Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!uunet!husc6!ncsuvx!mcnc!rutgers!princeton!phoenix!ahwatson From: ahwatson@phoenix.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: More misinformation about pot Message-ID: <1005@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: Sat, 24-Oct-87 07:52:25 EST Article-I.D.: phoenix.1005 Posted: Sat Oct 24 07:52:25 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 26-Oct-87 06:45:13 EST References: <2015@gryphon.CTS.COM> <7627@ism780c.UUCP> Reply-To: ahwatson@phoenix.UUCP (Arthur H. Watson) Distribution: na Organization: Princeton Univ. Computing and Information Technology Lines: 121 Keywords: Almost serious, though not when it would disturb the flow Summary: Vicious flame (Sorry, Michael, but some articles just cry out to be written at 6:30 am :-) In article <7627@ism780c.UUCP> mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) writes: >>In article <1072@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: [Some classic wisdom which has already been flamed up and down] >In article <2015@gryphon> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>Brilliant. You can indeed legally sell buy pot if you have the tax stamp. >>But you can't get the tax stamp. > >Ah, but, when I was living in Arizona, I heard you could buy a tax >stamp for pot. I heard this in high school about 4 years ago. Well, that settles it for me! Please followup posting the name of your home town. I for one will immediately send away to your School Committe for the stamp. >the time, I wanted to go and buy one for a souvineer. I didn't >do drugs and so the obvious harmful effect of buying the stamp >(being watched closely) wouldn't affect me. However, after more >thought, I decided that buying a stamp would probably affect all >future chances of getting a security clearance. You idiot! Having a security clearance is A Bad Thing. If you have a security clearance, people might think you know something useful and torture you for it. Your own bosses might hose you down on the suspicion that you told someone something, or didn't. If that stamp will prevent me from being mistaken for Ol-- but wait! That's it, you want to get on TV and call the Senate a bunch of jerks, right! Well why don't you just write to David Letterman and explain? I'm sure he'd love your story and would let you on his show as a guest. (Is his show still on the air? Shit, you're so screwed up I don't know what year it is, just from responding to your article! If indeed Dave has moved on, you could try Those Amazing Animals). >Richard Sexton mentions (later on in the article) that educated >choices are what is needed. True. I didn't do drugs because of >a personal commitement to my parents. Oh, I've tried pot and >used it regularly in the first quarter of my senior year in H.S., >but I decided to quit because I didn't need it (and there was >that worry about a security clearance). Yo! NSA! This guy used drugs regularly as a sub-undergrad! DON'T give him a security clearance; his brain was permanently warped. ("Thank you Arthur" "You're welcome Michael"). >I don't hold it against people if they do what they want as long >as it remains a "victimless crime." A lot of people will rant and >rave (just as I did until a little while ago) that drugs are >not a victimless crime. I guess it all depends on how deep you >want to carry an argument. Using the same reasoning, you could >almost name any action as a crime having a victim. You can name any *inaction* as a crime having a victim too. You see, since we all are God, any suffering in the world is OUR FAULT, because we aren't preventing it. Thus we must, for instance, take drugs away from people, because drugs are bad for them. Yup, that position is only slightly more stupid. >But, unlike most "let anyone smoke or shoot what they want" type >people, I do beleive there is a difference between certain substances. Like piss is liquid, while shit is solid. But no, diarrhea is liquid, and it is certainly shit. Sorry, you're wrong. All substances are the same. >I guess "survival of the fittest" would weed out those too stupid >to realize that PCP (and other major biggie killers) are bad news. That's right! Those people too stupid to lock themselves in a concrete bunker when people near them are users of PCP (and other major biggie killers) are far too stupid to live. So by your reasoning, (dangerous) drugs are a good thing, because they help improve the gene pool. (Except of course drugs which cause genetic damage. Well we'll ignore those, because they don't agree with us). But a quick digression to victimless/victimmore crimes -- you should also try to kill everyone you meet, because that certainly improves the gene pool too. Even more so if they kill YOU in self-defense. Good. You see, lots of people use stupid arguments to show that we can't do anything right (and thus must give lots of money to the Theocrats), not realizing that the same arguments *really* show that we can't do anything wrong. It just takes one little contradiction, and POOF! Everything becomes true. >-MikeP The essense of most "doing drugs is not a victimless crime" arguments: ARGUMENT: Doing drugs tends to make people more irresponsible, and thus likely to harm others. Since people are aware of this, to do drugs is ethically equivalent (in a statistical sense) to harming others. Unlike driving an automobile, doing drugs can combine with lots of other activities to create harm, so it is worse. I offer the following two phases of enlightenment thereupon: Phase 1: (A counterargument such as might find favor on the Lunatic Fringe) People are by nature irresponsible. Thus doing drugs brings us closer to our true nature. Thus the only people who would call it a crime are those people who believe that people are basically bad. Guess who they are? Yes, you can hear them on TV warning about the evils of Secular Humanism (a doctrine which believes people are basically OK). They are THE THEOCRACY. Do drugs. Vote. Phase 2: (An interesting fact) The same ARGUMENT was once quite popular (and may still be in some places) with the phrase "doing drugs" replaced by "reading books", or even "thinking". I don't suppose you'd care to guess who said it then? Hmmm? Well, actually it's not just the Theocracy, it's all sorts of repressive -ocracies. The people who want to hose us. Perhaps some of our readership is annoyed that I tacked some serious philosophy at the end of a perfectly good flame. If you are one of them, consider yourself flamed. Yes, you understand now. Good. Now something which genuinely has nothing whatsoever to do with anything: Exercise: What's wrong with the following statement? In the wake of the stock crash, everyone should sell stock to eachother, all taking a loss this year, paying no taxes. Then the government will go broke and we'll be a free country. (If you didn't get it right away, consider yourself flamed). -- -Arthur Watson "I don't want to rule the world"