Re: [Fwd: Psychometric Instruments Help Measure AA Process...

April 17, 2001

Drug laws kill

April 17, 2001

Drug laws kill

April 17, 2001

Drug laws kill

April 17, 2001

Drug laws kill

Literally.

--Mona--

April 17, 2001

Mona and Neil - as my soc teacher is fond of saying...EXAMPLES

Far, far and away more people are killed by drug-dealer turf wars than by drug use. Give me some time and I'll locate the article quoting the New York City police official who stated this. He's not alone, and a few years back one Randy Barnette, a former prosecutor, wrote an article documenting the same thing. Unfortunately, the book I owned containing that article was destroyed in a basement flood.

But I can find other sources, and would actually like to. In the meantime, consider the last time you heard tell of beverage alcohol merchants killing each other and/or innocent bystanders. It was called Prohibition, and it made the Mafia the powerful entity that it became. Prohibition was repealed, and thus now when your local liquor merchants have a dispute with a supplier, they settle it in court, rather than with machine guns.

Also, heroin users frequently die from polluted product. Dealers put all manner of shit in the smack they sell, from flour, to bleach, to glue. That stuff don't belong in the human body, but there is no way to regulate the black market, and really no way to sue black marketeers. Taking the example of alcohol Prohibition again, during that era the term "blind drunk" came into being because of purveyors of wood grain alcohol, which causes blindness. It even killed hundreds.

If Seagrams sold you booze that blinded you, you could sue them and reap BIG BUCKS. Thus, Seagrams has a large incentive to sell you unpolluted booze.

I'll see if I can track down documentation of that, as well.

--Mona--

April 17, 2001

> In a message dated 4/15/01 5:19:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> > When I was filling out the financial aid

> > papers for school there were some questions on there regarding

> > possession convictions. If you have one, you aren't eligible for

> > financial aid unless you go to " treatment. "

>

> What is so truly outrageous, not to mention moronic, about that is

most who

> use illicit drugs are not addicts. They don't need " treatment " any

more than

> did my Grandpa when he made " bathtub beer " during beverage alcohol

> Prohibition.

I agree. I'm also finding in the reading and schoolwork that I've

been doing that the more people have the means to participate in

" legitimate " society the more able they are to resist

drinking/ drugging. Policies such as no financial aid for possession

tend to marginalize people even more and cut off access to legitimate

means, higher education being an extremely important one. This policy

strikes me as being completely counterproductive.

>

> I will never take another drink of alcohol again. For me to use

booze has

> invariably been to abuse it. But I only dabbled in the illicit

stuff, and

> have never remotely been addicted to any of it. The only " fear " I

have of

> those chemicals are the immoral drug prohibition laws, and the

possibility

> that other mood-altering substances could be a drinking trigger.

But if I

> did use them, no way in hell would I require treatment.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

They are immoral. Alcohol is *just* as addicting and *just* as

" dangerous " as almost any other drug (much more so than some) and the

double standard that is set up in the laws is *very* bad.

Don't even get me started on the " treatment " scam!

PS: Welcome to the list.

April 17, 2001

> In a message dated 4/15/01 5:19:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> > When I was filling out the financial aid

> > papers for school there were some questions on there regarding

> > possession convictions. If you have one, you aren't eligible for

> > financial aid unless you go to " treatment. "

>

> What is so truly outrageous, not to mention moronic, about that is

most who

> use illicit drugs are not addicts. They don't need " treatment " any

more than

> did my Grandpa when he made " bathtub beer " during beverage alcohol

> Prohibition.

I agree. I'm also finding in the reading and schoolwork that I've

been doing that the more people have the means to participate in

" legitimate " society the more able they are to resist

drinking/ drugging. Policies such as no financial aid for possession

tend to marginalize people even more and cut off access to legitimate

means, higher education being an extremely important one. This policy

strikes me as being completely counterproductive.

>

> I will never take another drink of alcohol again. For me to use

booze has

> invariably been to abuse it. But I only dabbled in the illicit

stuff, and

> have never remotely been addicted to any of it. The only " fear " I

have of

> those chemicals are the immoral drug prohibition laws, and the

possibility

> that other mood-altering substances could be a drinking trigger.

But if I

> did use them, no way in hell would I require treatment.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

They are immoral. Alcohol is *just* as addicting and *just* as

" dangerous " as almost any other drug (much more so than some) and the

double standard that is set up in the laws is *very* bad.

Don't even get me started on the " treatment " scam!

PS: Welcome to the list.

April 17, 2001

> In a message dated 4/15/01 5:19:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> > When I was filling out the financial aid

> > papers for school there were some questions on there regarding

> > possession convictions. If you have one, you aren't eligible for

> > financial aid unless you go to " treatment. "

>

> What is so truly outrageous, not to mention moronic, about that is

most who

> use illicit drugs are not addicts. They don't need " treatment " any

more than

> did my Grandpa when he made " bathtub beer " during beverage alcohol

> Prohibition.

I agree. I'm also finding in the reading and schoolwork that I've

been doing that the more people have the means to participate in

" legitimate " society the more able they are to resist

drinking/ drugging. Policies such as no financial aid for possession

tend to marginalize people even more and cut off access to legitimate

means, higher education being an extremely important one. This policy

strikes me as being completely counterproductive.

>

> I will never take another drink of alcohol again. For me to use

booze has

> invariably been to abuse it. But I only dabbled in the illicit

stuff, and

> have never remotely been addicted to any of it. The only " fear " I

have of

> those chemicals are the immoral drug prohibition laws, and the

possibility

> that other mood-altering substances could be a drinking trigger.

But if I

> did use them, no way in hell would I require treatment.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

They are immoral. Alcohol is *just* as addicting and *just* as

" dangerous " as almost any other drug (much more so than some) and the

double standard that is set up in the laws is *very* bad.

Don't even get me started on the " treatment " scam!

PS: Welcome to the list.

April 17, 2001

>

> I agree. I'm also finding in the reading and schoolwork that I've

> been doing that the more people have the means to participate in

> " legitimate " society the more able they are to resist

> drinking/ drugging. Policies such as no financial aid for

possession

> tend to marginalize people even more and cut off access to

legitimate

> means, higher education being an extremely important one.

Good point. The treatment industry is pushing very dubious

statistics to argue that criminals need " treatment " in jail and upon

release to be rehabilitated as law-abiding citizens. I think that

the lack of job skills and job opportunities is probably much, much

more important.

April 17, 2001

>

> I agree. I'm also finding in the reading and schoolwork that I've

> been doing that the more people have the means to participate in

> " legitimate " society the more able they are to resist

> drinking/ drugging. Policies such as no financial aid for

possession

> tend to marginalize people even more and cut off access to

legitimate

> means, higher education being an extremely important one.

Good point. The treatment industry is pushing very dubious

statistics to argue that criminals need " treatment " in jail and upon

release to be rehabilitated as law-abiding citizens. I think that

the lack of job skills and job opportunities is probably much, much

more important.

April 17, 2001

>

> I agree. I'm also finding in the reading and schoolwork that I've

> been doing that the more people have the means to participate in

> " legitimate " society the more able they are to resist

> drinking/ drugging. Policies such as no financial aid for

possession

> tend to marginalize people even more and cut off access to

legitimate

> means, higher education being an extremely important one.

Good point. The treatment industry is pushing very dubious

statistics to argue that criminals need " treatment " in jail and upon

release to be rehabilitated as law-abiding citizens. I think that

the lack of job skills and job opportunities is probably much, much

more important.

April 17, 2001

> In a message dated 4/17/01 8:54:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> neilsthedude@a... writes:

>

> > Drug laws kill

> >

> Literally.

>

> --Mona--

Mona and Neil - as my soc teacher is fond of saying...EXAMPLES!

April 17, 2001

> In a message dated 4/17/01 8:54:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> neilsthedude@a... writes:

>

> > Drug laws kill

> >

> Literally.

>

> --Mona--

Mona and Neil - as my soc teacher is fond of saying...EXAMPLES!

April 18, 2001

Hey Mona

In addition, prohibition tends to encourage the use of more powerful

variants of a drug, bath-tub gin, crack, etc that can be more easily

hidden that are both more dangerous and more addictive. A legal

market is far easier to control, and can produce tax revenue too.

P.

> In a message dated 4/17/01 10:52:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> >

>

> Far, far and away more people are killed by drug-dealer turf wars

than by

> drug use. Give me some time and I'll locate the article quoting the

New York

> City police official who stated this. He's not alone, and a few

years back

> one Randy Barnette, a former prosecutor, wrote an article

documenting the

> same thing. Unfortunately, the book I owned containing that article

was

> destroyed in a basement flood.

>

> But I can find other sources, and would actually like to. In the

meantime,

> consider the last time you heard tell of beverage alcohol merchants

killing

> each other and/or innocent bystanders. It was called Prohibition,

and it

> made the Mafia the powerful entity that it became. Prohibition was

repealed,

> and thus now when your local liquor merchants have a dispute with a

supplier,

> they settle it in court, rather than with machine guns.

>

> Also, heroin users frequently die from polluted product. Dealers

put all

> manner of shit in the smack they sell, from flour, to bleach, to

glue. That

> stuff don't belong in the human body, but there is no way to

regulate the

> black market, and really no way to sue black marketeers. Taking the

example

> of alcohol Prohibition again, during that era the term " blind drunk "

came

> into being because of purveyors of wood grain alcohol, which causes

> blindness. It even killed hundreds.

>

> If Seagrams sold you booze that blinded you, you could sue them and

reap BIG

> BUCKS. Thus, Seagrams has a large incentive to sell you unpolluted

booze.

>

> I'll see if I can track down documentation of that, as well.

>

> --Mona--

April 18, 2001

Hey Mona

In addition, prohibition tends to encourage the use of more powerful

variants of a drug, bath-tub gin, crack, etc that can be more easily

hidden that are both more dangerous and more addictive. A legal

market is far easier to control, and can produce tax revenue too.

P.

> In a message dated 4/17/01 10:52:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> >

>

> Far, far and away more people are killed by drug-dealer turf wars

than by

> drug use. Give me some time and I'll locate the article quoting the

New York

> City police official who stated this. He's not alone, and a few

years back

> one Randy Barnette, a former prosecutor, wrote an article

documenting the

> same thing. Unfortunately, the book I owned containing that article

was

> destroyed in a basement flood.

>

> But I can find other sources, and would actually like to. In the

meantime,

> consider the last time you heard tell of beverage alcohol merchants

killing

> each other and/or innocent bystanders. It was called Prohibition,

and it

> made the Mafia the powerful entity that it became. Prohibition was

repealed,

> and thus now when your local liquor merchants have a dispute with a

supplier,

> they settle it in court, rather than with machine guns.

>

> Also, heroin users frequently die from polluted product. Dealers

put all

> manner of shit in the smack they sell, from flour, to bleach, to

glue. That

> stuff don't belong in the human body, but there is no way to

regulate the

> black market, and really no way to sue black marketeers. Taking the

example

> of alcohol Prohibition again, during that era the term " blind drunk "

came

> into being because of purveyors of wood grain alcohol, which causes

> blindness. It even killed hundreds.

>

> If Seagrams sold you booze that blinded you, you could sue them and

reap BIG

> BUCKS. Thus, Seagrams has a large incentive to sell you unpolluted

booze.

>

> I'll see if I can track down documentation of that, as well.

>

> --Mona--

April 18, 2001

Hey Mona

In addition, prohibition tends to encourage the use of more powerful

variants of a drug, bath-tub gin, crack, etc that can be more easily

hidden that are both more dangerous and more addictive. A legal

market is far easier to control, and can produce tax revenue too.

P.

> In a message dated 4/17/01 10:52:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> >

>

> Far, far and away more people are killed by drug-dealer turf wars

than by

> drug use. Give me some time and I'll locate the article quoting the

New York

> City police official who stated this. He's not alone, and a few

years back

> one Randy Barnette, a former prosecutor, wrote an article

documenting the

> same thing. Unfortunately, the book I owned containing that article

was

> destroyed in a basement flood.

>

> But I can find other sources, and would actually like to. In the

meantime,

> consider the last time you heard tell of beverage alcohol merchants

killing

> each other and/or innocent bystanders. It was called Prohibition,

and it

> made the Mafia the powerful entity that it became. Prohibition was

repealed,

> and thus now when your local liquor merchants have a dispute with a

supplier,

> they settle it in court, rather than with machine guns.

>

> Also, heroin users frequently die from polluted product. Dealers

put all

> manner of shit in the smack they sell, from flour, to bleach, to

glue. That

> stuff don't belong in the human body, but there is no way to

regulate the

> black market, and really no way to sue black marketeers. Taking the

example

> of alcohol Prohibition again, during that era the term " blind drunk "

came

> into being because of purveyors of wood grain alcohol, which causes

> blindness. It even killed hundreds.

>

> If Seagrams sold you booze that blinded you, you could sue them and

reap BIG

> BUCKS. Thus, Seagrams has a large incentive to sell you unpolluted

booze.

>

> I'll see if I can track down documentation of that, as well.

>

> --Mona--

April 18, 2001

( Mc

If it's the same guy, he wrote a great book called "Ain't Nobody's Business if I Do," which examines everything from the idiocy of drug prohibition to sodomy laws. I know he was ill and had heard he died. The DEA busted into his home and took his computer and all of his disks, because they knew he was writing a book critical of drug laws. Great fellows, those DEA folks.

--Mona--

April 18, 2001

( Mc

If it's the same guy, he wrote a great book called "Ain't Nobody's Business if I Do," which examines everything from the idiocy of drug prohibition to sodomy laws. I know he was ill and had heard he died. The DEA busted into his home and took his computer and all of his disks, because they knew he was writing a book critical of drug laws. Great fellows, those DEA folks.

--Mona--

April 18, 2001

( Mc

If it's the same guy, he wrote a great book called "Ain't Nobody's Business if I Do," which examines everything from the idiocy of drug prohibition to sodomy laws. I know he was ill and had heard he died. The DEA busted into his home and took his computer and all of his disks, because they knew he was writing a book critical of drug laws. Great fellows, those DEA folks.

--Mona--

April 18, 2001

> In a message dated 4/17/01 10:52:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> >

>

> Far, far and away more people are killed by drug-dealer turf wars

than by

> drug use. Give me some time and I'll locate the article quoting the

New York

> City police official who stated this. He's not alone, and a few

years back

> one Randy Barnette, a former prosecutor, wrote an article

documenting the

> same thing. Unfortunately, the book I owned containing that article

was

> destroyed in a basement flood.

>

> But I can find other sources, and would actually like to. In the

meantime,

> consider the last time you heard tell of beverage alcohol merchants

killing

> each other and/or innocent bystanders. It was called Prohibition,

and it

> made the Mafia the powerful entity that it became. Prohibition was

repealed,

> and thus now when your local liquor merchants have a dispute with a

supplier,

> they settle it in court, rather than with machine guns.

>

> Also, heroin users frequently die from polluted product. Dealers

put all

> manner of shit in the smack they sell, from flour, to bleach, to

glue. That

> stuff don't belong in the human body, but there is no way to

regulate the

> black market, and really no way to sue black marketeers. Taking the

example

> of alcohol Prohibition again, during that era the term " blind drunk "

came

> into being because of purveyors of wood grain alcohol, which causes

> blindness. It even killed hundreds.

>

> If Seagrams sold you booze that blinded you, you could sue them and

reap BIG

> BUCKS. Thus, Seagrams has a large incentive to sell you unpolluted

booze.

>

> I'll see if I can track down documentation of that, as well.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

I think you are right about this. What I keep failing to understand

is why the " state " doesn't see the value of regulating and selling the

substances. It seems to me that there would be a huge amount of money

to be made and usually the state has no problem with that type of

deal. But even needle exchanges and other harm reduction techniques

have a precarious existence. I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol use

is so accepted.

I am interested in this topic and would appreciate any information you

have regarding this. I'll see what I can find as well. Earlier I

posted about a woman I used to work with. Briefly, her husband and a

friend of theirs were caught with some marijuana and I don't know the

amounts. The state came down really hard on them because the friend

was a police officer. My aquaintance was not involved but failed to

turn her husband in and faced felony drug charges as a result. She

has 2 little kids and in her case she was barred from participating in

school activities with her son. Counterproductive, harmful, moronic.

This is a subject aht

April 18, 2001