoy the licence to
| >become legally even more aggressive.
|
| Then why is there a 0.5% limit on blood alcohol for motorists in Europe?
| ****Strawman!!!(Thanks for teaching me that one) Evasive!!!You never address
this one, Chris. The world's biggest addiction, and you selectively avoid it
like the plague. Totally ignoring its huge problems with respect to physical
demise, domestic abuse, murder, drunk driving, the cost to the economy, fetal
alcohol syndrome, to name but a few! And the crime around its black market--
|
| > The case against legalizing alcohol is far, far greater than for your
| >selective crucade.
|
| As you know, I'm against all drugs, so this accusation doesn't stick.
$$$$It sticks because you never, ever demonize it, and always avoid expounding
upon its evils--the world's number one addiction!!!
| Anyway, really strong alcoholics aren't a big quantitative problem
| in public because they can't drive and are usually institutionalized.
|
$$$$Wrong again. See above $$$$ for starters. There are thousands times more
real alcoholics out there than druggies, few are behind bars, and few adhere to
no drinking and driving rules. MADD could help you out with some stats.
Domestic violence is estimated to be up to 70% related to alcoholism.
|
| > All this just
| >| supports my anti-drug stance. In the long run, even the death penalty
| >| for drug dealers and total enforcement against them on all levels
| >| would kill MUCH less people than laisser-faire.
| >****But in the US they arrest mostly the soft drug users, who are carrying
| >very little on them, inspite of having penalties of lengthy sentences for
| >dealers in order to prosecute. The dealers have impressive lawyers, and
| >anyone making good money buys their way out. "O" tolerance is aimed at the
| >little guy, easy and inexpensive to catch, to make the police look like
| >heroes. But this method of law enforcement is no different when it applies
| >to Enron execs (a la ten year sentence only for its chief)
| >Commander-In-Chief at the White House, or any other white collar criminal
| >who affects people adversely. You just have to be white or rich in
| >America.****
|
| We agree that the U$ WoD is a fraud.
| $$$$Yes.
|
| > The preventive
| >| approach I outlined long ago would be even better than that.
| >| But nobody can seriously advocate drug use or even legalization and
| >| at the same time whine about "psychos controlling the masses".
| >
| >****Chris, you had some good ideas, but as I recall, forced diet change
| >for everyone world-wide, forced exercise,
|
| "Forced"?? Not more than McDeath and Big Pharma are "forcing" their junk
| down people's throats, anyway. Most people are forced to eat out, where
| they are forced to eat junk loaded with refined sugar, white flour, MSG,
| animal fats, etc., deprived of nutrients. The "forced" is in the
| junkfood junta -- I should know, I can't eat out because there simply
| is no healthy food available in restaurants.
$$$$ Sounds like you should start up an organic restaurant. I'm surprised that
you can't find one in progressive Switzerland. But the "forced" diet change to
which I was referring had to do with your insistance that people world-wide
switch to vegetarian diets. For example, the way you felt that a meatless,
fishless diet would be far better for the Inuit, who live in climates that can
only tolerate a high animal fat diet for survival. A vegetarian would freeze to
death in constant sub-zero conditions. The physiology of people varies
throughout the world because of climate, and the foods that are endemic are
what people need. Further, your plan was far fetched mostly because you were
not allowing for people's need to arrive at their own conclusions with respect
to nutrition. True, fast food chains are allowed to freely give their speal,
Monsanto to rule, but you can't take sugars and other foods out of the
cultures. We love our chocolate, our coffee and tea. Carob bars suck. !
I believe organic is the way to go, but these foods will persist, and
hopefully we'll return, once sanity surfaces, to organic foods world-wide.
|
| If the offers would be healthy, people would eat healthy
| without even noticing the difference (except in the outcomes!),
| starting in the cradle where they get used to sugar addiction today.
|
| The same goes for exercise -- the offers affect the choices,
| and habits are formed in early development. It's not really fun
| to be a couch potato (like it's no fun to be a drug addict).
$$$$Again, physical answers to problems arising in the mind will never be a
solution.
|
|
| > Given that alcohol is the way way bigger problem, should your
| > methodology not be relevant to it as well?
|
| It is. The biochemical pathways of addiction are pretty similar for the
| various addictions.
$$$$Wrong. And evasive. What's the big, comprehensive plan to eradicate
alcohol, Chris? It's a rather different scenario. And at what point does it
address the root cause of addiction, being psycological--for it is you who
gives that bottle of liquid its meaning and power over you.Without you, it is
just a bottle with liquid in it.
|
|
| $$$$ How would that work? Who would you arrest and put to death immediately?
| > Would all consumers be thrown in jail or treatment programs? Who would
| > be left to enforce these edicts? How would you control the addicted
| > masses--also addicted to the right to bear arms? ****$$$$
|
| This part would only be a temporary problem anyway, until the present crop
| of alcoholics has died off naturally. Once the trade is outlawed, the
| few remaining alcohol dealers can easily be caught with today's technology.
| Note that alcohol trade is much more bulky than cocaine trade.
| Given good treatment programs, consumers would have no incentive to choose
| illegality, this also goes for taking up arms for a drink. Enforcement by
| young ("dry") police, with the resources freed by the loads of today's
| alcohol-related crime and accidents.
| $$$$Dreamer! Again, you can't take away what is part of the culture. People
enjoy their wine, have built fond memories around it, cement relationships
around it. It's part of festivity, and its a big chunk of legal and illegal
economy. My point was, who, amongst the alcoholic, or even merely social
drinkers, would not be in jail or in treatment programs, to support the
infrastructure, to perform dentistry and veterinary and medical operations? How
about police? How about the newspaper delivery person, or the waiter, or the
banker or the air traffic controller or the pilot, the transport driver, etc.?
$$$$Hey, Big Brother, may be you can control religion and spirituality
electronically too. Those are mind destroying, right? What you propose, in too
many ways, is simply another form of fascism. Well intended, but oppressive
nonetheless.
$$$$$$Natalia$$$$$$
| 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
