home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.peeves
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!alberta!pierre
- From: pierre@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pierre Honeyman)
- Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
- Message-ID: <pierre.712448866@manning>
- Sender: news@cs.UAlberta.CA (News Administrator)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: manning.cs.ualberta.ca
- Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
- References: <92206.093638JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> <a5qkoB16w165w@mantis.co.uk> <1992Jul27.184207.1@husky1.stmarys.ca>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:27:46 GMT
- Lines: 109
-
- cs226a030@husky1.stmarys.ca writes:
-
- >In article <a5qkoB16w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
- >> Jenni Sheehey <JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
-
- >[bit o' stuff deleted]
- >>
- >>> First of all, nobody's sending anyone to prison. They're merely giving
- >>> them a choice: enroll in drug treatment, or stop receiving handouts.
- >>
- >> Has it occurred to you that people might want to choose to take drugs? That
- >> they might do so occasionally, without becoming addicted?
- >>
-
- >The truth is, some druge are *highly* addictive (cocaine and crack) for
-
- Not quite as addictive as nicotine thought, I guess nicotine should be illegal
- huh?
- Actually the addiction rates for cocaine and crack are not that high, wander
- over to talk.politics.drugs or alt.drugs.
-
- >example. And whether or not someone wants to do something illegal is
- >irrelevant. Illegal is illegal. If people choose to do drugs, they should not
- >be doing it with money given them by the government to live on. It's as simple
-
- If they choose to spend the money they were given to live on on drugs, they
- will die. No problem.
-
- >as that. If I do drugs, that's bad enough. However, at least I am using my own
- >money to do it.
-
- >>> only receive food stamps. Second, there is a difference between being
- >>> *willing* to take a drug test, and having an orgasm over the prospect.
- >>> I wouldn't *like* it, but I would be happy to do it if it meant that a)
- >>> people with problems would be forced to get treatment,
- >>
- >> If drug use weren't illegal, you'd have Drug-users Anonymous alongside
- >> Alcoholics Anonymous. You wouldn't have to force people to get treatment,
- >> they'd walk in and ask for help of their own free will.
- >>
-
- >SOME would. Many would not.
-
- Just like many alchoholics do not seek out AA. Wake up.
-
- >> No doubt during prohibition there were similar schemes requiring that those
- >> found to be consuming alcohol should report to rehabilitation centres or be
- >> imprisoned and forced to do so. You look it up, it's your country's history.
- >>
- >>> and b) I would
- >>> know that I wasn't eating on $5 a week to finance someone else's drug
- >>> habit (which I don't happen to be quite doing now, but I have done it
- >>> for considerable periods of time since I started supporting myself
- >>> after college in 1990).
- >>
- >> Well, given that it costs more to keep addicts in jail than to give them
- >> treatment for their addiction, I'd say your big concern should be stopping
- >> the "war on drugs" and spending the money on rehabilitation centres. Then
- >> there'd be no money wasted on jailing drug users, and everyone who wanted
- >> treatment would be able to get it.
- >>
-
- >While I agree that more rehabilitation centres are a good idea, I wonder if a
- >better idea wouldn't be to transfer inmates in present prisons around, so that
- >the addicts are all in one prison. Then the system could concentrate on
- >rehabilitating all the inmates in the prisons with the junkies.
-
- Drug users shouldn't be in prison in the first place. Not for drug use alone
- anyways. It is absolutely insane to put people in prison for using drugs.
- This is what clogs up court systems and let's people comitting real crimes
- go free.
-
- >>> Peeve: People who think that people have a *right* to indulge in illegal
- >>> activities.
- >>
- >> Yeah. Let's jail all those law-breakers who engage in oral sex or sex
- >> outside marriage. They have no right to have sex, so lock 'em up.
- >>
-
- >Actually, here in Canada, I think both of those are legal. If they aren't,
- >then "they" DON'T have a right to have those forms of sex. Just because you
- >*think* that something should be legal, dosen't mean you have a right to do it.
- >In the same token, just because something is illegal, dosen't mean it's morally
- >wrong. It *IS* illegal, though. If you do something illegal, you risk
- >punishment. It is that simple.
-
- You're correct, people don't have the right to break the law when they
- disagree with it. They have a duty. If a law is bad, and there are
- *plenty* of bad laws, the population has the duty as responsible citizens
- to disobey the law and force it to change. Example, the civil forfeiture
- law in the US, that law is *evil* pure and simple.
-
- >>> ObHoney: Honey, you better not be one of those militant anti-smokers,
- >>> too. That would just be too inconsistent.
- >>
- >> The rule is simple and consistent. You can smoke, snort or inject whatever
- >> the hell you want, just so long as *I* don't have to join in.
- >>
- >>
- >> mathew
- >> --
- >>
- >However, you run the risk of getting caught. You forgot that bit ;-)
-
- >Later
- >Mike
-
-
- Pierre
-