Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!pyramid!decwrl!amdcad!csanders From: csanders@amdcad.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.med Subject: Re: Re: Drug Abuse - True Problem or Media Hype? Message-ID: <13124@amdcad.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 21:06:49 EDT Article-I.D.: amdcad.13124 Posted: Tue Sep 23 21:06:49 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 00:24:29 EDT References: <720@scc.UUCP> <981@whuts.UUCP> <20811@rochester.ARPA> <13081@amdcad.UUCP> <1568@mtx5a.UUCP> Reply-To: csanders@amdcad.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California Lines: 71 Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:303 net.med:4664 In article <1568@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> . . . . I'm all for using the military in this war on drugs. >> >What better use of our soldiers than to protect the welfare of our young >> >people here at home. >> >> Doesn't the military have enough to do already? Wouldn't it be better >> to spend some money on the DEA or the Coast Guard? After all, those >> two organizations are responsible for keeping imported drugs out of >> the U.S.. ... > >The coast guard is already involved. Trouble is, they've been shot at with >anti-ship missiles and large-caliber machine guns in some cases, and they >haven't got the radars that can get a small, light plane skimming the >surface in the ``ground clutter''. The Navy *has* got these radars, and they >are equipped to deal with Soviet (and other) missiles that can be purchased >by smugglers with enough cash. The Coast Guard can deal with ships that have machine guns (their frigates have 5 in. guns). I have not heard of smugglers attacking the Coast Guard with anti-ship missiles. Please give references. The Navy and the Air Force already lend some support to the Coast Guard and the DEA by giving them information about ship and aircraft traffic. The House bill would give the military a more active role in hunting down smugglers, and would allow the military to actually make arrests. It is kind of strange that the President has declared a "War on Drugs", but doesn't want to spend much more money on the problem? 1) He want to use the military to crack down on smugglers, since the money is already allocated in the DoD budget. 2) His drive for drug-free schools and workplaces is laudable, but it puts the burden for fighting drugs on employers and the schools. 3) I read in the newspaper that he has cut funds over the last few years for drug rehabilitation. >> Get rid of the demand, and there won't >> be a drug problem. I realize that this is a difficult task, but people's >> attitudes can change. Just look how much the attitude towards racial >> discrimination has changed in the past 100 years or so. > >Great idea, but in the mean time, why not make the junk less available? Good idea, but law enforcement hasn't had much luck stemming the tide of drugs flowing in.... >How do you show someone what it's like to be so hard up for a fix that >you'll kill your parents, steal, so bent out of shape that you don't care >about anything but that next fix? Well, you could have someone who's been there talk to people about it. In high school I got the obligatory anti-drug lectures, but they didn't seem to have much impact on me or anyone else. But when our college dorm invited a former alcoholic and drug addict who got kicked out of Cal largely because of his substance abuse, it really hit close to home with some of the students there. Telling a teen-ager "Don't do drugs" without showing him/her the consequences of drug abuse is often futile because of the sometimes intense peer pressure to take drugs. > from Mole End Mark Terribile -- Craig Anderson Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-3007 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!csanders #include