Janada Oakley wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:
 RJT> Janada Oakley wrote in a message to Mike Angwin:
MA> I would suggest, sooner or later, we are going to have to admit 
MA> that no matter what we do, no matter how much money we waste, 
MA> no matter how many of our civil liberties we give up, and no 
MA> matter how many otherwise innocent people we put in prison, a 
MA> certian percentaged of the population is going to use drugs.
 JO> [clip]
JO> As hard as it is to believe, I agree with you. Some people WILL 
JO> do whatever it takes (that 3.4%) to get drugs.
RJT> And opportunists on the shady side of things will look to 
RJT> profit from it.
 JO> So true. And if Clinton has his way it will eventually end up 
 JO> that way with cigarettes. Sure, they can drive the price up, 
 JO> even make people have to go through black market, but many 
 JO> still aren't going to quit. What *will* happen though, is that 
 JO> there will be that many more people robbing and stealing so 
 JO> they can get the money to pay the high prices. 
I don't think it'll get to that,  or at least not right off.  They're looking 
to gain *much* more if they can just keep nudging the price up,  a bit here 
and a bit there,  while collecting ever more taxes on it,  while at the same 
time they try and extort _billions_ from the companies that make the product.
 JO> I don't see where prohibition has ever worked.
No,  I don't see where it ever has.  I ran into a certain amount of stuff 
with drugs being around,  pretty widely at that for back then.  And although 
I don't move in the same circles I did back in those days,  I'm sure that if 
I ever had the inclination I'd have *NO* trouble going out and finding some, 
they seem to be as prevalent as they were before,  if not more so.
You used to hear of people getting busted.  Now the only people you ever hear 
about getting busted are those who've got *pounds* of the stuff around,  and 
it happens all too often.
No,  I don't think that they're going away,  and I see way too much taxpayer 
money having been spent on the effort to make them go away.  And I see our 
freedoms getting eroded in the name of that "war on drugs"...  :-(
JO> And I don't have a problem with learning from that history...
RJT> One good thing that comes out of that,  people can observe what 
RJT> it does to those few individuals,  and see what making that 
RJT> choice gets you.
 JO> Absolutely. Like my mother always says: Never say someone is 
 JO> "good for nothing", some people are good to serve as a bad 
 JO> example.
From what I understand this was pretty common with drinking at one time,  
before we were a society of car drivers so much,  and back when things like 
cocaine and other drugs were legal,  there were always a few you could point 
to as an example of what happens when...
JO> as long as we don't call it a "disease" but a choice,
RJT> Yes!
JO> behavior.
RJT> How about all the bad behavior on the part of the governments?
RJT> Asset forfeiture,  in particular,  scares the heck out of me
 JO> Me too. I remember when they started the forfeitures--it was 
 JO> only supposed to be so mega-rich drug dealers couldn't get out 
 JO> on bail and skip off with all their assets. Sure, *that* 
 JO> sounded like a plan...but then, the feds started doing it to 
 JO> the rich, til finally it's mostly the simple average citizens.
Sounds like taxes to me.  Wasn't the income tax originally supposed to only 
affect the rich?
 JO> I even heard about them going in and stripping a church right 
 JO> down to the fixtures! I forget why, but honestly, a CHURCH?? 
 JO> Crooked Bingo games, maybe?
This is the first I've heard of that one.  If you come across any more info 
on it please feel free to pass it along.
RJT> -- you can be traveling, and without due process,  or without 
RJT> any recourse,  they can just take your vehicle,  your cash, 
RJT> even your _house_,  and all too often there's not a damn thing
RJT> you can do about it.
 JO> That's right. Heck, you can't even carry a large amount of cash 
 JO> without them taking it and claiming you must be guilty of 
 JO> *something* since "only drug dealers carry a lot of money". 
 JO> Hey, some folks just don't like banks! The feds just want to 
 JO> force everyone to use banks, checks, and credit so they can 
 JO> keep track of them. I consider that an infringement on our 
 JO> freedom of movement, not to mention that it implies guilty 
 JO> until proven innocent.
Yep.  Or worse yet,  they don't *care* about guilt,  like the lady I heard 
about whose 15-year-old son had some pot,  and they took her *house*.  Just 
like that...
What the hell is this country coming to,  anyway?
JO> An example of what's happened with the huge flow of drugs is 
JO> all the kids od'ing on heroin here in Plano. I don't know what 
JO> the answer is. The school system is better than most here, so 
JO> education didn't stop them. It's a well-to-do town (both 
JO> parents usually work at very good jobs), 
RJT> _Both_ parents working is no doubt part of the problem.
 JO> And they have to so they can pay the bills...and TAXES.
Bingo!
JO> so ultimately the kids probably have too much money, too much 
JO> time to kill, and not enough parental guidance.
RJT> Yep.
Especially that last part.
 JO> I may not be a parent, but if the parents throwing money at the 
 JO> problem doesn't work, I know darned good and well, it won't get 
 JO> any better when the government throws even more money at it. 
They don't especially seem to want the responsibility,  they just want the 
POWER.  That's what it all comes down to,  I think.
email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com 
--- 
---------------