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

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:29:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


Yes. I find the argument of, well marijuana is harmful, so it should
be illegal, completely bogus. Its got f'all do do with state what
someone chooses to do with their own bodies.


Fine, so long as the state does not facilitate the harm, and does not
pay any resulting medical expenses.


And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.

It's not bogus in San Francisco. Drug abuse is a serious burden on
public medical resources already. We keep the drinking water clean and
the rats out of the restaurants in the cause of public health; so why
not restrict the supply of heroin?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:41:40 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

So, f'ing what. Big deal. So *some* have a problem. That's life. You
shouldn't prevent all from something just because a few have a few
issues.

As an engineer, you should understand that the numbers matter, and
that absolutist arguments are usually silly. We're not going to
eradicate all the mushrooms in the world because they sometimes kill
people, but we are going to insist that milk be pasteurized. It's a
matter of doing what makes things better at an affordable cost.

As I have said, life itself is *absolutely* the most harmful
situation that can ever be achieved. If we prevent all births there
would be zero suffering in this world.

How any one can deliberately allow a new born into this world that will
undergo so much pain as in, first vaccinations, love break-ups, having
their parents die, having dad buy them an edsal, rather then a porche,
and knowing that they will, in time, cease to exist themselves.

If you're so unhappy with life, why are you still around?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:36 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2005 19:54:09 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
c8oc71dkt1ck196k2cnv8f9rq6g4letnm7@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:
On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:48:42 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

[snip]

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.


Sure; would you have it otherwise?


Not me! How about you?




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?

No, it's realism. in practice, we can't stop them, even by throwing
gigabucks at drug control.


Draw a graph. X-axis is how much money we spend supressing illegal
drugs. Y-axis is how much harm is done to the users of those drugs.
Are you arguing that the curve is flat, or even slopes upward?

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result.

I suspect you suspect wrong.

What do you actually mean by "social harm"? Why should other peoples
feelings be more important then my own?

Hint, evolution is a numbers game. Hint: there is no moral reason why,
as Spock would say "the interests of the many, outweigh the few". Its
just the automatic result of:

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

As
currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

Leave it out mate. Just what bloody harm to you think comes from porn,
like a strained wrist?

Like a strained relationship; like kids associating torture with
sexual arousal; like getting fired.

Television...get real...explain exactly what you mean by "harm". Its all
waffle.

Brain rot, body rot, bad grades, compulsive desire to purchase food
processors and air fresheners.

As I have said before, cigarettes are a positive boon to the rest of us
that don't smoke. Its Ł15B in tax revenue at an increase in health costs
of only Ł1.5B per year. It also has massive savings in Social Security
cost as smokers die much younger. Less people means more for the rest of
us. The world population has doubled to 6.5B since 1970, there is a
limit as to what the earth can support, if people want to voluntary self
sacrifice their own lives for the greater good, I am all for it.

Yes, I can see that.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<884f715lpm9qu9ctuup81qbolh1i3154pg@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Tue, 3 May 2005:

We keep the drinking water clean and the rats out of the restaurants in
the cause of public health;

Those measures are effective.

so why not restrict the supply of heroin?

That measure is not effective; witness the 'serious public health
problem'.

If there *were* an effective way of stopping drug abuse, it would be
worth debating whether to implement it or leave people to do as they
wish. What *clearly* can't be sensible is to waste gigabucks on
*ineffective* measures.
--
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 Tue, 3 May 2005 16:21:08 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
884f715lpm9qu9ctuup81qbolh1i3154pg@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Tue, 3 May 2005:
We keep the drinking water clean and the rats out of the restaurants in
the cause of public health;

Those measures are effective.

so why not restrict the supply of heroin?

That measure is not effective; witness the 'serious public health
problem'.

Cancer is a serious health problem, so therefore we should do nothing
about it, because existing efforts have not solved the problem; is
that your logic?

If the heroin supply were unrestricted, do you think consumption and
social harm would drop?

It would be interesting to legalize public sale of heroin and speed.
Sellers would be regulated and taxed, just like for milk and paper
clips, and would be available for civil lawsuits for any harm that
their products might cause to consumers.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:45:56 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

If the heroin supply were unrestricted, do you think consumption and
social harm would drop?

The crime associated with dopesters needing to raise money for their
habit should drop.

It would be interesting to legalize public sale of heroin and speed.
Sellers would be regulated and taxed, just like for milk and paper
clips, and would be available for civil lawsuits for any harm that
their products might cause to consumers.

John

I'd make it freely available _at_cost_ from drug stores.

...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
<rm6f715cvgjuvo5c3jv3bfm40qhi0o815f@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Tue, 3 May 2005:

On Tue, 3 May 2005 16:21:08 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
884f715lpm9qu9ctuup81qbolh1i3154pg@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Tue, 3 May 2005:
We keep the drinking water clean and the rats out of the restaurants in
the cause of public health;

Those measures are effective.

so why not restrict the supply of heroin?

That measure is not effective; witness the 'serious public health
problem'.


Cancer is a serious health problem, so therefore we should do nothing
about it, because existing efforts have not solved the problem; is
that your logic?

Of course not, and you know that very well. We DO have *effective*
measures for combating and even curing some cancers. Ineffective
measures are subject to restrictions on advertising and marketing.

If the heroin supply were unrestricted, do you think consumption and
social harm would drop?

Consumption might not, but much social harm would. Addicts wouldn't be
forced to rob people to get money for hits.

It would be interesting to legalize public sale of heroin and speed.
Sellers would be regulated and taxed, just like for milk and paper
clips, and would be available for civil lawsuits for any harm that
their products might cause to consumers.

Yes. That is exactly what should be done. Just like for alcohol (except

the lawsuit option; people are indeed expected to know that
over-indulging in alcohol is damaging) and tobacco
--
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 Tue, 03 May 2005 09:18:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:45:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

If the heroin supply were unrestricted, do you think consumption and
social harm would drop?

The crime associated with dopesters needing to raise money for their
habit should drop.

But many more dopsters might be created. Neither of us know the
overall slope of that curve.

It would be interesting to legalize public sale of heroin and speed.
Sellers would be regulated and taxed, just like for milk and paper
clips, and would be available for civil lawsuits for any harm that
their products might cause to consumers.


I'd make it freely available _at_cost_ from drug stores.

I doubt that many drug stores would elect to sell it. Of course,
Barbara Boxer would pass a law requiring them to sell it.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:47:13 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that many drug stores would elect to sell it. Of course,
Barbara Boxer would pass a law requiring them to sell it.

John

Or Feinstein or Pelosi or ...

How did California get so Californicated ?

...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 Larkin]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:17:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:47:13 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that many drug stores would elect to sell it. Of course,
Barbara Boxer would pass a law requiring them to sell it.

John


Or Feinstein or Pelosi or ...

How did California get so Californicated ?

Because America was populated by the most restless and unmanagable
people from all over the world, and California was populated by the
most restless and unmanagable of them.

That's why I'm here.


John

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 07:58:26 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
....
And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.

It's not bogus in San Francisco. Drug abuse is a serious burden on
public medical resources already. We keep the drinking water clean and
the rats out of the restaurants in the cause of public health; so why
not restrict the supply of heroin?

In what way does some junkie getting zonked out in the privacy of his
home impact "public health?"

If you're talking about paying his medical bills, the problem there
is socialism.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:45:56 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

If the heroin supply were unrestricted, do you think consumption and
social harm would drop?

Of course. That little fact has been demonstrated quite well, thank you.

But, since you seem to be of the "People are children, therefore it is
my responsibility to force them to behave according to my personal moral
standards" school of statism, there's probably not much use in continuing
to attempt to enlighten you.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Zak]

Jim Thompson wrote:

I'd make it freely available _at_cost_ from drug stores.

I'd suggest something along the line of "don't bother others" - people
can get drunk all they like, but not in public.



Thomas

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:18:05 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:45:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

If the heroin supply were unrestricted, do you think consumption and
social harm would drop?

The crime associated with dopesters needing to raise money for their
habit should drop.


It would be interesting to legalize public sale of heroin and speed.
Sellers would be regulated and taxed, just like for milk and paper
clips, and would be available for civil lawsuits for any harm that
their products might cause to consumers.

John

I'd make it freely available _at_cost_ from drug stores.

Heck, even restrict it to grown-ups, like they do with tobacco and

alcohol.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:17:34 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:47:13 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that many drug stores would elect to sell it. Of course,
Barbara Boxer would pass a law requiring them to sell it.

John


Or Feinstein or Pelosi or ...

How did California get so Californicated ?

Jim, you should be the first to recognize that it's because California

is on the Left coast. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:47:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:18:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:45:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

If the heroin supply were unrestricted, do you think consumption and
social harm would drop?

The crime associated with dopesters needing to raise money for their
habit should drop.

But many more dopsters might be created. Neither of us know the
overall slope of that curve.

"Might be"? Take a look at The Netherlands.

Just to get specific - if drugs were suddenly legal, would you feel
yourself compelled to go out and become a junkie? Can you name one
person who doesn't do drugs now, who would suddenly become a junkie
if the prohibition were ended? Are you saying that you believe most
people are so weak-willed that they're incapable of using common
sense unless their every act is mandated by some authority?

Thanks anyway, I'll take Liberty, risks and all.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Newsgroup Wacko]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:04:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:41:40 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


So, f'ing what. Big deal. So *some* have a problem. That's life. You
shouldn't prevent all from something just because a few have a few
issues.

As an engineer, you should understand that the numbers matter, and
that absolutist arguments are usually silly. We're not going to
eradicate all the mushrooms in the world because they sometimes kill
people, but we are going to insist that milk be pasteurized. It's a
matter of doing what makes things better at an affordable cost.

As I have said, life itself is *absolutely* the most harmful
situation that can ever be achieved. If we prevent all births there
would be zero suffering in this world.

How any one can deliberately allow a new born into this world that will
undergo so much pain as in, first vaccinations, love break-ups, having
their parents die, having dad buy them an edsal, rather then a porche,
and knowing that they will, in time, cease to exist themselves.

If you're so unhappy with life, why are you still around?

He can't help it - it's a Meme. ;-P
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found
difficult and not tried."
-- G. K. Chesterton

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:29:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


Yes. I find the argument of, well marijuana is harmful, so it
should be illegal, completely bogus. Its got f'all do do with
state what someone chooses to do with their own bodies.


Fine, so long as the state does not facilitate the harm, and does
not pay any resulting medical expenses.


And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.


It's not bogus in San Francisco. Drug abuse is a serious burden on
public medical resources already. We keep the drinking water clean and
the rats out of the restaurants in the cause of public health; so why
not restrict the supply of heroin?

Its bogus because we can use the *same* argument to justify banning
*anything*.

You name it, anything you like, and I well tell why it causes harm to
something.

Do you wish to ban everything? If not, the why chose one over another?

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 Larkin]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:07:44 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:29:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


Yes. I find the argument of, well marijuana is harmful, so it
should be illegal, completely bogus. Its got f'all do do with
state what someone chooses to do with their own bodies.


Fine, so long as the state does not facilitate the harm, and does
not pay any resulting medical expenses.


And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.


It's not bogus in San Francisco. Drug abuse is a serious burden on
public medical resources already. We keep the drinking water clean and
the rats out of the restaurants in the cause of public health; so why
not restrict the supply of heroin?


Its bogus because we can use the *same* argument to justify banning
*anything*.

You name it, anything you like, and I well tell why it causes harm to
something.

Do you wish to ban everything? If not, the why chose one over another?

Ban the things that do a lot more harm than they do good. One of the
mandates of government is "to promote the public good." What's wrong
with that?

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<6slf71ltif3orc9r3fla2c7d8hbt013pt1@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Tue, 3 May 2005:

Ban the things that do a lot more harm than they do good. One of the
mandates of government is "to promote the public good." What's wrong
with that?

Maybe nothing, IF A BAN IS EFFECTIVE. If it's not, it's a total waste of
taxpayers' money.
--
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