Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pyramid!amdcad!amdahl!ihnp4!gargoyle!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: What People Try To Justify
Summary: Now, Bill :-)
Message-ID: <539@ddsw1.UUCP>
Date: 3 Feb 88 15:47:15 GMT
References: <1899@optilink.UUCP> <518@ddsw1.UUCP> <382@igloo.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer's funny farm
Lines: 60

In article <382@igloo.UUCP> learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) writes:
>In article <518@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
[My comment leading up to this was deleted, which was a response to a
 person who had claimed that shooting herion kills via AIDS (which it does),
 and was putting forth the big 'why' question]

>> Try because needles aren't sold
>> over the counter (if they were .25/each, disposable, people might be
>> inclined to take the precaution of using a *new* needle). 
>
>A kin of the Smothers Brothers view of responsibility. Wearing a condom
>at all times as a responsible act. Using a sterile needle to do heroin
>is a responsible act.

No, it's not, nor do I see above anything which makes that statement.  But
you're not likely to die from it.  In fact, there is little (if any)
evidence that herion *by itself* does any horrible things to the body
(ignoring the withdrawal effect when you quit; assume infinite and available
supply as needed).  Many people a hundred years ago or so were addicted to
opiates, and they managed to function in society just fine.

However, one good stab with a needle full of AIDS-infected blood and you
might catch the disease and die (if you do catch it, it seems you're
destined to die with things as we know them today)

Why not separate the two risks?  The actual use of heroin is dangerous
(primarially because it's illegal, and uncontrolled, and who knows what's in
the package you buy).  The risk of AIDS is not something that derives from
the use of the drug; it's a risk which derives from the user's lack of
available materials to "safely" inject his/herself.

I won't try to argue to morals/lack thereof in a person who shoots heroin or
anything else.  The point is that the risk of *death* by infectious disease
should, if possible, be eliminated.  Since the only way to do this (being
realistic, drugs aren't going to disappear tomorrow!) is to make the needles
available to addicts, then I believe it is in the best interests of society
to make them available.

Of course, if you think that all addicts deserve to die, then there's no
need to be compassionate and reduce the risks ;-)

>I propose a new law. All firearms are to double fire. The first discharge
>shall emit and alcohol impregnated cotton swab, designed to disinfect
>the region the bullet will penetrate within the next few instants. Assures
>a sterile death, just like a new needle....your mileage may vary.

I won't even comment here; this is rediculous.  Show me evidence that the
*use of the drug itself* is dangerous.

>> (This is alt.flame, after all... :-)

Yep.. ;-)

>Bill Vajk                                              learn@igloo

-----

Karl Denninger		       |  Data: +1 312 566-8912
...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl	       | "I deny it all.  I never said that."