HOORAY for Surgeon General Elders!!
spj at ukelele.gcr.com
Fri Dec 10 04:10:04 EST 1993
In article <ZIPPY.93Dec9091409 at hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
The Pinhead <zippy at hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>In article <2e7c4h$pmn at darkstar.UCSC.EDU> moksha at cats.ucsc.edu (Matthew Michael Brenner) writes:
> To me this is the first truly original idea in American politics
>in my lifetime.
I spent some time polishing this after I got bumped offline.
[Warning for the meek: A rambling whine blasting society is about to
follow concerning gun control, drug legalization, gangs, and
Its not an original idea; cf. Prohibition and organized crime. Alcohol
is a drug, it just happens to not be one of the ones that falls under
the War on Drugs. Lots of doctors out there will tell you that
alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there, mainly because of its
Drug legalization will stop the gang turf wars and profiteering off of
people's addictions but not the health and psychological problems that
come with the drugs and especially not the hopelessness and
death-wishes that have gripped many inner-city youth.
Which do we want more? Less random crime, or more random crime? More
existing drug addicts in therapy, or more new drug addicts? Less
hardened criminals, or more hardened criminals? Everyone wants less
crime and less addicts, they just don't want to do some things because
they're sacred cows, or they're irrelevant things that have nothing to
do with the cause.
(Witness the video game rating system and television violence debates,
no one has questioned the existing public school system, that's a
sacred cow. "Televison is new, video games are new, so they must be
the problem. So lets censor them, lets make a ratings system." They
have very little to do with the problem...)
People running on artificial joy, out of their minds touring the Magic
Kingdom, are probably less likely to start shooting people who
unintentionally look at them the wrong way. They don't need to build
a ruthless reputation, eliminate the competition, or kill someone
who's dis'ing them. They don't care. They just want to get high.
If the government gets into the drug business, the addicts will come
to it for safe, cheap drugs. The addicts won't get locked up, they'll get
help. Not locked up in jail, with the possibility of getting help, if
they get any help at all. The addicts won't have to worry about
getting burned on a deal or killed in a deal. The profit of dealing
death is usurped by the goverment. Addicts won't need to burgle or
mug people as much, gangs and dealers will have to find other sources
While the goverment's usurping the profits of drugs, "legalizing
them", it had better be working on reducing the number of addicts.
Create three competitive agencies, one that sells the drugs, one that
heals the addicts, one that does checks and accounting on both. One
agency has the goal of taking over the market of existing addicts.
The second has the goal of taking these existing addicts and curing
them. The third must ensure that the first agency isn't creating new
addicts to get more money and the second agency isn't fabricating
cured addicts. The first gets its money from the addicts who buy the
drugs, and gets bonuses as fewer addicts get drugs from non-government
sources. It must keep very detailed usage histories when someone
enters the system. The second gets a fixed amount of money + bonuses
from the government as the number of addicts who are cured increases.
A third agency keeps watch over the first two with fixed funding and
bonuses and ensures that the first isn't creating new addicts and the
second isn't fabricating cured addicts. All three agencies gets
bonuses when the government/people that employ them feels that crime
is reduced, and addicts are getting cured. [People are always
bitching about steaming generalities and rhetorical flourishes, but no
solutions or plans. This is a possible solution. Got a better idea
than legalizing drugs? Spout it.]
That's all well and fine for the existing problem of drug violence,
but not the cause. The cause is the public education system. Most of
that is getting the schools safe again and stop EDUCATING children
about the world around them. That's right, stop EDUCATING them.
We don't need minimally educated, politically correct, homogeneous,
multiculturally aware, dull and obeyant, factory robots anymore--
we haven't needed them for the last decade or so. Start EXCITING
children about the world around them. If the world was more EXCITING
to children, they wouldn't need to steal cars and mug people to get
their kicks. Scrap the fucking monolithic lesson plans and teach the
children things that they find interesting.
If the child doesn't find what you're teaching them interesting, they
are not learning anything. You're not teaching them anything, you're
wasting your time, the child's time, and everyone's tax money.
Drugs are interesting because they're verboten. Money is interesting
because it allows you to buy things to be cool. Killing people is
interesting because people begin to fear or respect you for your
deadliness and cruelty. Gangs are interesting because they can
protect you from other Gangs, get you drugs, get you victims, get you
a reputation, and get you money. Gangs get you excitement.
Get rid of the lucrativeness of drugs, you hurt one of the reasons
that gangs form. Turn the school system into a gang that protects and
excites gang members, you hurt the two more reasons kids join gangs.
Run the school system correctly, students will know how to make good
money and that zonks the last reason students will want to join a
gang. If the schools stopped treating students like cattle to be
cattle there wouldn't be a gang problem. Students would not have to
work for an identity.
What happened? Why did the system go to hell in a handbasket. First,
Boomers, Silents, and G.I.'s payed very little attention to what and
how we were teaching the children. No one checked to see if what was
being taught was needed, they just wanted more copies of themselves.
So everyone comming out of the public school system now doesn't have
any of the skills needed to do "entry-level" work in today's world.
We're still churning out factory robots, and all we've got is McJobs.
Our factory robots grudgingly take on the McJobs for survival.
Generally, nobody is happy. The system's failing.
Its why all the "good" jobs require college degrees. The real jobs
that people should be able to jump into from a public school education
really require more than what a public school education give.
Universities are making a monetary killing because everyone needs a
higher education to get a decent job. The demand for higher education
is skyrocketing, as are the prices. Facilities are packed. It takes
longer to get a degree because of a limit of the system's educational
In the inner-city, you get thugs and creeps and gangs: mostly young
people who didn't have a strong family or a local government that
cares about its citizens enough to help, when its too late, there's no
tax money to help, everyone's fled to the suburbs. In the suburbs,
you get young adults who still live with their parents because they
can't find a decent job with a high school education and who can't
afford a college education (or likely don't want to throw away $60,000
and 5 years of their life only to find that they lost five years of
their life and $60,000 and aren't any better off, more likely worse
off) and can't stand McJobs.
What happened? Everyone blamed crime on drugs, picked out the drugs
that were hip on the street at that time, and started locking people
up. This wrecked the legal system, because everyone but everyone was
dealing in the inner city to be cool or make a living. People aren't
being incarcarated OR reformed, they're playing the game. Life is
collateral, materialism is the prize. What really happened was the
education system was still churning out factory robots for an
industrial age when we're in a post-industrial age. As a result, we
get high rates of teen suicide, crime, and unemployment. Hardly the
intended result of the public education system.
Guns and Drugs is a smoke screen. Gun control doesn't work,
Washington D.C. is proof of that. The War On Drugs isn't drug
control, it is non-Drug control. Its trying to control people who
have been hurt mentally by an inept educational system and hurt
physically by people who's life-possibilities have been hurt by the
same educational system. The non-Drug control we have doesn't work.
All the tax money being thrown at non-Drug control and the results we
have is proof of that.
We are only setting ourselves up for a big fall when someone gets into
office and decides to take advantage of the Constitutional erosion for
their advantage. Eliminate the profit and forbidden fruit of drugs.
Stop trying to rewrite the Bill of Rights. Fix the fucking educational
system for the world, not generational ideals. Stop wasting and
controlling people's lives and start enabling people's lives.
> It's so heartening to see it coming from such a respectable person as
> Dr. Elders. Now, what's so surprising is the Whitehouse's reaction:
> something like "the Surgeon General is entitled to her opinion but
> Mr. Clinton is opposed to the idea and doesn't want to study it."
I agree. That Clinton doesn't even want to study it.. lets hope he
flip flops on that...
> Doesn't want to even study it? That's all Elders called for, mind you.
> She said that based on two other countries experience of legalizing illicit
> drugs, it would be worth studying here. She said that it seemed to reduce
> violent crime by taking out the profit, and that the number of users did
> not go up. Wow! Could Jocelyn Elders be the first public official not
> in the pockets of the MEDELLIN drug cartel, the Mafia, or the alcohol &
> tobacco companies?
>Agreed. Perhaps she listens to Dr. Dean Edell?
I wasn't aware that Dr. Edell had that kind of view.. :)
> I urge everyone reading this who has a scintilla of grey-matter in their
> heads: write the prez. and tell him to listen to his Surgeon General:
> PRESIDENT at WHITEHOUSE.GOV
>Not only doesn't the president read the email, his flunkies don't even
>answer it with snail mail like they claimed they would. I dare say
>that no one has received a reply. If you have, EFF and myself would
>like to know.
I've received email replys from his staff, concerning the 'eVote'
thing, and how they didn't even want to try to understand what eVote
was. (Nothing's arrived in the snail mail so far, and I did request
it. You don't think they consider email to be like a phone call do
they? Ie. if you didn't get it on paper, it didn't happen?) eVote
wasn't what I thought it was, but the Whitehouse had even less of a
concept of what it was than I did. (It turned out that this particular
thing about eVote was more a vapor-ware product than standard, I don't
like products too much over standards... so I stopped worrying about
>Ronald Cole E-mail: ronald at netcom.com
>Senior Software Engineer ronald at abysmal.chico.ca.us
>OPTX International zippy at ecst.csuchico.edu
> "The Bill Of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited By Law"
.---------------------------------------. \ //~\ ~|~ |~~\
|Guru Aleph-Null spj at ukelele.gcr.com|% \ /| | | | |
`---------------------------------------'# \/ \_/ _|_ |__/
%#######################################% Where Prohibited.
More information about the Plantbio