-Caveat Lector-
>While crime is a different thing than stupid, stupid people commit
more crimes.
Stupid criminals get caught more often than smart ones. This skews the
statistics. Smart criminals never show up in the records. Also, we
must always remember that what is and is not a crime is purely
arbitrary, the choice of whoever happens to be in power at the time.
It depends as well on which side of an equally arbitrary line on a map
one stands.
>People who make them selves stupid, make me pay higher insurance.
>People who make them selves stupid, make me pay higher taxes.
Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. Are you saying that there are
sick people out there, people who need help, and you care about them
only in so far as how much money it's going to cost you? Yet at the
same time you have the unmitigated gall to cast yourself as morally
superior? I suggest, sir, that you "pluck the beam from your own eye"
first, THEN criticize the morals of others if you must.
"Even as ye have done it unto the least of these thy brethren ye have
done it unto me."
Aside from that, if you are so base and shallow that all that matters
to you is money, consider this. Before prohibition, when drugs were
cheap and legal, drug users as a group contained no higher percentage
of thieves, murderers and rapists than any other cross section of
society. If anything, they committed fewer crimes because they tended
to stay home and lie still whenever possible. Prohibition turned them
over night from some of the most inoffensive, unaggressive, minders of
their own business around into a plague of locusts upon the land
solely because they don't share the typical senator's taste in
intoxicants. The cost to society, even if measured in law enforcement
expenses alone, is enormous.
Junkies, who in the last century were most likely to spend their free
time watching their feet, have become an army of unelected tax
collectors, stealing from the rest of us to line the pockets of the
narco-terrorists in the intelligence community and their fascist and
Nazi suppliers. They cheapest and most humane way out of the
corruption and crime spawned by this unwisest of laws is to legalize
ALL psychoactive drugs, making any problems that arise for the user a
matter between him and his doctor as is the case with all other drugs.
Thus, like problems that arise with drugs that are legal today, the
expense would be borne by the individual directly effected and the
rest of us could sleep soundly behind unlocked doors in the sure
knowledge that most crime had ceased.
Before prohibition crime was the province of an extremely small
percent of the population. There were problems, to be sure, but by
today's standards they were minuscule. The majority of America's
prison population is there for drug law violations. The majority of
the rest are in for economic crimes that never would have occurred
were it not for prohibition.
Who wins? The major suppliers, their pet politicians and those in our
government (and not a few of their friends on the "outside") to whom
the rise of fascist dictatorship at the expense of personal liberty is
an appealing notion and who have no need to invent excuses or cast
about for other scapegoats as long as they have drug users to kick
around. Fascists NEED scapegoats. As even a cursory perusal of history
abundantly illustrates, their role in fascist ascendancies is
ubiquitous. Without scapegoats fascists remain marginalized. With
scapegoats they ascend to power. When somebody has internalized a
scapegoat centered ideology and is unable or unwilling to reveal it's
source, the best educated guess we can make is that they learned it
from fascist and crypto-fascist propaganda.
Ask yourself who benefits when fascist ideologies spread.
Hint: Not the rest of us
>You can tell a dirt bag when they create different standards than
they have for themselves,
Do you mean like when some how people get to decide what is allowed to
happen in the privacy of another's home and some aren't?
>so what do you say to this law... When some drunk kills someone's
little kid, the drunk should be made sober and their kid be tied to a
tree and hit by a car.
I'd say you were a VERY sick man for even thinking of such a thing.
But by the same logic I could also say that if you get to tell me what
drugs to take, I get to tell you what drugs to take. After all, fair's
fair, isn't it?
>After all we know liberals believe in equality don't they?
Your LSD like leaps of reason confound me. What, are you tripping or
something? What on earth, pray tell, ever made you think I'm a
liberal? I have my faults, as do we all, but I'm certainly no liberal.
I have little respect (and no use whatsoever) for liberals as people
and nothing but disgust for liberalism as a philosophy. Liberals are
the judas goats of fascism, self righteous, meddling busybodies out to
oppress me "for my own good," not unlike yourself (or at least that's
how you're sounding).
Are you, perhaps, a liberal in disguise?
>If these suggestions enrage you, you are a dirt bag, you are willing
to allow such things to happen to other people's families but not your
own?
Is this a statement or a question? Or haven't you mastered the English
language yet? How long have you been in this country, anyway? Why
don't you take lessons or something? You're embarrassing yourself.
You're also making people who might otherwise consider you ideas in
the light of reason and evidence instead dismiss them out of hand as
the product of poorly trained mind. They are making a mistake. Being
the product of a poorly trained mind does not, in and of itself, mean
that an idea is wrong, stupid or evil. Even a broken clock is right
twice a day.
Example:
You yourself pepper your otherwise intellectually bereft and largely
content free, though delightfully colorful, verbiage with occasional
bolts of shear brilliance. Why just the other day you said, that after
reading how by following the money rather than the drugs or the crime
we see that theft to buy drugs sold by elements of the federal
government is de facto taxation without representation, that though
you had never thought of it that way before, you realized I was in
fact totally correct. It's very perceptive of you to recognize this, a
real sign of intelligence. I WAS correct. Good for you. You're not
entirely beyond hope after all.
You can't imagine to how many otherwise intelligent appearing people I
have suggested that we blame the government for the so-called "drug"
problem, to only to be met with slack jawed stares. They're not the
dumbest of the bunch, though. That honor falls to the morons who
proffer of the world's lamest excuse, ie., it's not "the government"
that sells drugs with one hand and uses it's armed might and its
courts with the other hand to keep the price up. No, they tell us, it
is "individuals within the government," the so-called "rogue
elements."
Yeah, right. And they fly though our air defence system with impunity,
but no help from the rest of the military? Give me a break. If our air
defence was that porous we'd have lost the Cold War. Russia would have
kept all that money they spent on an air force and missile fleet and
simply hired Colombians to fly the nukes in by Cessna and we'd all be
toast by now.
Or else the Russians were no threat to us all along and our military
was lying about how the were a threat to insure their own job
security. Either they lied about the Russians or they lied about how
the drugs really get into the country, maybe both. Though many
honorable men and women serve in the military, they do not run the
military. The brass runs the military. They are a tool of as
treacherous a pack of vermin as has ever stalked the earth. One is
more likely to hear truth from a junkie than from the government,
any government, not just ours. Ours, however (as opposed to, oh say,
Holland's for example) has been particularly deceptive as regards the
role of drugs in the socio/political landscape. Wake up; smell the
coffee. These people lie through their teeth. It's how they make their
living.
If the government can't even purge it's own ranks of rogue elements
it's mighty damn hypocritical of them to claim the ability, never mind
the right, to purge the rest of us of our rogue elements. Before they
go plucking at motes in our eyes they should pluck the beam in their
own. We PAY these guys to get rid of their rogue elements. It's part
of their job description. By their own admission they haven't done it.
Yet we continue to pay them. What are we, fools?
Did they just pocket the money and laugh up their sleeves, like the
bogus contractor who takes deposit on a contract to clean up a waste
dump and then absconds? Or are the so-called "rogue elements" not
rogue at all, but an integral part of the team, and what we're really
paying them to do is divide in two teams an PRETEND to fight?
Either way, we're out the money.
>Less than 3% of all weapon crimes are used in emotional crimes (Most
domestic disputes, some in a fit of rage)
>#1 Less than 7 % of weapon crimes are used when emotions cause
the brain to malfunction. >#2 and over 89 % of all weapon crimes
are used by dopers and drunks.
WHEN THE BRAIN IS MALFUNCTION
I presume you actually meant "malfunctioning," did you not?
Where did you get these statistics? Who did the study? Where? When?
Who paid for it. What were the cohort selection parameters? Did you
bother to read the study or did you simply see a report of it on the
news. Do you believe every statistic you hear? If you do, you have
failed miserably in absorbing lesson one of your study of statistics
and lack the ability to effectively apply statistical analysis to any
other field.
>Get your own statistics from the disease control center and then
explain to us why those with altered brains do what they do.
Do you mean the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, a branch of the
same federal agency that conducted the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study? I'd
sooner trust a junkie with rent money than trust the CDC with the
truth.
Like my old Stats. 101 prof. used to say, "43.87% of all statistics
are made up on the spot."
>Dope was non existent when I was in school
Let's just say the users didn't tell the likes of you about it.
Considering your attitude, I can't say I blame them. Listen to
yourself talk. You sound like a Nazi talking about Jews. These are
fellow Americans, you're talking about here, fellow human beings,
every one a beloved creation of God, Allah, Bhudda, the Great Pumpkin
or whoever you care to believe in. He made 'em. He loves 'em. Are you
criticizing his judgement?
If people are sick, they deserve compassion and care, not persecution.
If they are not sick but merely have different tastes than your own
you should sit down and shut up about the (reputed) superiority of
your own personal taste over all others and stop being so boorish.
Otherwise you'll give this place a bad name and the people we WANT to
see won't come around out of fear they might be mistaken for one of
your friends. What incredibly boorish behavior! To denigrate others
because of their tastes is among the most boorish behavior imaginable.
Didn't your mother teach you common manners?
There is NO accounting for taste. Some people like catsup, some people
like mayonnaise. I like mustard. That's how it is. What's the big
deal?
They like drugs and you like TV. Why on earth should either of you
care what the other does for amusement? It's only a matter of taste.
Eighty years of unrelenting propaganda, and your own boundless
gullibility, has so demonized these people over this pettiest of
reasons that you can't even see them as human. Listen to your
language. You speak of these people as if they were animals. What does
this tell us about your values, about your thought processes?
Which bring us to another crucial point. Do you really think for
yourself or are you being thought for? Have you studied drug use in
the field, first hand (in which case you may actually know what you're
talking about), or have you merely internalized hearsay and wish that
we would, too? This is an important distinction and should be
paramount in the criteria by which we, and YOU, judge the validity of
your thought.
If we are to believe TV, every drug user is an abuser and every
addict is a criminal. The truth of the matter is that people who use
illegal drugs come from all walks of life, every race, every class,
and all sexual persuasions. Some are criminals and some are not. The
vast majority are hard working, normal folks that you see everyday.
You just don't know who you're looking at. They aren't crazy, they
aren't addicts, they aren't criminals and they aren't getting caught.
The odds are overwhelming that some of your neighbors, your work
mates, even your friends get high and just don't tell you about it
because they also aren't fools. That's why they aren't getting caught.
If use of recreational drugs were as detrimental to intelligence as
you would have us believe, why are so many people able to get away
with it?
Some users do abuse. The same is true of alcohol, TV and the internet.
Anything done to excess is more likely to cause harm than when done in
moderation. Enough oatmeal will kill you. Is this reason enough to ban
oatmeal? Cars kill fifty thousand a year. Do we ban cars? Let's at
least TRY to be logical and consistent so the rest of the world will
not laugh at us when we claim to "lead.'
As far as "brain" malfunction goes, let's call it what it is, thought
malfunction. It has many causes, some drugs and some not drugs. Some
are rooted in brain function; others in the mind itself. The single
most prevalent and ubiquitous source of malfunctioning thought process
in our population is not drugs but TV. Beyond the trance inducing
physical effects on your brain that result from the ability of the
scan rate induced flicker to entrain brain waves, there's the content
itself. It has caused the typical viewer to think and to behave in
incredibly stupid, illogical, deluded and self defeating patterns.
These patterns are so deeply imprinted on consciousness that they
persist even after the TV is off and the viewer has left the room.
Some are quite subtle and sophisticated in their composition,
positioning and effect. Others are not.
If you have cable you can turn on TV any time of the day or night, and
somewhere on one of the channels a cop show is playing. They differ
only slightly and only in details. The plot and its message is always
they same: You are surrounded by terrorists, rapists and drug crazed
psychopaths. They are everywhere. Don't go out unless you have to (ie.
work and shop) because it isn't safe out there. Be afraid of other
people. They are dangerous. Don't trust them. Don't talk to them.
Above all, don't organize with them. Stay home and only care about
your immediate family. The rest of the people are suspects and perps.
The only reason one of them hasn't already broken into your house,
raped your wife and stolen your television is because some young, good
looking cop somewhere was willing to "bend the rules" a little. This
makes him a hero. All cops are heroes. The police state is your
friend. TV told me so.
An appalling number of otherwise intelligent people believe these
obvious contradictions with what actually happens in real life that
they act as if real life was TV and TV was real life, and conduct
themselves and their affairs accordingly.
And you're telling me DOPERS are out of it!?! Give me a break. Dopers,
especially the addicts, are far more grounded in reality than TV
viewers, even if we only measure this by attention span and ability to
concentrate on a task. It's not a reality that most of us would prefer
to share, but it IS real. If anything, it's TOO real.
TV is so far from reality that it borders on the surreal as often as
not. A doper at least knows when he's intoxicated. He knows that when
he's high, that his consciousness is being effected by an external
force and that if anything unusual is happening in there, it's
probably not him and it's probably not the rest of the world either.
It's probably the drugs and he knows it. TV viewers, on the other
hand, actually believe that what happens on TV really IS the world.
The dumbest doper on earth can tell dope from the rest of the world.
Can you yourself tell the real world from TV? I doubt it.
For one thing, the real world has a past. The real world has history.
The real world didn't start at the top of the hour. Consider the
history of drugs, for example. Didn't know there was such a thing, did
you? Not your fault. Nobody taught you that all things have a past and
nothing happens ever, not even once, without first something else
happened to cause it to happen.
*** "A sort of historical amnesia governs the popular view of the use
of drugs, making it seem like a recent phenomenon and obliterating its
deep roots in American culture. Drugs came into American life in a
substantial way at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when
Boston-based traders broke the monopoly on opium exportation that had
been held by the British Levant Company out of Anatolia, Turkey, and
the British East India Company out of China. At first the trade was
mainly confined to intra-Asian routes, but amounts of the product had
been gradually making their way back to the United States, and its
popularity kept growing. By 1840 an estimated 24,000 pounds were
coming into the country every year, and a duty imposed by the
government that year raised the price to $1.40 per pound.
By 1860 the amount had grown to 105,000 pounds and the price had risen
$4.50. In 1870 half a million pounds were coming in, and the Civil War
brought drug use and its perfectly legal traffic new avenues of
enterprise: cheap, quality-controlled cocaine hydrochloride was
available in drugstores, as was cannabis indica extract. In that early
period, drugs were a fancy of the middle class; the poor simply didn't
know about them, lacking the sorts of fashionable medicos who might
prescribe them for ailments . . ."
--- <Low Life> by Luc Sante, ISBN 0-679-73876-2 ***
I might also add that both Washington and Jefferson grew hemp on their
plantations and, judging from their correspondence, got high on the
stuff as well. Do you question their judgement?
>No, not until after the drug revolution did crimes multiply and today
(48 Hours) 80% of all those in prison are drunks/dope users.
Are you telling us that you get your statistics, and presumably your
historical/political analysis from a TV magazine show!?! No wonder you
are so ill informed. Perhaps you not as stupid, as you appear to be,
just ignorant. Allow me to suggest you instead acquire an actual
education. It would do you a world of good, both intellectually and
spiritually, as well as sparing you a good deal of public
embarrassment.
>Hmmm I never thought about it that way but you are right.
See, I told you you aren't stupid. You've just been relying on the
wrong sources, that's all. This is easily remedied. (1.) Turn off the
TV. (2.) Read books.
>it is the government who
>1) Protects the criminials so we can not protect ourselves.
>2)They make us pay to keep the criminials and then
>3) They turn the criminials lose to get stupid and rob, rape, beat
and/or kill another victim.
Is this what they told you on TV? TV is a media that is completely
controlled by the exact same men who control the government. These men
hide behind corporate fronts because they know that when righteous men
such as you apparently imagine yourself to be finally discover what
they're really up to they are likely to find themselves swinging from
trees.
>the official criminials in the government.
They're the stooges of the corporate elite. The boards of directors of
the major corporations (both "legitimate" and underground) are our
REAL government. Those guys in DC are front men.
>The reason prohibition did not / could not work is because the crooks
on the streets can bribe the crooks in the government. The judge is a
lawyer as well as the rest and lawyers get rich putting criminials out
on the streets.
Prohibition did not, and DOES not, work is because We the People, in
our infinite wisdom and deep sense of justice, scoff at stupid laws.
The Stamp Act was neither the beginning nor the end on American
scofflawry. I might add that the gun grabbers who sparked the "Shot
Heard 'Round the World" had the full force of the Law behind them and
the men who stood up to them were (legally speaking) terrorists, as
lawless a bunch as the vandals who dumped all that tea in Boston
Harbor. America was FOUNDED by scofflaws. Scofflawry is the American
Way.
> Yeah and when sick people are dangerous to society, they lock them
up in the fruit farm.
By and large, unless they have money, sick people are left to die. For
this should we blame the insurance industry's stranglehold on
legislation, or merely our own selfish callousness? Either way,
society is a danger to them. We are, after all, one of the most
selfish and callous societies on earth. Sick people die here for lack
of medicine that could save their lives had they but the money to pay
for it. Human life counts for naught compared to the almighty dollar.
As long as we let paper sleep in a palace and people sleep in the
street we are a nation of moral cripples.
I put it to you that this society that is pathological The sickness of
individual drug addicts is but a symptom, one of many. If you don't
want people to escape reality (as if what they do out of your presence
was any of your business in the first place) then treat the cause, not
the symptom. Create a better reality.
Or else sit down and shut up, because the mindless prattle of
brainwashed fools exasperates the problem and the problem is big
enough already without you should also kick in your two cents worth,
which is just about exactly what it's worth (factored for inflation of
course).
>The bleeding heart liberals want to allow perverts to have their way?
You keep throwing that word around and I don't even know for sure who
you mean. What exactly do you mean by "pervert"? Be specific. Go into
detail. Cite examples. Be clear who you are actually talking about.
You wouldn't want people scapegoating the wrong folks by mistake,
would you?
So illuminate us. Remember, be specific. What EXACTLY would we have to
do, and with whom and in what ways, to be considered "perverts"?
You DO know from personal experience, don't you? Or are you once again
merely passing on hearsay?
I ask because if broadly enough defined (ie. anything other than the
"missionary position" within marriage) the term appears to include a
majority of the population. Even conservatively defined it undoubtedly
includes people you know personally who, like the drug users you know
personally, simply don't inform you about it.
Perhaps it includes you yourself and you merely "protest too much" in
hopes that we won't guess your secret.
>You want it, are you willing to sign a contract that you (all who
support pervert's rights) will pay ALL taxes incurred in medical cost,
cops, trials and all additional insurance cost due to drunks and dope
users?
Why bother with contracts? Taxes are collected by force anyhow,
contract or no contract. It's the nature of the beast. All that stuff
on paper is window dressing, hogwash and gloss. Taxes are collected by
force of arms. Arms needn't be fired to exhort force. Their presence
alone will usually suffice.
>Are you willing to take total responsibility for what YOU want?
But of course. What I want is to not live in a police state. How about
you? Do you WANT to live in a police state?
How about the rest of you out there? What do you want? Do you want
guys like this "Frosty" to decide what you do in the privacy of your
own home or do you want to decide for yourselves?
Remember, it really IS up to you.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
