Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!grunwald
From: grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Free Drugs - (nf)
Message-ID: <2968@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Sep-83 22:31:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2968
Posted: Fri Sep 23 22:31:30 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Sep-83 21:25:41 EDT
Lines: 44

#N:uiuccsb:7600022:000:2141
uiuccsb!grunwald    Sep 23 12:33:00 1983

Why it's certainly nothing new to flame about, it's still a worthwhile topic:

This country spends millions of dollars a year on guns, for sport and alleged
"protection" (from property loss, usually)
   This country also spends millions of dollars a year in drug research, once
again for sport and "protection" (from death, usually).

I think it's time we bind these two time-honored pursuits into one. No, I don't
mean getting drunk and shooting up stop signs in the rural sections of wherever
your live. That's right -- I'm talking about drug guns.

    Our country has the best pharmaeceutical and projectile technicians in the
world. Why can't they develop a "gun" which can drop a man in his tracks and
yet not kill him? 

    We constantly hear about the new technology which puts laser guns sights on
the St. Louis police assult rifle, the "dum-dum" shells, etc. But it has come
time for us to admit that fire-arms are basically a "low-tech" item, and thus
in this day of "high-tech" wizardry, definitly passe. The mess and fuss of
cleaing up the blood after a shoot out is going to have to be done away with
in the future.

    So why doesn't someone develop a quick-acting tranquilizer (i.e. takes
affect within .5 to 1 seconds) and then a humane and realiable method of
application (i.e. make it into a crystal and then "inject" it with a gun of
some sort). While I'm certain it'd have some drawbacks, it might be better
for the purposes of "protection" than the hand-gun. People would not need to be
quite so restrained in their use, because after-all, you could apply an
antidote, say "I'm sorry, I thought you were Charles Manson", buy your
victim a beer and everythings hunky.

    Obviously, there will still be guns for war and sport, but does the
average joe on the street need something to kill another man? I should
think not. Drugging the guy to the point of a coma sounds much more appealing
to me. And if you really want to kill him, you could beat him with a stick
or something after he passes out.

Spoken	: Dirk Grunwald
	  University of Illinois
USENET	: ihnp4 ! uiucdcs ! grunwald
CSNET	: grunwald.uiuc@Rand-Relay