Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!hao!noao!hsi!licsak From: licsak@hsi.UUCP (Don Licsak) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: A new call for ignorance Message-ID: <424@hsi.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Sep-86 15:23:01 EDT Article-I.D.: hsi.424 Posted: Sat Sep 20 15:23:01 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 21:35:51 EDT References: <5360@decwrl.DEC.COM> Organization: Health Systems Int., New Haven, CT. Lines: 150 > Last night, the Reagans called for a new wave of ignorance. Past attempts > at propaganda have only hurt the government's credibility. The appeal was > to the American tradition, one that supposedly makes america strong. > The government actually wants economic and military superiority to > enforce the propliferation of capitalism in a "free" world. The Reagan > administration has "traditionally" shown little or no concern for the > human conditions in foriegn policy. Most decisions are based on economics. > > Is this a conspiracy? No, I don't think so. I think it is another example > of the type of naive realism it takes to make a good salesman. The Reagans > did not mention any comparitive statistics. The Reagans did not mention > any accurate information. The Reagans were interested only in persuading > the American public to join their pet crusade, A crusade that remains > to this day unjustified. > > What happened to the glorification of the brave risk takers? Remember the > challanger? Remember the Brave astronauts who boldly sacrificed their > lifes in the exploration of the new frontier? Know what happened? The whole > thing got absolutely canned. > > Some people do not know how to handle drugs. Any thing by itself is neither > good nor bad. Reagan would like to see the technology that is created to > be used for the military and propaganda machines. He has dropped the > space program. He threatens communication with Russia. Does he know that > communicative technology will render government as we know it obsolete? > > I don't think so. I think Reagan suffers from a naive realism that distorts > his perspectives to the point of absolute clarity. This clarity is a > symptom of psychosis. His rhetoric his effective because it is primarily > unconscious. This is further proved by his unwillingness to yield, or > even consider, fact. > > 1) The number of drug related deaths is low. ( @500/yr. ) > > 2) Most of the problem is financial, due to the demand without supply. > The black market charges ridiculous prices. > > 3) Most of the dangers are the impurities, which can not be adequately > controlled in the underground environment. > > 4) The loss of productivity is minimal, and is insignificant when compared > to other reasons for loss of production ( like mistrust ). > > I say drugs should be legalized because: > \ > 1) The price will drop. The black market will decline, along with the > type of crime surrounding it. > > 2) The quality of drugs will increase. Toxins can be monitored. > > 3) Accurate information can be collected and analyzed. People will be able > to form their own opinions concerning drugs based on accurate information. > > 4) The civil rights of the american public will not be abused. There is > a necessary variance for the survival of a species. The government seems > to want to clone idealisms. > > I resent the tax dollars I pay to have the government protect > me from myself. I would say that a large number of people have at least > tried drugs. I think it is safe to say that these people have not been > seriously afflicted. Many of our past presidents have taken drugs. > Teddy Roosevelt and Ullyses Grant took cocaine. What about Tradition? > > Contrary to Reagan's belief, the problem with the american economy is > not drug related. The problem with the american economy is due to > artificial inflation driven by speculation. It is the natural consequence > when people exploit the system of government. It is estimated that 8% > of the american population control 90% of the wealth. We are rapidly > approaching the extremes that lead to the french revolution. > > And all Reagan can think about is Drugs? I think Reagan suffers from > an equal but opposite addiction. Maybe he's just trying to cover up > the increased funds he wants to put into the black hole defence > budget. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to let this maniac > bring me to my knees. I've got too much love and pride, not necessarily > as an american, but as a human being, to shut up. > > John Williams > decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams > > PS. I do not currently use drugs. > PPS. These are my views, not my employer's. It's evident that you have an axe to grind, John. But, don't let your opinion of Reagan and his foreign and economic policies cloud a social issue that is close to becoming beyond control. I felt the Reagan's speeches made the answer sound too simplistic. Throw enough money around and "poof," the drug problem will go away. Those who have any real knowledge of the drug problem know this is naive thinking. The idea that the 500 drug related deaths each year is a low figure is rather a cold way to prove a point. Most of the dangers are NOT because of impurities. The biggest danger is in becoming addicted. Non-addicts have no problem with impurities. They just don't take the stuff! Loss of productivity is far from minimal. An estimated 4-5 BILLION dollars is lost to business and industry each year due to illegal drug use. That's a figure that's hard to believe, but even if the true figure is half that amount, it's easy to see how our economy is hurt by it. I felt for some time as you did, that legalizing drug use would solve much of the problem. I realize now it wouldn't do much good. At what age would it be legal to buy and use drugs? Twenty-one? What about the twelve year old who wants to experiment? The pusher in the school yard couldn't care less if the kid is underage. Legalization would mean strict production standards, but it won't mean an end to illegal use. As long as there is an addict around there will be a pusher. Addiction is the point, not illegal use. Without addicts who would the pushers sell to? Addiction leads to illegal use. You stated that some people don't know how to handle drugs. Well, in all my experience as a volunteer alcohol and drug counselor I've yet to meet anyone who has consciously set out to become an alcoholic or drug addict. You don't handle drugs, they handle you. BTW, alcohol is as much of a drug as crack, heroin, or any designer drug is. You speak of your freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. You are responsible for conducting yourself in a manner condusive to the good of your society. What kind of society would we have with who knows what percentage of the population is walking around stoned? It's bad enough now. I couldn't begin to imagine what it would be like if you were able to purchase drugs that are now strictly controlled over the counter. Ever try to talk to someone on Thorazine? It's like talking to a zombie. What I fear about the current crackdown is that it could turn into a witch hunt and a lot of innocent people may get hurt. I'm sorry that the Reagans appealed to everyones patriotism and emotions instead of stating that a serious problem exists and steps have to be taken to solve it. There was no need to wave the flag and allude to a threat to "mom's apple pie." -- Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak Health Systems International New Haven, CT 06511 "For Peace Of Mind, Resign As General Manager Of The Universe"