Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year

[keith]

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:24:23 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:36:11 -0600, hamilton wrote:

This is where you RIGHT WING idiots don't get it.

probable cause if you are a drug dealer.
probable cause if you are screwing some republichristrian wife.
probable cause if you don't agree with the war in ??????.

The patriot act opens the door to anything the gov'mt wants.

that's why the constitution is under attack.

Anything, anybody wants.

GET IT !!!!!


Well, it became pretty obvious on this morning's teevee nooz that
Pat Robertson is the antichrist.

You know Rich, only the rabid anti-Christians listen to Pat. I suggest
that you change the channel, like everyone else. You'll sleep a lot
better, not waking up to visions of Pat doing your girlfriend. ...oh, I
forgot, you cant find a female. Sweet dreams, thinking of Pat!

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:06:24 +0000, Reg Edwards wrote:

How terrifying is it to have the US war machine
descend upon your wife and children? Who's the real terrorist
there?


The guys who blow up airplanes and buildings and mosques.

=================================

Keep death rates in proportion.

Ok, I like that idea. For every one they kill of us, I want to nuke a
million of them. That's a good proportion!

Far more people are killed on the roads every 12 months.

Ok, then you go get your head chopped off. I'll drive to work, thanks.

Far more people are killed by bullets every 12 months.

I thought it was gus that killed people. Huh.

Consider tha 9-11 cost the economy north of $1E12, and a nuke costs in the
range of $1E6. I say we should retaliate with 1E6 nukes.


--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:17:59 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:34:08 +0000, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:dvj4719u2dfmeh8ng6ek2k35bm8upnh40i@4ax.com...

Right. If you're planning a serious felony, use good encryption, and
it's best not to plan your hits over your cell phone.

You don't even have to be careful if you're planning a mere felony. They
still can't get a warrant until after the crime. But due to the extremely
oppressive patriot act they can get a warrant if a terrorist act seems to be
in planning, instead of having to wait.

Well, one of the times I was in jail, one of my roommates was in for
"making terroristic threats", and this was way before 1999. So, apparently,
they _can_ get you for stuff you say. (albeit, the fellow didn't mention
if assault or weapons were involved.)

Well, by your own admission, you are a terrorist. You've said so.

--
Keith

 

[Bob Monsen]

Clifford Heath wrote:

Bob Monsen wrote:

The terrorists are generally pissed off about globalization


Why? What evidence do you have for that claim?

What? I need evidence already? Sheesh.

In my observation, if they're fighting a political (rather
than religious) cause, it's over the abuse of economic power.
Globalization did not cause these abuses, and in fact is
removing them. It's progressively levelling out the standard
of living across the globe. [Obligatory on-topic note: That's
why there are so many un(der)employed EEs in the USA.] Now that
some of the previous generation's poor countries (India, China)
are wealthy enough to afford proper education, there's real
hope of the luxuries of democracy and freedom. Globalization
will progressively extend that to the rest of the world - to the
perceived detriment of last century's abusers of economic power.
Not just, but including, the USA.

I suppose there might be religious terrorists worried about
their countries becoming comfortable and bourgeois, and hence
becoming less interested in religious fundamentalism, but that's
a different concern.

I was actually talking about the fundamentalists who are usually
described as 'terrorists' these days. The Wahabi fundamentalists are
mostly worried about cultural pollution. Their desire to spread the
word, by violence if necessary, is fueled by changes they see happening
to their cultures. That is a byproduct of the expansion of western
culture into the middle east. That isn't really 'globalization' as it's
generally defined, of course. Thus, you are right, I should have said
"Westernization".

> Clifford Heath.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Monsen wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Joe wrote:

"Winfield Hill" <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote
in message news:d4s38r0248b@drn.newsguy.com...

Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged to 3,464 last year,
according to the Justice Department. Taking law enforcement at
its word without question, judges rubber-stamped approvals on
every single request they received. Be careful, watch out. And
remember, email is next.


--
Thanks,
- Win

Let's see .... 3464 wire taps ... less than 0.1% of the population.
Not bad.


Its less then 0.0014% of the population of the US!

Same deal for this err grand "problem" of terrorism. A recent quote
put the deaths at 1900. Well about 0.5% of the population die of old
age a year, so at over 1,000,000, most extra deaths that people
complain about, are in the noise floor


Of course. More people die of starvation in a single day than die of
terrorism in a year. The entire terrorism argument is a convienient
rationalization for armed globalization. The terrorists are generally
pissed off about globalization, so it's ironic that their attacks can
be used to mobilize western populations against them.

I don't agree that it is about armed globalisation, this don't actually
say anything. My view is that the whole terrorism thing is simply to get
people elected, i.e votes. To be elected you need to have some agenda.
The west is so rich now, that there is not a lot of causes that one can
tell the voters that they can do better then the other party at. Since
there are so few agendas, they are simply invented. The other classic
example of an invented vote getting agenda is the "war on drugs". Its
abundantly clear to any but a fool, that people commit crimes to pay for
drugs, which are highly priced because they are illegal.

Terrorism is a non event. I don't remember the last time I want to the
pub, and had to leave because of a bomb. The issue is that mass
communication makes minor issues known worldwide to everyone. This gives
the illusion that it is in abundance. Its actually based on the rouge
meme copying idea.

If all drugs were legal, just imagine what a vacuum there would be in
Candidates campaign manifestos.

Politicians *have* to have something to base their campaigns on, so they
just make something up. Its that simple really.

However, the fact that there are only a tiny number of wire taps is
simply an indication of the listener's inability to process the data,
particularly in cases where tranlsation is required. With slightly
more advanced speech recognition software, however, this number could
rise dramatically, and really without warning.

I wasn't justifying wire taps with the mentioning of the numbers being
so low. My view, is that any violations of privacy should only be in
extreme cases, requiring the Governor of the state to personally
authorise it.

People point out that if you do anything illegal you shouldn't have
much of a problem with it. The problem with that logic is that the
definition of 'illegal' changes to suit the whims of those in power.
Liberal groups were targeted by wiretapping and covert ops in the US
during the 60s and 70s. Oddly, this happened again after 9/11.
Political campaigns are getting increasingly dirty, and using
wiretaps as a weapon isn't unheard of. Apparently, the US government
routinely taps the phones of UN ambassadors. Once a state religion is
mandated, perhaps religious groups that don't 'toe the line' will be
targeted. Giving the state this kind of power is a slippery slope.

The other problem is that once the ability to wiretap gets easy, it
gets easy to misuse. People are people, and they can often be tempted
to misuse any power they are given for financial or personal reasons.
Wiretapping a corporate CEO can be quite profitable.

The right to privacy is a good thing, even when you don't need it,
because you never know when you *will* need it.

I am absolutely with you. I am well convinced on the argument of "if you
give up freedom for the interests of security, you will end with neither
freedom or security", or some similar such quote from the founders.

One must protect all basic freedoms. If someone makes an exception, i.e
makes it illegal to say "I hate niggers", based on an alleged assumed
"incitement to racial violence", then they *will* make other exceptions
where it is not so clear cut as to "moral correctness". Indeed, in the
UK the "incitement to racial hatred" is a crime. This is effectively, a
"Thought Crime" as in "1984". Hate is an internal personal emotion, only
perceived in the mind. Whether we agree or disagree with such emotions
is no reason to legislate against them. It irrelevant whether or not
such emotions *may* lead to racial violence. It the actual violence that
should be the crime, not the expression of the emotion, like "I think
niggers should be shot".

Again, one must protect the *principle* to say things that people find
offensive, whatever those things may be. With such protection, freedam
is meanigles. Who needs protection against something that no one finds
offensive?

For referance:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/part9.html

(2) After section 5 there shall be inserted the following section:-
"Incitement to racial hatred. 5A.-(1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening,
abusive or insulting;
or
(b) he uses in any public place or at any public
meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting,

******

The idea that it is criminal simply to insult people is about the most
disgusting abridgment of basic freedoms that I can imagine. I am
patiently waiting to see a test case in the European courts of human
rights to see if the freedom of speech under EU Law will overule such a
disgusting state of affairs.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
<h7kde.18240$j54.10498@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk&gt about 'Court
authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

For referance:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/part9.html

(2) After section 5 there shall be inserted the following section:-
"Incitement to racial hatred. 5A.-(1) A person commits an offence if-

(a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening,
abusive or insulting;
or
(b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which
are threatening, abusive or insulting,

******

The idea that it is criminal simply to insult people is about the most
disgusting abridgment of basic freedoms that I can imagine. I am
patiently waiting to see a test case in the European courts of human
rights to see if the freedom of speech under EU Law will overule such a
disgusting state of affairs.

While the specific offence of 'incitement...' is relatively new, the
criminality involved is nothing new at all, it's very old and used to be
embraced in the offence 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the Peace'.
I believe someone who shouted a Nazi slogan in a synagogue just after
WW2 was dealt with very severely in this way, but was in fact lucky to
escape with his life...

From http://www.answers.com:

In 1195, Richard I ("the Lionheart") of England commissioned certain
knights to preserve the peace in unruly areas. They were responsible to
the King for ensuring that the law was upheld, and preserved the "King's
Peace," and were known as Keepers of the Peace.

The title "Justices of the Peace" derives from 1361, in the reign of
King Edward III. An Act of 1327 had referred to "good and lawful men" to
be appointed in every county in the land to "guard the Peace." The
"peace" to be guarded is the "King's Peace" or (currently) Queen's
peace, the maintenance of which is the duty of the Crown under the Royal
Prerogative.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Winfield Hill wrote:

Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged to 3,464 last year,
according to the Justice Department. Taking law enforcement at
its word without question, judges rubber-stamped approvals on
every single request they received. Be careful, watch out. And
remember, email is next.

We in Europe are there already. Providers have to store
the whole email trafic for at least 6 months. Somehow, I tend
to appreciate SPAM in this respect. It fills their disks
and makes it harder to sift through it.
I planned a tool that automatically sends a bunch of mail
at timed intervalls to selected adresses containg a random
selection of triggering keywords from an editable list.
That is going to be fun.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.net> schreef in bericht
news:4275f10a$0$1157$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...

Winfield Hill wrote:
Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged to 3,464 last year,
according to the Justice Department. Taking law enforcement at
its word without question, judges rubber-stamped approvals on
every single request they received. Be careful, watch out. And
remember, email is next.

We in Europe are there already. Providers have to store
the whole email trafic for at least 6 months. Somehow, I tend

Is that so?

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-62153&als%5Btheme%5D=Data%20Retention

...... new Communications Privacy Directive ..... that would allow countries
to
order ISPs to monitor and retain information on all users for an extended
period
of time....

To 'allow' countries is something different than to force them. But, it is
still bad, very bad.

All this crap is the result of the 'negotions' between US/EU. And the EU
dances. Dances on command, like puppets on strings.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/jul/11Auseu.htm

[snip]

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 07:59:24 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:53:01 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

The other classic
example of an invented vote getting agenda is the "war on drugs". Its
abundantly clear to any but a fool, that people commit crimes to pay for
drugs, which are highly priced because they are illegal.


Certain drugs should remain illegal. If methamphetimines were more
easily available, lots of damage would result, probably a lot worse
than the considerable harm that cigarettes and alcohol already do.

And it's only a matter of time until somebody synthesizes a new drug
that's wonderful, irrestible, and even more dangerous.

John

Naaaah! Just let 'em take anything they want. Help clean-up the gene
pool ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<qofc7150da1rc9k0v5qu1s5lilt33a2061@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:53:01 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

The other classic
example of an invented vote getting agenda is the "war on drugs". Its
abundantly clear to any but a fool, that people commit crimes to pay for
drugs, which are highly priced because they are illegal.


Certain drugs should remain illegal. If methamphetimines were more
easily available, lots of damage would result, probably a lot worse
than the considerable harm that cigarettes and alcohol already do.

And it's only a matter of time until somebody synthesizes a new drug
that's wonderful, irrestible, and even more dangerous.

..... which is precisely why it is futile, indeed wholly

counter-productive, to make some drugs 'illegal'. There will always be
another one along in a minute. (Of course, the drug itself isn't
illegal; it's possession of it which is illegal. Some people would like
to make even mentioning the names of drugs illegal.)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.net> schreef in bericht
news:4275f10a$0$1157$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...

Winfield Hill wrote:

Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged to 3,464 last year,
according to the Justice Department. Taking law enforcement at
its word without question, judges rubber-stamped approvals on
every single request they received. Be careful, watch out. And
remember, email is next.

We in Europe are there already. Providers have to store
the whole email trafic for at least 6 months. Somehow, I tend


Is that so?

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-62153&als%5Btheme%5D=Data%20Retention

..... new Communications Privacy Directive ..... that would allow countries
to
order ISPs to monitor and retain information on all users for an extended
period
of time....

To 'allow' countries is something different than to force them. But, it is
still bad, very bad.

All this crap is the result of the 'negotions' between US/EU. And the EU
dances. Dances on command, like puppets on strings.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/jul/11Auseu.htm

Dance... They love it. We had such stuff decades before,
on paper though. There are always those wou love to collect
data on whatever. As long as there are others who pay for
this data... A goverment contract is something great, isn't
it. Just send some bills to their hands.

Rene

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in
<4kgc71hkujucc7k4esbdf0pcf0kbt7grcp@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Naaaah! Just let 'em take anything they want. Help clean-up the gene
pool ;-)

I don't think that's necessarily a joke. Consider what removing the
illegality would do to organized crime, and what the funds released from
drug law enforcement could do for world-wide health.

Drugs (alcohol, tobacco and coffee) that are not illegal aren't half as
fascinating as the illegal ones. Prohibition showed the futility of
legal sanctions against drug use.

Does the state have any right to prevent people damaging themselves with
drugs by putting them in prison so that other people can damage them
(and where they can often still get the drugs), while the distributors
of the drugs amass large fortunes? Does it make ANY SORT of sense? What
would an intelligent alien or computer make of it? We may find out in
about 20 years!
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 16:39:47 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
qofc7150da1rc9k0v5qu1s5lilt33a2061@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:53:01 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

The other classic
example of an invented vote getting agenda is the "war on drugs". Its
abundantly clear to any but a fool, that people commit crimes to pay for
drugs, which are highly priced because they are illegal.


Certain drugs should remain illegal. If methamphetimines were more
easily available, lots of damage would result, probably a lot worse
than the considerable harm that cigarettes and alcohol already do.

And it's only a matter of time until somebody synthesizes a new drug
that's wonderful, irrestible, and even more dangerous.

.... which is precisely why it is futile, indeed wholly
counter-productive, to make some drugs 'illegal'.

Lots of drugs have been developed for medical purposes that later
turned out to have ghastly side effects; so they were made illegal.
You don't approve?

There will always be
another one along in a minute. (Of course, the drug itself isn't
illegal; it's possession of it which is illegal.

This sort of qualtitative argument is common. The reality is in the
numbers. If we allow anyone to manufacture/synthesize/sell any drug
they wish to, what effect does it have on public health? Do we want
all the wimpy schoolboys to shoot steroids to make themselves more
manly (or for the girls, more "toned")? Do we allow unlimited use of
escasy to make dancing more fun, at the cost of massive outbreaks of
Parkinson's? Legalize crack cocaine and give away free AIDS drugs?

Why put out fires in cities, when it's inevitable that more fires will
start? Why use antibiotics, when new, resistant germs will always
emerge?

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:04 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:

Once a state religion is mandated,...

There's already a de facto state religion in the US: Antismokerism.
If you really look at it, it has all of the symptoms of any other
cult.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<18jc71dkkcqbml9lmkb512c2t0ifm5tdso@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Lots of drugs have been developed for medical purposes that later
turned out to have ghastly side effects; so they were made illegal. You
don't approve?

Those drugs are NOT 'illegal'; they are prevented from being prescribed,
either wholly or for some people. You cannot be jailed for possessing
thalidomide. Nor can you for potassium cyanide and a host of other stuff
which is far more dangerous than any recreational drug.

There will always be
another one along in a minute. (Of course, the drug itself isn't
illegal; it's possession of it which is illegal.

This sort of qualtitative argument is common. The reality is in the
numbers. If we allow anyone to manufacture/synthesize/sell any drug
they wish to, what effect does it have on public health? Do we want all
the wimpy schoolboys to shoot steroids to make themselves more manly
(or for the girls, more "toned")?

Of course not. First, only the very stupid ones would do that. Secondly,
the very stupid ones already do, because no ban on drugs is effective.
The way to discourage people from drugs is by education. I know that's a
BAD word these days, but it's the only solution.

Do we allow unlimited use of escasy to make dancing more fun, at the
cost of massive outbreaks of Parkinson's?

I believe that the Parkinson's cases were caused by impure Es. But
again, Es are everywhere in the young adult community. Only by EDUCATING
them about the dangers can we expect to persuade them not to indulge.

Legalize crack cocaine

There wouldn't be any need for crack if cocaine were legalised, as it
was in England till about 1910. It was made illegal, too, on highly
spurious grounds.

and give away free AIDS drugs?

Pardon? What do you mean?

Why put out fires in cities, when it's inevitable that more fires will
start?

Because putting out fires is EFFECTIVE.

Why use antibiotics, when new, resistant germs will always emerge?

Why, indeed, as the medics are now finding out to OUR cost, with MRSA,
drug-resistant malaria and TB, etc.. And they don't 'emerge', they are
the results of:

- using antibiotics too freely, especially as 'placebos-on-demand' for
patients with virus infections;

- not EDUCATING people that they MUST complete a course of antibiotics
in order not to create resistant strains.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:28 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:04 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:

Once a state religion is mandated,...

There's already a de facto state religion in the US: Antismokerism.
If you really look at it, it has all of the symptoms of any other
cult.

Tell me, Rich, if you're walking down the street or sitting on the
grass in a park or lying on the beach, and you finish a smoke, what do
you do with the butt?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:30:00 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

Hasn't anybody yet tried to find a middle ground? Oh- can't do that! You'd
have to admit that your enemy has the same right to life that you have.

Well, obviously, if they're our enemy, then they don't.


John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:48:42 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
18jc71dkkcqbml9lmkb512c2t0ifm5tdso@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Lots of drugs have been developed for medical purposes that later
turned out to have ghastly side effects; so they were made illegal. You
don't approve?

Those drugs are NOT 'illegal'; they are prevented from being prescribed,
either wholly or for some people. You cannot be jailed for possessing
thalidomide. Nor can you for potassium cyanide and a host of other stuff
which is far more dangerous than any recreational drug.

In the US, you can be jailed for selling either if the sale is known
to be for the purpose of administering the drug to a person.

There will always be
another one along in a minute. (Of course, the drug itself isn't
illegal; it's possession of it which is illegal.

Agreed, you don't see a lot of vials of cocaine serving prison terms.

This sort of qualtitative argument is common. The reality is in the
numbers. If we allow anyone to manufacture/synthesize/sell any drug
they wish to, what effect does it have on public health? Do we want all
the wimpy schoolboys to shoot steroids to make themselves more manly
(or for the girls, more "toned")?

Of course not. First, only the very stupid ones would do that.

There are many such. Do we provide them the means to damage themselves
just because they're dumb? Is the the New Eugenics?

Secondly,
the very stupid ones already do, because no ban on drugs is effective.
The way to discourage people from drugs is by education. I know that's a
BAD word these days, but it's the only solution.

Raising the price has been shown to reduce consumption, just like
anything else. The most effective way to keep kids from starting
smoking addiction is to raise the price of cigarettes.

Do we allow unlimited use of escasy to make dancing more fun, at the
cost of massive outbreaks of Parkinson's?

I believe that the Parkinson's cases were caused by impure Es. But
again, Es are everywhere in the young adult community. Only by EDUCATING
them about the dangers can we expect to persuade them not to indulge.

Legalize crack cocaine

There wouldn't be any need for crack if cocaine were legalised, as it
was in England till about 1910. It was made illegal, too, on highly
spurious grounds.

and give away free AIDS drugs?

Pardon? What do you mean?

Crack and crank are major causes of AIDS.

Why put out fires in cities, when it's inevitable that more fires will
start?

Because putting out fires is EFFECTIVE.

Why use antibiotics, when new, resistant germs will always emerge?

Why, indeed, as the medics are now finding out to OUR cost, with MRSA,
drug-resistant malaria and TB, etc.. And they don't 'emerge', they are
the results of:

- using antibiotics too freely, especially as 'placebos-on-demand' for
patients with virus infections;

Then you do advocate controlling drugs? Should Cipro be available to
anyone who wants to buy it (or manufacture and sell it)?

- not EDUCATING people that they MUST complete a course of antibiotics
in order not to create resistant strains.

Well, if everyone were as nice and as smart as you are, we'd hardly
need laws at all.

John

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:04:10 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Lots of drugs have been developed for medical purposes that later
turned out to have ghastly side effects; so they were made illegal.
You don't approve?

It's probably OK to make it illegal to give poison to another person,
but I think "protecting people from themselves" is over the line.

Who will protect us from the protectors?

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:48:42 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:
....

The way to discourage people from drugs is by education. I know that's a
BAD word these days, but it's the only solution.

Ah, yes. Education: The process of inserting abstract thoughts into
concrete heads. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich