********* War on Drugs Information File *************** Contents: Drug strategy issues pro

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

********* War on Drugs Information File *************** Contents: Drug strategy issues proposed to Pres. Clinton Sex, Ecstacy and Psychedelic Drugs, from Playboy, Nov. 1967 American Drug Policy: What's the Real Problem? by Joe Germuska Drug Book source Conservative Hyde Teams With Liberal ACLU Seek Curb On Property Seizures "End The Drug War" stamps for snail mail envelopes now available!!! Drug testing false-positive nightmare Excerpts from _Our Right To Drugs: The Case For a Free Market_ by Thomas Szasz *************************************************************************** /** pn.alerts: 53.0 **/ ** Topic: POINTER: Drug Policy Under Clinton ** ** Written 7:38 pm Dec 1, 1992 by peacenet in cdp:pn.alerts ** From: Subject: POINTER: Drug Policy Under Clinton Posted below is an ACTION MEMORANDUM by the National Drug Strategy Network, which details the 'priority drug strategy issues for the President. CLINTON TRANSITION OFFICES: 105 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Ark. 72201 Tel: 501-399-7000 Fax: 501-399-7096 Office of the President Elect, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: 202-273-2600 Governor Clinton's Arkansas Office (501-682-2345) Senator Gore's Senatorial Office (202-224-4944) Included is a list of national columnists and their phone numbers. ** End of text from cdp:pn.alerts ** /** justice.usa: 397.0 **/ ** Topic: Drug Policy Under Clinton ** ** Written 7:39 pm Dec 1, 1992 by peacenet in cdp:justice.usa ** From: Subject: Drug Policy Under Clinton From esterling Tue Dec 1 15:58:19 1992 From: Eric Sterling November 17, 1992 TO: AMERICANS WORKING FOR DRUG POLICY REFORM FROM: ERIC E. STERLING, NDSN COORDINATOR NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY NETWORK A C T I O N M E M O R A N D U M INFLUENCE THE PRIORITIES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON Political commentators report that "interest groups" are bombarding the Clinton transition team with their priorities for the first hundred days. Commentators and the transition team need to get calls from you now about priority agenda items for drug policy reform. Call them today! Politics DOES NOT end on election day. NOW, YOU MUST BE A PERSUADER. Following my personal list of reforms, are the addresses, phone and fax numbers of many leading political commentators and the Clinton transition offices. PRIORITY DRUG STRATEGY ISSUES FOR THE PRESIDENT (1) To head the Office of National Drug Control Policy, choose a public health expert, a doctor, or someone whose orientation for addressing the drug problem is through a public health or treatment and prevention approach, e.g. former Surgeon General Koop. (2) Provide immediate pain relief for cancer patients, anti- nausea treatment for HIV+ persons, and aid other patients by directing the Attorney General to reschedule marijuana to schedule II in the first 30 days to follow DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Young's recommendation. (3) Reduce Federal prison system overcrowding and make room for violent, predatory criminals by immediately commuting the sentences of all marijuana users, possessors, and nonviolent sellers and growers in Federal prison. (4) Fight AIDS by sending legislation to Congress to repeal the limitation on Federal aid to cities & states conducting clean- needle programs; and by outlawing discrimination against HIV+ persons by drug treatment programs. (5) Restore confidence in, and among, Federal judges by sending legislation to Congress to repeal mandatory minimum sentences. Pending enactment, appoint panels to review mandatory sentences for commutation where appropriate. (6) Encourage pregnant women and mothers to get drug abuse treatment by establishing Federal standards promoting (or if necessary, requiring) day care for the children of addicts in treatment; by denying any Federally-aided program funds from being distributed to drug treatment programs which discriminate against pregnant women; and by requiring states to guarantee the accessibility to prenatal care by drug addicted women. (7) Protect innocent citizens from wrongful confiscation of property when no crime is charged by directing the Attorney General to drop all forfeiture proceedings that are not based on a criminal conviction; and redirect all forfeiture proceeds to the general treasury instead of being treated as a bounty by law enforcement. (8) Appoint a Presidential Commission to investigate and report recommendations to you and to the Congress to eliminate racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. (9) Promote public safety and workplace productivity by substituting impairment testing for substance-based testing. (10) Improve drug treatment success, and save money, by completing research on Ibogaine to permit its use to interrupt heroin, cocaine and nicotine addiction. (11) Improve the rate of prenatal care by pregnant drug addicts by preventing prosecution of women for "delivery" of drugs to their baby in utero by denying Federal aid to states which undertake such prosecutions, and by increasing the funding of prenatal care for drug addicts. (12) Improve the security of the American people, reduce the number of secret agents, and eliminate the use of informants in American society by eliminating the use of "paid testimony" witnesses by the U.S. Justice Department. (13) Dramatically reduce mortality and morbidity by redirecting America's drug strategy to reduce the use of the big drug killers in America -- tobacco and alcohol. (14) Support the Administration's pro-environment clean air/clean water programs by studying the benefits of hemp oil, hemp paper, and hemp biomass for fuel. *(15) Relieve the suffering of drug addicts by substantially increasing publicly funded drug treatment facilities to truly provide drug treatment upon request. *(16) Increase support for drug abuse prevention programs that are consistent with American values and which are effective. (17) Improve birth control options by approving RU-486 for distribution in the United States. *These issues are critical. They are low on this list because they are in every drug strategy. Pick your two or three key issues to emphasize the need for action. Make a number of calls soon! CLINTON TRANSITION OFFICES: 105 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Ark. 72201 Tel. 501-399-7000. Fax. 501-399-7096 Office of the President-Elect 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-973-2600 Governor Clinton's Arkansas Office (501-682-2345) Senator Gore's Senatorial Office (202-224-4944) First, contact your favorite local columnists and syndicated columnists. Second, contact other national columnists. SOME LEADING COLUMNISTS, Telephone (202), FAX (202) *Jack Anderson,483-1442 *Doug Bandow, 703-690-2451 F 546-0728 *David S. Broder, 334-7444, F 334-5451 *Patrick J. Buchanan 703-790-1551 *Art Buchwald, 393-6680 *Richard Cohen, 334-7205, 334-4480 *M. Stanton Evans, 546-6561 *Rowland Evans, Jr., 393-4340, F 393-5588 *Jack Germond, 452-8250, F 872-9327 *Ellen Goodman (Boston Globe), 617-929-3228 *Georgie Anne Geyer, 333-9176 *Andrew J. Glass, 331-0900, 331-1055 *Brit Hume, 887-7286 *Michael Kinsley, 331-7494 *Charles Krauthammer, 872-8109, F 872-8137 *Robert Kuttner, 331-7494 *Diane MacEachern, (Environment), 334-6000 *Colman McCarthy, 334-7728 *Sarah McClendon, 483-3791, 483-7918 *Mary McGrory, 334-7583 *Michael J. McManus, 301-469-5870 *Marianne Means, 298-6920, F 333-1184 *Ralph Nader, 703-764-0496 *Michael Novak, 862-5838, F 862-7177 *Robert D. Novak, 393-4340, F 393-5588 *Neal R. Peirce, 857-1417 *William Raspberry, 334-7462 *Barbara Reynolds, 703-276-3455, F 703-247-3134 *Carl T. Rowan, 966-8668 *Mark Russell, 362-5045 *William Safire, 862-0330, F 862-0340 *Mark Shields, 662-1255 *R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., 703-243-3733, F 703-243-6814 *Ben J. Wattenberg, 862-5908, F 862-7177 *George F. Will, 334-6375 *Juan Williams, 334-6000 *Jules Witcover, 298-8359 *Edwin M. Yoder, Jr., 334-6375 DON'T FORGET TO CALL YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER COLUMNISTS! * * * * * The National Drug Strategy Network is composed of individuals and organizations who are united in their opposition to the punitive and militaristic aspects of the "War on Drugs." The Network is nonpartisan and encourages open discussion of various policy approaches to reducing the nation's drug problem. The Network is supported by The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. Office: 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 702, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 835-9075. Fax: (202) 223-1288. internet email address: esterling@igc.apc.org Your small tax deductible contribution will be extremely valuable in supporting the Networks work in educating the American public about appropriate drug strategy options. It also helps the Network to comply with IRS public charity regulations requiring evidence of broad public support. ** End of text from cdp:justice.usa ** *************************************************************************** Newsgroups: alt.drugs Path: taco!rock!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!news.claremont.edu!jarthur.claremont.edu!cklausme From: cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier) Subject: Sex and Drugs Message-ID: <1993Jan14.200351.2536@muddcs.claremont.edu> Sender: news@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System) Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 20:03:51 GMT Lines: 663 I found this article in the Cult of the Dead Cow archive at ftp.eff.org:/pub/cud/cdc. I thought it may be of interest. -- Chris _ | \ | \ | | \ __ | |\ \ __ _____________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ _____________ | ___________ _/_/ | | \ \ _/_/ ___________ | | | _/_/_____ | | > > _/_/_____ | | | | /________/ | | / / /________/ | | | | | | / / | | | | | |/ / | | | | | | / | | | | | / | | | | |_/ | | | | | | | | c o m m u n i c a t i o n s | | | |________________________________________________________________| | |____________________________________________________________________| ...presents... Sex, Ecstasy and the Psychedelic Drugs by R.E.L. Masters >>> a cDc publication.......1991 <<< -cDc- CULT OF THE DEAD COW -cDc- ______________________________________________________________________________ Kindly donated to cDc by: *=-- --=* { the } -=/*> Buzzz Bros <*\=- text entry by Major Havoc { } *=-- --=* ("Hey, thanks," says S. Ratte') *=-- ---=* { This file is a copy of an article that was first published in Playboy } November, 1967. Although over 20 years old, it is a perfect { example of the budding use, evaluation and enjoyment } *=-- of psychedelic drugs in the late '60s. --=* ______________________________________________________________________________ History records few human quests as unremitting or as widespread as the search for a harmless, effective sex stimulant. Recent claims - such as those made by Timothy Leary - that LSD is the greatest aphrodisiac known to man, have excited much interest in the sexual potential of psychedelic drugs. Sober discussion of psychedelic substances was difficult enough before sex entered the picture; now it is close to impossible. But bearing in mind that there is a great deal more to psychedelics than sex, it might clear the air to examine the effects of lysergic acid diethylamide - and several other psychedelic drugs - on human sexual behavior. Along with the comparatively new synthetic psychedelics, including LSD and psilocybin, there are similar mind-altering substances present in many forms of plant life. Some of these have been used for hundreds and even thousands of years. Examples are the peyote cactus, the Cannibis hemp plant, the opium poppy and several varieties of mushrooms and morning-glory plants. Most have been linked in one way or another with sex. Whether opium - probably Homer's nepenthe - should be considered a psyche- delic drug is largely a matter of semantics. Some would-be authorities exclude all addictive drugs, including opium, from the class of psychedelics. However opium does produce effects similar to those produced by nonaddictive psyche- delics, and among these are sexual effects that merit consideration. Prolonged use of opium results in mental and physical deterioration, including impotence. However, before it takes its toll, the drug can powerfully and pleasurably enhance sexual experience. No one has described the specific sexual effects of opium as well as the 19th century French Army surgeon and anthropologist Jacobus Sutor, who authored numerous sexological studies under the pseudonym Jacobus X. "According to my person experience," wrote Jacobus, "and from avowals made to me by women, both Europeans and Asiatics, the effects produced by opium in moderate doses, say from 10 to 20 pipes, are as follows: Under the influence of erotic excitement, either direct or merely mental, an erection is quickly produced, if you want to copulate. But - and this has never been remarked by any other author - although the penis is in a stiff erection, its nerves, and more particularly, those of the glans, are anesthetized by the effects of the opium, and though the erection is strong, the emission, on the contrary, is much retarded and takes place only after prolonged copulation. This anesthetic effect is also produced in the nerves of the vulva, the vagina and the rectum of the woman, and the 'psychological moment' arrives slowly. The constrictor muscles of the vagina, and especially those of the rectum, undergo a kind of relaxation." He goes on to say that, with larger doses, more than 15 or 20 pipes, erection becomes incomplete; and with 30 or 40 pipes, it is absent altogether. Jacobus' remarks also apply to peyote, to the LSD-type synthetics and, to a lesser degree, marijuana. Those under the influence of these drugs describe the mild surface anesthesia, if that is what it is, as a feeling of 'rubberiness' that effects the penis, the female genitals and also sometimes the mouth, the breasts, the fingers and other body areas. It is by no means an unpleasant sensation; often it is described as heightened feelings of voluptuousness. Along with the rubbery sensation, the genitals, if excited, are felt to be engorged to an unusual degree. At least as ancient as opium is the hemp plant (Cannibis sativa, or Cannibis indica). When used as a drug, it is called marijuana, hashish and a great deal of other names. Scientific reports on the sexual effects of marijuana are conflicting. For example, the French toxicologist Erich Hesse (Narcotics and Drug Addiction) tells us that marijuana and hashish provide no sexual stimulation whatever; but another physician-author Bernard Finch (Passport to Paradise), declares that "After several inhalations, a feeling of sexual excitement develops and the smoker is able to improve his sexual performance, in that erection is stronger and more persistent, but orgasm is depressed and usually does not take place." I could provide a great many more conflicting 'authoritative' statements on this matter, although Finch is the only writer I know who suggests that marijuana by itself produces a condition of sexual excitation. He also is the only one to say that orgasm "usually" does not take place. From many other times and places, we also have claims that hemp is an aphrodisiac - and other claims that it is an anaphrodisiac, an inhibitor of sexual desire or of potency. But whichever way they lean, the authors of these claims are relying on personal predilection, on very limited interview data or on the verdict of some favorite 'authority' who has already made similar errors. We find the same conflicting evidence from "experts" writing about the sexual effect of peyote or LSD. Anyone who has carefully studied psychoactive drugs should know that many different effects are possible, depending on personal, cultural or immediate situational factors - which are often crucial in determining drug-state behavior. With marijuana and other psychedelics, people who are sexually stimulated may find that their stimulation is greater than usual and that their capacity to respond has been heightened. Others may find themselves totally indifferent such as the writer Theophile Gautier, who took some hashish and generalized that "a hashish user would not lift a finger for the most beautiful woman in Verona." The same individual may find that he is greatly aroused on one occasion and unexcited on the next. Or his mind may experience desire while is body is unable to act in concert with it. Some cultures place great faith in the aphrodisiacal effects of hemp; and in those cultures the drug often does function as an aphrodisiac - producing sexual excitation, enhancing potency and pleasure, and prolonging sexual intercourse. Among Arabs, there is a vast lore of the effectiveness of hemp in maintaining an erection - the prolongation of the sex act being almost an obsession with some Moslems. A famous poem on this subject begins: The member of Abu'l-Haylukh remained In erection for 30 days, sustained By smoking hashish Abu'l-Haylukh deflowered in one night Eighty virgins in a rigid rite After smoking hashish The poem goes on to describe still more feats of sexual athleticism; but underlying its characteristic Arab hyperbole is some solid fact - hemp can, indeed, prolong an erection. Besides the mild anesthesia described by Jacobus, the male, with marijuana, may feel that his erect organ is bigger and more rigid than ordinarily. Sometimes, as happens with LSD and peyote, too, orgasm does not occur at all, which causes him no great distress, since he feels that this is a small price to pay for the pleasure he has enjoyed, and the impression he has made on his partner. When copulation does not lead to orgasm, both partners still may achieve it by vigorous masturbation. My own data regarding the contemporary use of marijuana use in this country - in terms of its sexual effects - reflect the conflict in this literature. Individual testimonials describe both sexual successes and sexual failures. Overall, it appears that up to now, marijuana has been about as likely to impair as to improve sexual performance. However, growing acceptance of the drug may be making the latter effect the more common. Much can depend on the users intention. Some prostitutes smoke marijuana to eliminate genital sensation - while at the same time they give the weed to their customer to help him become more stimulated. In this case, it probably works for the male because it makes him more responsive to the suggestion that he will be more potent - and simultaneously it may reduce his inhibitions and anxieties. It should be noted, however, that sexual effects may relate to the potency of the drug. The strength of hemp products can depend on many things - where the hemp is grown, how it is harvested and prepared and how it is consumed. From one country to the next, or among regions of a country, there are great differences in the potency of the plants. As to consumption, it is believed that smoking gives the strongest effect, by altering the chemical composition of the drug. Research in these areas are now under way, but results are still inconclusive. The eventual findings may explain to some extent the different responses among marijuana smokers. But individual psychology will still be a major factor. At its best, most marijuana consumed in the U.S. is a mild psychedelic drug, affording what is rarely more than a pallid approximation of the experiences possible with LSD and peyote. The effects of these two on sexual intercourse are virtually identical, and a statement about LSD may well be understood to apply just as well to peyote - and probably to their LSD-type psychochemicals, such as mescaline and psilocybin. I compiled my data on the sexual effects of psychedelic drugs in a series of interviews, mostly "in depth" beginning in 1954 and continuing today. My information is based on more than 300 drug-state sexual experiences on the part of 94 persons, about two thirds of them males. Nineteen homosexual experiences are included. The interview subjects were almost college graduates from middle-class white Protestant backgrounds. Most of them took the psychedelic drugs outside any formal research or therapeutic context and then reported their experiences to me. In other words, I did not study the effects of psychedelics on sex in the laboratory, as sexual intercourse has been so fruitfully studied by William Masters and Virginia Johnson in St. Louis. My firsthand research with psychedelic drugs - which was largely concerned with matters other than sex - has now been abruptly ended by laws prohibiting almost all research in this area. But I did obtain, in the sessions I guided personally, some material significant in understanding psychosexual disorders. It was surprising how often these disorders seemed grounded in problem of values or, specifically, in low self-esteem. Nowhere can values be so quickly and so drastically changed as in LSD sessions. In several instances, discussed below, persons with sexual problems showed noticeable improvement after their LSD sessions - quite a remarkable occurrence, inasmuch as the sessions were intended as research and therapeutic results were not expected. To determine whether psychedelics drugs are, indeed, aphrodisiacs, we must first determine what we mean by an aphrodisiac. If we mean that the drugs specifically excite the sexual organs, then psychedelics are not aphrodisiacs. If we mean that they produce or encourage sexual desire, again they are not aphrodisiacs. But if we mean that the drugs can profoundly enhance the quality of sexual acts that occur between people who would, in any case, have had intercourse, then the drugs are aphrodisiacs, and my only objection to the term in this context is that it will continue to be misused by psychedelic or sexual extremists. Drug-state phenomena that occur during a sex act occur in other drug-state contexts, too. The most common are changes in sensory perception, in awareness of time, in the state of the ego, in one's relations to others and in the emotions generally. In fact, these changes effect whatever one does, whether it be listening to music, walking through a forest - or making love. The positive effects of LSD in lovemaking can best be appreciated by describing a hypothetical sexual act between husband-and-wife lovers - or between single lovers, should that seem more adventurous. I will not, however, hypothesize a casual erotic encounter between two near strangers, because such an encounter would be less likely to produce so favorable an experience. A strong emotional bond, or at least very positive feelings for the partner, is much more likely to yield the richest, most intense and most ecstatic experience. People rarely have sexual intercourse at the very start of a psychedelic trip. First, as the perceptual changes occur and as consciousness is altered in other ways, they need to orient themselves in this new world. In my sample, this was true no matter how many previous LSD experiences they might have shared. Typically, when there is sexual intercourse, it occurs at least one hour and usually several hours after the onset of the psychedelic effects. When the two people are longtime lovers, they may feel, in the drug state, an emotional closeness as intense as they felt in the early, most emotion- charged stages of being in love. Since visual perception is highly responsive to the emotions, each partner may take on an appearance of extraordinary radiance and beauty. Communication may seem multileveled, with a greatly heightened sensitivity to nuances of meaning - in gestures, caresses and words as well. If this couple decides to make love, they will bring this heightened sensitivity to their union, and their desire and the act itself may be suffocated with the same positive emotion - and with the same beauty - that has been present in their perceptions. As foreplay and intercourse increase their excitement, the couple will become aware of the genital sensations described by Jacobus. The man may feel that his erection is larger and more firm and his potency greater than it has ever been before, heightening his confidence, producing a greater sense of total genital arousal and increasing his capacity to respond. Anxiety about the duration of the act will very quickly disappear. The couple will feel that their lovemaking will last just as long as they want it to last, so that time no longer matters. In the more profound experiences, there may be a sense of timelessness - of the eternal. Several elements combine to produce these novel and extremely pleasurable awarenesses of time. For one thing, intercourse always does last much longer in terms of the clock. This is probably because of the mildly anesthetized state of the sexual organs - although the term 'anesthesia' seems strikingly inappropriate in describing these very intense sensations. Moreover, diminished inhibitions soon produce self-confidence and spontaneity that help reduce concern about the duration of the act. Finally, there is the distortion - or 'slowing down' - of time that is a usual and important aspect of the psychedelic state. This distortion (a term that is technically correct but fails to convey its positive qualities) of subjective time is experienced because the mental processes have been enormously accelerated. So much may be experienced in a few minutes of clock-measured time that the person typically declares that 'hours' or sometimes 'eons' seem to have passed. A sexual union that in fact lasts 30 minutes or an hour may seem 'endless' or to have 'the flavor of eternity.' Lovemaking that lasts for several hours is not too infrequent. The sexual union gathers ever more meaning and beauty as it progresses. It may even take on symbolic and archetypal overtones. The couple may feel that they are mythic, legendary, or more-than-human figures as they act out in a timeless and beneficent space of eternally recurring drama of love and creation. The feeling of being more than human does not indicate grandiosity but, rather, that one has transcended the ordinary boundaries of self, the limits of time and space, so that something more, some infusion of the divine or supernatural, must have occurred. This awareness is accompanied by profound feelings of security, tenderness, humility and gratitude. Sometimes only one partner will enjoy this transcendental experience, but with surprising frequency the feelings are shared. When sexual union includes altered states of consciousness such as these, it is properly described as ecstatic. It may progress to include one or even several instances of apparent physical and psychic melting into and becoming one with the partner. Whether this occurs in a sexual union or in a mystical context, or in a combination of the two, it is almost always regarded as one of the most profound and fulfilling experiences human life has to offer. The one that the two become is a unity much greater than its components. Religiously devout or mystically inclined people may have the sense of a unity that is also a trinity, with God present in the oneness. In any case, an experience of this order can hardly be dismissed as 'sexual mysticism' - a term sneeringly used by some of the more rabid opponents of psychedelic experimentation. Nor can it be tossed away with some labels from psychopathology, such as 'ego dissolution' and 'depersonalization.' It can be one of the most beautiful and important experiences in life. In view of all that has gone before, the orgasm - when it arrives - may seem something of an anticlimactic climax. Some people, in this orgasm-happy society, learn for the first time how much more than can be to sex than the brief intensity of the climax - and how much their past sexual experience has been impoverished by the urgent and infantile drive toward orgasm that is so prevalent in Western societies. However, the orgasm, too, is 'psychedelic' - that is, magnified or intensified. Time distortion can greatly prolong it, and there is an awareness of the whole process from beginning to end, in far greater detail. Men very often report sensations of gathering tension, concentration of energy and then an extremely acute awareness of the spasmodic propulsion of the ejaculate, which is plainly and pleasurably felt as it travels along the urethra and is ejected into the vagina of the partner. At the same time, there is a greatly intensified awareness of the genital organs of the partner: their texture, temperature and movement. Some women for the first time become keenly aware of the pulsations of the male organ as climax begins - and of the ejaculate as they receive it. Orgasm is often experienced upon two levels. It is the most intensely erotic aspect of the act, as consciousness seems totally absorbed in the orgasmic sensations. And yet there seems also to be another consciousness, which does not dilute but rather reinforces the genital consciousness. This is the sense of attaining the beautiful climax of a beautiful experience. Remarkably, in view of the richness of the experience, throughout these unions there is an undiminished and sometimes greatly intensified awareness of the partner. One does not lapse into a selfish and exclusive preoccupation with the components of ecstasy. In almost 25 percent of the sexual acts I recorded, one or both partners did not reach orgasm. This was nothing new for most of the women; but for some of the men, it was a novel experience. Typically, however, the absence of orgasm was not a disappointment. The act itself was so fulfilling that the attitude was: Who cares whether there was an orgasm? This, too, can be a valuable experience for those women who seldom climax in their ordinary lovemaking. It teaches them that even without orgasm, sex can provide remarkable fulfillment. Under the influence of psychedelics, the anorgasmic woman can experience great joy in intercourse and derive gratification from conferring just as much joy on her partner. If this lesson were learned and applied to all intercourse, many people - both male and female - would be better off for it. It is worth noting that at least some have learned it through psychedelic experimentation. The foregoing description was of a maximal drug-state sexual experience. Slightly more than half of my heterosexual subjects reported extraordinary unions resembling or approaching this at least once. The frequency probably would have been lower with younger or with less intelligent individuals, because richness of personality is a key factor in determining the richness of the psychedelic experience. An earned capacity for appreciating the complex and profound must already exist. My intention here is not to promote the haphazard and now illegal use of psychedelic drugs - with or without sexual intercourse. But it is only realistic to admit that many thousands of people are taking psychochemicals without screening or adequate guidance. Of these, a good many are also experimenting with sex. It seems best that they be informed about possibilities beyond 'kicks' and trivia, so that they can explore the many valuable aspects of an experience that might otherwise be wasted. My research indicates that homosexuals in psychedelic states enjoy profound, ecstatic sexual experiences with less frequency - and less intensity - than their heterosexual counterparts. Female homosexuals seem more likely to have profound sexual experiences than male homosexuals. The very practical matter of the positioning of the bodies appears to provide a partial explanation. The ecstatic experience seems more likely to occur when one faces the partner while the act is being performed. Social attitude toward homosexuality, as well as the homosexual's typical guilt and low self-esteem, may also be deterrents. In the drug state, homosexual acts are usually specifically erotic and less invested with other positive meaning. However, the physical pleasure of genital, oral and anal sensations is enhanced, just as with heterosexuals. Claims that LSD-state sexual intercourse can 'cure' homosexuality and frigidity may lead to enormous disappointment - and possibly serious harm - to psychosexually disturbed people, who have enough problems already. Under the influence of psychedelics, a failure to function as promised might cause a powerful reinforcement of existing disorders, making any cure more difficult. Nor is it invariably, or even frequently, true that, in the words of Timothy Leary, a "neurological and cellular fidelity" develops between two person who have had sexual relations during an LSD experience. The notion is poetic but inaccurate. Even the most beautiful drug-state sexual unions do not always guarantee change in a previous relationship. Leary's devotees sometimes tell me, with what sometimes seems more hope than conviction, that Leary speaks a 'private language,' the better to convey the ineffable truths. However, the fact is that he is taken literally by a great many people. He has said, for instance, that "in a carefully prepared, loving LSD session, a woman will inevitably have several hundred orgasms." I have yet to hear from anyone else a single instance remotely approximating this; and I feel rather confident that if it had been happening with any frequency, the world would not have had to wait for Leary to announce it. While LSD can hardly be considered a panacea for sexual disorders, it does hold promise for becoming an extremely valuable tool in treating those and many other promises. And it will become even more valuable when therapists stop regarding it as adjunct to their old procedures and develop psychedelic therapies permitting them to make full use of the great wealth of phenomena available. Scientific literature on psychedelics includes hundreds of reports of successful treatment, even with the old procedures, for such disorders as homosexuality, frigidity, impotence, fetishism and even transvestism, one of the most difficult to treat of all sexual deviations. Good progress in these areas has been made in England, and it is certainly unfortunate that psycho- therapists in this country are legally unable to work extensively with psychedelics. Some homosexuals, for instance, as part of their low self-esteem, have a distorted body image. They think they are ugly or deformed when they are not, and may believe that they have an abnormally small penis - when they actually have a normal one. In LSD sessions I recorded, the body image of homosexuals sometimes became normalized, heightening self-esteem and producing definite trends toward heterosexualization. Here, homosexuality seemed based mainly on values - not on some long past traumatic experience. In any case, hetero- sexualization could occur without any trauma being dealt with. However, when there was no subsequent therapy, the subjects' homosexuality returned within a few months after their LSD sessions were over. Some men with potency problems decided in their LSD sessions that their sexual organs were not too small and afterward their potency improved, sometimes permanently. A frigid woman discovered that an 'inner voice' had been calling her a 'fake' and an 'unworthy person.' The voiced ordinarily talked to her 'on some below level consciousness'; but in her LSD session, she heard it clearly and she was able to refute it just as clearly. After freeing herself from this voice, she felt she no longer had to punish herself by denying herself sexual pleasure. Her frigidity soon was overcome - and had not reappeared almost four years later. The therapeutic value of LSD is by no means limited to sexual disorders. Alcoholics intractable to all previous therapies have quit drinking or become much improved after treatment with psychedelics. Cure and improvement rates range anywhere from 25 to 75 percent, and some of the studies have been very well controlled. In other cases previously withdrawn, schizophrenic children improved when psychedelics were administered. Given the questionable value of some approved psychotherappies, it is a wonder that public outcry has not demanded increased use of psychedelics in the areas where there promise seems so great. Possibly such a great demand is now discouraged by recent evidence linking LSD to chromosomal abnormalities. This charge must be considered in proper perspective. The fact is that no one, at the present time, can say how important LSD-caused chromosomal damage may be. We do know that rather similar chromosomal changes are produced by many products widely used - caffeine (in coffee and cola drinks), alcohol, antibiotics and a wide range of drugs about which no such furor has been raised. Live measles vaccine, in particular, quickly produces chromosomal breaks. We know, too, that LSD has been in use for a quarter of a century, apparently without causing cancer or deformed infants - the two main specters with which chromosomal damage of this kind seems to confront us. Moreover, the U.S. Government continues to sponsor a few LSD therapy projects, so Government scientists must not feel the risks are too great. The sensible position must be to weigh LSD's value against possible, but not demonstrated, dangers. The evidence is sufficient to warrant withholding LSD from pregnant females. This may also be the place to mention briefly a new psychedelic substance, STP. STP is yet more potent than LSD, producing effects that may continue for days. It also produces far more bad trips and frequent aftereffects. The chemical analysis of STP indicates similarities to mescaline and the amphetamines, but more refined analysis is needed. Cases brought to my attention include aftereffects such as partial amnesia, frightening perceptual changes and recurring states of panic. One man, for example, weeks later, felt his head alternately growing to the size of a watermelon and shrinking to the dimensions of a pea. It is too soon to say whether these sensations will be permanent. No one I have talked to appears to have had sexual intercourse under STP. For those persons, at least, the experience was much too overwhelming. Neither does it seem likely at this point that STP will have much value for research or therapy. Pending further information, the best advice is to leave the drug alone. With STP, we may be witnessing the unhappy result of too many unscientific medical pronouncements combined with too many scare stories about psychedelic drugs. A number of physicians have greatly exaggerated the dangers of the old psychedelics - and even of marijuana. Now, with a drug that seems to be much more dangerous, these 'scientists' have forged a credibility gap that prevents many people - especially those in the psychedelic underground - from taking their claims seriously. Warnings about STP from physicians have been much less effective than those voiced by the underground press. The medical profession should consider this lesson and perhaps profit by it. More psychedelics will be created and some will almost certainly be very dangerous. Disaster could ensue unless scientists manage to regain the confidence in the public. In the case of LSD and the 'milder' psychedelics, the chances of unfortunate results can be reduced by following a few basic precautions. Since psychedelic experience can magnify tendencies in oneself, in others and in the surroundings, psychedelics should not be taken in an environment that will threaten or displease. When this precaution is ignored, there can be bad trips - whether or not intercourse is a part of the experience. Sexologists always urge a pleasant setting for intercourse - as well as a partner one respects and relates to positively. This becomes even more important when the couple has taken psychedelics. With LSD, a drab, dirty room that might ordinarily be ignored can become a filthy, sordid pesthole, and this perception of the room can saturate the total experience. Similarly, sex with a person about whom one has negative feelings can become, with LSD, an experience of extreme repulsion - with guilt, depression or anxiety as a result. In two cases I know of, males took LSD, picked up prostitutes and had very bad trips. Both men, of course, had basically negative feeling about prostitutes and these emerged in a much heightened form during the sexual act. Both men were initially aroused, but soon began to feel degraded and then powerfully repelled by the situation. One felt that the woman's body was coated with "a dirty, poisonous substance" that rubbed off on his own body and infected him. He managed to get her out of the room, was near panic for a long while and, after the effects of the LSD had worn off, he went into a depression that lasted for some days. In fact, his perception might not have been completely imaginative, since he contracted gonorrhea as a result of this contact. In the other case, the male found the girl becoming more and more ugly as he looked at her. Then the room became similarly ugly. He became nauseous, then was overwhelmed by feelings of guilt about his 'prejudice.' That the man was white and Jewish and the woman Negro made the situation especially complicated and charged with emotion. With LSD, some people may become aware of what they feel are opposite-sex components of their personality. This they interpret as evidence that they are homosexual. Some males with effeminate tendencies, who strongly suppress their effeminacy, have felt they were undergoing a physical sex change. Their bodies seemed to have female breasts and genitalia. Understandably, this kind of experience, too, can lead to anxiety and depression. And afterward, the person may believe that his 'true personality' was revealed. One should never regard drug-state as necessarily more revealing than other types of experience. With LSD-type drugs, what might be a passing and easily dismissed idea can become a prolonged a vivid mental event. But this doesn't mean that it necessarily has greater validity than the passing idea would have ordinarily. Such phenomena are best regarded as drug-state curiosities that will not effect the normal personality and behavior. When negative perceptions or emotions occur, and if they last long enough to be distressing, it is best not to analyze them. Try to get interested in something else. Psychedelic veterans have learned to do this. Similarly, it's often easy to divert the partner, should his or her distress become obvious. This might be done with an especially interesting or amusing remark or by telling the other person how much pleasure he or she is giving. If, as ought to be the case, the two people are lovers or good friends, then it is likely that they will know how to help each other, should the need arise. For this reason, too, psychedelic experience is not a desirable arena for casual sex between two strangers. Spontaneous changes in visual perception may also provide very pleasant experiences. One man, for example, related that his girlfriend changed as he held her in his arms, first to Helen of Troy, then to Cleopatra, then in successive metamorphoses to yet other women, so that he quickly "made love to all the famous beauties in history." After a while, the girl resumed he own appearance, although her beauty was greatly heightened, and he "thought he no less lovely than any of the others and appreciated very much her part in providing such a great experience." There are a host of similar erotic phenomena that sometimes occur in the psychedelic state. These might seem trivial and self-indulgent compared with the transcendence of the ecstatic union, but they are interesting, nonetheless. For many people, for instance, it is possible to 'genitalize' almost any part of the body, by consciously transferring the response capacity from the sexual organs to some other part, such as a finer. Rubbing one's finger against a fabric can provide sensations akin to those experienced in masturbation. A couple might even genitalize the lips and the mouth, so that kissing affords sensations very much like those usually experienced in mouth-genital contacts or in sexual intercourse. One man, who had taken a large dose of LSD (about 500 micrograms), found himself unable to obtain an erection, despite much assistance from his partner. Abandoning the effort, they lay side by side. Suddenly, he became aware of his entire body as "one great, erect penis. The World," he said, "was my vagina and I had a sense of moving in and out of it, with intense sexual sensations." A few research subjects have reported similar erotic sensations from listening to music. One man reported "the sexualization of my entire body as I listened to Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony. The music washed over every inch of my body, giving sexual sensations like those of a very intense orgasm. The pleasure became so intense as to be unendurable. I had to shut off the phonograph. I wondered at every instant if I would not have a real ejaculation." In a subsequent LSD experience, he responded to the same recording in the same way. No other music produced the phenomenon, and he never learned why the Pastoral should have such an effect. With another subject, any symphonic music produced strong sexual sensations. When males see vivid images or visions, they almost always include beautiful nudes, with Balinese dancing girls and other Orientals appearing frequently. Drug-state visions in America are shot through with this predilection for the East - in architectural and religious imagery as well as in nudes. But just as women are less interested in erotic art, so do they have less erotic imagery. The aftereffects of drug-state sex can be of very great value, though often the results don't last. As an immediate aftermath of a good sexual experience under LSD, some couples report an over-all improvement in their relationship - and a specific improvement in their sex life. Frequently, a portion of the drug-state perception of the woman's greatly heightened beauty carries over, so that she continues to appear more attractive. Sometimes, with psychedelics, inhibitions fall away, allowing people to engage in sexual practices that are normal and that had been desired, but which inhibition prevented. Extensive caressing of the genitals and mouth-genital stimulation are frequent examples. Breaking through such blocks can be permanent. Especially among married couples, who had largely ceased to attract each other sexually, there can be a reactivation of old desires and emotions. Most of these beneficial aftereffects are lost in days, weeks or months, but they can be retained - or possibly reactivated by another LSD session - if they are regarded as important enough to be worth preserving. Because ecstatic union is so rich an experience and may have very positive effects on a relationship, it is obviously desirable that it occur and be repeated. This is possible without psychedelics, but the necessary changes in consciousness occur more readily when they have first been experienced in LSD-type states. After LSD, memories and pathways in the nervous system have been strongly established and can be explored again more easily. To take some terminology from the theologians, we have been busy for a long while 'demythologizing' sexual intercourse - divesting it of a sense of sin and a necessary connection with procreation. But a totally demythologized sex can be mechanical, vapid and banal if it remains without larger significance. Ecstatic sexual experience may be the new and valuable 'remythologizing' agent. With and without psychedelic drugs, we may be able to invest the sexual union with new beauty and meaning. *=-- --=* { -=*/> Buzzz Bros. <\*=- } { MCMXC } *=-- --=* "You have the right to free speech - As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it." __________________ Special Thanks to: __________________ The old man at Maxwell St. that sold me the magazine for $1 93.1 FM WXRT (Chicago) The return of RIPCO (312) 528-5020 - after the Operation SunDevil bust Anyone who actually took the time to read the whole file 3rd BASS The Hyatt Regency Chicago (c) MCMXC -=*/> Buzzz Bros. <\*=- _ _ ____________________________________________________________________ /((___))\|Demon Roach Undrgrnd.806/794-4362|Grassroots..............new # soon| [ x x ] |NIHILISM.............513/767-7892|The People Farm.......916/673-8412| \ / |Tequila Willy's GSC..209/526-3194|The Works.............617/861-8976| (' ') |Lunatic Labs.........213/655-0691|Ripco.................312/528-5020| (U) |====================================================================| .ooM |1991 cDc communications by R.E.L. *************************************************************************** From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) Subject: WAR-ON-DRUGS-PROBLEMS. Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 01:19:45 GMT Permission is granted to reproduce this paper as long as you're cool about it: i.e. don't change it, don't take my name off of it, and don't make any money off of it, or if you do, share with me! :-) --germuska@casbah.acns.nwu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ American Drug Policy: What's the Real Problem? by Joe Germuska (germuska@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) [copyright 1989] "There were 2000 drug arrests in Cleveland in 1987, 3700 in 1988, and [former mayor George] Voinovich predicted 6000 in 1989. Arrests are growing at 70% a year. Juveniles arrested for drug abuse in Cleveland increased from 23 in 1985 to 142 in 1988 with a prediction of more than 520 arrests in 1989" -Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2 April 1989 "U.S. Stops Some Airborne Drugs but Admits the Smugglers Are Winning" -Headline in The New York Times, 30 July 1989 "On Thursday, March 17, 1988, at 10:45 p.m, in the Bronx, Vernia Brown was killed by stray bullets fired in a dispute over illegal drugs. The 19-year-old mother of one was not involved in the dispute, yet her death was a direct consequence of the "war on drugs." -from "Thinking About Drug Legalization" by James Ostrowski (1989) (In Colombia:) "Since 1980, assassins have gunned down 178 judges; eleven of the 24 members of the Supreme Court died in a 1986 shootout between the army and leftist guerillas thought to have been paid by the drug barons. Also hit were two successive Justice Ministers (one survived), an Attorney General, the police chief of the nation's second largest city, Medellin, and the editor of the newspaper, El Espectador in the capital city of Bogota. The drug lords also kidnaped the 33-year-old son of a former President." -Time, 4 September 1989 "The operation of New York's famous Rockefeller Drug Law, which provided high mandatory minimum sentences for heroin sellers and restricted plea bargaining . . . caused essentially no decrease in heroin activity, but did lead to a drop in the number of heroin offenders arrested and convicted, a considerable increase in the court and correctional resources necessary to process those apprehended, and a significant increase in the overcrowding of the state's prison system." -from The Hardest Drug by John Kaplan (1983) It was recently noted that the Eighties are the first decade since the depression in which the U.S. was not involved in any wars. In a traditional sense, this may be true, but, especially in the latter half, the war of the 80's has been the American government's "war on drugs". Suggested solutions have ranged from Nancy Reagan's glib "Just Say No!" to George Bush's extravagant "I'm requesting--altogether--an almost billion and a half increase in drug-related federal spending on law enforcement...." (from President Bush's televised address, 5 September 1989) However, all efforts of law enforcement officials to crush the drug traffic seem to have little end effect on traffic. For example, in 1984, Colombian authorities seized and destroyed thirteen and a half tons of cocaine, more than the total amount seized in the history of law enforcement, and yet "it did not nudge the price of coke on the street in the United States." (Latimer, 1985) In fact, the effects of law enforcement may sometimes actually be detrimental. Columnist Doug Bandow reports, "A government study in Detroit found that as the drug laws were more strictly enforced, drug prices rose and the number of other crimes committed increased." (1984) Obviously, with respect to drugs, the state of the American nation is absolutely intolerable. In an August Gallup poll, Americans named drugs as the biggest problem facing their country. "Drugs," however, is but a very vague simplification of the problem in America. Before American policy can win the war, the enemy must be defined. Analysts and policy makers debate with little progress. Drugs are blamed for crime, loss of productivity, and the decay of social institutions. Now, though, many experts are suggesting that the problem may actually lie in the actual laws prohibiting drug use. Whichever argument is more convincing will direct the future of policy. If the drugs themselves are the culprits, then enforcement efforts must be stepped up so as to minimize illicit drug sales and abuse. However, if the scenario created by prohibition of drugs is judged to be the true problem, then legalization methods must be developed. Current American policy is based on the premise that the use of illicit drugs is, by nature, wrong. The laws, some say, were enacted to protect Americans from the harm drug abuse can cause. However, socialization has created several "drugs of choice" which are, despite possibly being more dangerous, considered acceptable to use and even abuse. For too long, American society has accepted caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol as "O.K." drugs, despite possible negative side effects. The government tried to protect its citizens with the eighteenth amendment, but tenacious drinkers who wanted ways around the law motivated criminals to industrialize bootlegging, which became the foundation of organized crime in America. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop released a study declaring nicotine a drug at least as addictive as heroin, yet President Bush's appointed "Drug Czar," William Bennett, is still hooked on cigarettes. In fact, technically speaking, if nicotine were discovered today, it would be listed as a "Class C narcotic," putting it in a league with heroin and cocaine, neither of which has been a part of our culture long enough to be accepted like tobacco. Because of the nature of illegal drugs, few studies have been conducted. However, it seems that neither heroin nor cocaine have long term health effects anywhere near as severe as the chronic effects of America's drugs of choice. Lawyer James Ostrowski writes: It is well known that tobacco causes cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. While the effects of heavy alcohol consumption are not as well known, they include anemia, fatty liver, hepatitis, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, gastritis, ulcer, hypoglycemia, congestive heart failure, ataxia, brain damage, blurred vision, dementia, cranial nerve palsy, circulatory collapse, and hemorrhages. (1989) The government is trying more to protect its citizens from the acute, or immediate effects of these drugs. However, many scholars argue that the acute dangers of cocaine and heroin are predominantly because of their illegality. It has been "reasonably estimated that at least 80 percent of deaths from illegal drugs today are attributable to the effects of drug prohibition." (Ostrowski, 1989) Obviously, legalization would prevent all of these deaths. First, street drugs are not monitored, so the user has no idea what he is actually putting into his body. Many drugs are cut with other substances to increase their bulk at no cost to the dealer. The fact that some of these additives may be harmful or fatal need not bother dealers, as their customers have no legal recourse. This is comparable to the sale of denatured alcohol during prohibition. Criminals often sold blindness-inducing wood alcohol to unknowing customers. Obviously, since the repeal of Prohibition, brewers and distillers have been obeying government safety measures. It has been quite a while since anyone was sold methyl alcohol as an intoxicant! Also, because street drugs are not labeled, the user has no idea of the potency of the drug he may be using. A drug user may shoot up with a dose of the same quantity as the last time, and therefore be apparently safe. If the second dose is more pure, however, the user may overdose. Since distribution of alcohol includes legislation requiring consistent percentages of alcohol by volume, drinkers can know how much they've been drinking. If currently illegal drugs were instead monitored by the government in essentially the same way as legal "drugs of choice," those who so desired would be able to monitor their use much more carefully and responsibly, as may today's drinkers and smokers. Also, the illegality of drugs may be the motivation for users to turn to more dangerous methods of administration. Randy Barnett, a law professor, writes, "Intravenous injection, for example, is more popular in countries where the high drug prices caused by prohibition give rise to the most 'efficient' means of ingesting the drug. In countries where opiates are legal, the principal methods of consumption are [smoking] or snorting. . . [N]either is as likely as intravenous injections to result in an overdose." (1987) Also, addicts often share needles, which helps spread AIDS and hepatitis. It seems that, from a strict health standpoint, the laws outlawing drugs are causing users more harm than use through government approved channels might. The one health aspect that would be constant regardless of the legality of drugs is the prospect of addiction. The laws in place today are there primarily to prevent Americans from becoming enslaved to a chemical. However, there are serious problems with these motivations. First, Americans can and do become addicted to alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and numerous legal over-the-counter and prescription drugs. The government does not, however, forbid the use of these addictive chemicals. And marijuana has been determined not to be physically addicting. That is, a marijuana user will suffer no health problems if deprived of THC for an extended period of time. If the government will outlaw psychologically addictive substances such as this, then it may as well include gambling, eating, and even dieting, all of to which people can become psychologically addicted, or more accurately, all of with which people can become obsessed. The only grounds upon which the government would be justified in maintaining this inconsistency is if it were demonstrable that addiction to currently illegal drugs would necessarily be more harmful or more inevitable than addiction to currently accepted drugs. There is simply no reason to believe that this would be so. Popular belief may hold that these drugs are particularly worse than the ones we use today, but many people are basing their beliefs on fear-motivated research such as that which produced the film "Reefer Madness." In this film, marijuana smokers were depicted as raving psychotics after one puff of smoke. While this myth has been debunked, similar misbeliefs about other drugs persist. For example, Henry Giordano, former head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, said that his agency's research showed that anyone who used heroin more than six times would become an addict. Even at that time, several studies showed that those who had tried heroin far outnumbered those who became addicted. And today, "it is now clear that there exists a sizeable population of nonaddicted but regular heroin users who seem well integrated into society and in many ways indistinguishable from the rest of the population." (Kaplan, 1983) It is likely that, as with alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco, other drugs would after a short period of acculturation be similarly compatible with daily life. Also, there are considerable questions about the rights of the government to prohibit what is often called a "victimless crime." The United States government was founded on principles of limited government. Many libertarians point out that it is not the government's business to regulate commerce between consenting adults. To these people, drug use is a private matter in which the government has no business. Obviously, neither the buyer nor the seller of drugs objects to the transaction. One counter to this viewpoint is the claim that drug abuse cannot truly be victimless: the user's friends and family may suffer if he becomes an addict, and many drug users commit crimes to support their habits. What about these victims? Well, a person's associates may suffer if that person were to become obsessed with anything, not just illegal drugs. However, this in other cases is considered a social problem and not a criminal problem. Or, in the case of child abuse or neglect, the parent is punished for that crime, not for the possible causes of his misdeeds. As for crime, quite simply the laws against drugs cause many more crimes than simply drug sales and possession. Because of the legal risk, sellers can inflate prices. A dose of heroin that costs pennies to hospitals sells for $10-20 on the streets. Also, because the market is illegal, ruthless "businessmen" can resort to violence and terror to control business, since their customers could certainly not turn to the police and risk detection themselves. This danger inflates the prices still further. But, drug conviction records keep many users from gaining useful employment and money. Therefore, they must rob or steal to maintain their habit. Drugs themselves do not tend to promote violent crimes against persons. As Duane McBride reports, "Non-drug users were more likely to commit crimes against person than were all types of drug users. . . . Heroin addicts concentrated their activities on behaviors that would result in the most monetary gain," so that they could by drugs. (1981) Experts generally agree that very few of the violent crimes committed that are connected to drugs are committed because of the pharmacological effects of the drugs. As New York Police Department Deputy Chief Raymond Kelly said, "When we say drug-related, we're essentially talking about territorial disputes or disputes over possession. . . . We're not talking about where somebody is deranged because they're on a drug. It's very difficult to measure that." (quoted in The New York Times, 1988) If the drug prices were not inflated, the addicts would be buying their drugs over the counter with money earned at legitimate jobs, and crime would be reduced tremendously. After all, few alcoholics need to resort to muggings to buy their booze. To summarize: prohibition of drugs is justified on the following grounds: Americans must be protected from the ill effects of drugs, both on their health, and addiction; also, Americans must be protected from those who use drugs, particularly those who commit crimes because of their drug use. But, though the long term side effects of illegal drugs are unclear, they are unlikely to be worse than alcohol and tobacco. The immediate dangers of drug use have been shown to be largely attributable to illegalities which would be absent from a legally regulated production industry. Addictiveness of illegal drugs has not been shown to be any greater than addictiveness of alcohol or nicotine. And, the crime caused by drugs is committed for two reasons: to meet high prices which would be much less without the inflation caused by criminalization; and in the course of criminal business, to settle disputes that legitimate industry would take to court. It would seem, in fact, that much of the problem that faces America today is truly a result of the laws prohibiting drugs rather than the drug use itself. If this is the case, then legalization must be considered. And, if the social cost of legalization would be less than the current costs of criminalization, then the solution must be implemented. Let us examine how legalization might go. If drugs were legalized, use would increase. This is inevitable at first. However, it is not necessarily true that the novelty would last any longer than any other fads which strike our country periodically. When the government of the Netherlands reformed its laws, their goal was to "make marijuana boring." And, since decriminalization, marijuana use has declined markedly in that country. As with alcohol after prohibition, society's use would soon stabilize, and with America's growing concern over health, drug use would probably soon follow the trend lines of decreased use of tobacco and alcohol. Also, legalization would free up $4.7 billion dollars that George Bush budgeted for 1990 for enforcement and corrections. Much of this, in addition to tax revenue on drug sales, could be added to the $2 billion already budgeted for education and treatment programs. If drugs were legalized, the drugs themselves would become safer. Brewers don't spike their beer with rubbing alcohol or any other dangerous liquids, and pharmaceutical companies would be similarly bound by FDA regulations. And, users would probably use safer and easier methods of administration. More people drink beer and wine than hard liquor. Similarly, relatively few Americans would resort to injection, given the common fear of needles, especially when one is not concerned with "maximizing" the high obtained per dollar. For those who would use needles, some of the "windfall" dollars liberated from enforcement could be diverted to an education campaign about the dangers of injection and sharing needles. Of course, the sudden legalization of drugs would open a new area of danger, although lessened. Although at first it sounds unusual, a user licensing system might be the most practical way to educate users. After all, we require citizens to have licenses to drive cars and carry guns. All adults who desire to use drugs could be required to pass some kind of test about effects and dangers of drug use. Those who pass would be issued a license which would be presented when drugs are bought. While this system would certainly not be infallible (neither is driver or gun licensing), it would help somewhat. Most importantly, if drugs were legalized, crime would be radically changed. Property crime would decrease. Users would no longer have to resort to theft to purchase drugs. Users would not necessarily have criminal records, allowing them to seek gainful legal employment. Violent crime committed by dealers would vanish entirely. Those who sell drugs would be behind drugstore counters rather than in back alleys. Few pharmacists resort to violent crime to boost their sales or eliminate a competitor. Finally, drug legalization would effect great change in many of our social institutions. Children in poverty would no longer have a shortcut to riches. Although they might be reluctant at first, they would eventually begin to strive for success along traditional pathways such as education and hard work. Also, school children would be free of the spectre of dealers hanging around the playground trying to find new customers. With the profits available through legal sales, pharmacists would be no more likely to break the law and hawk their wares to children than are liquor store proprietors. As for families torn by drug abuse, if the problem were accepted as a social, rather than criminal problem, social policy solutions could be pursued. Once again, the billions of dollars freed from the "Drug War Chest" could be put towards programs designed to rehabilitate addicted parents, educate mothers-to-be about the dangers of drug use to their unborn children, and warn children away from ever starting to use drugs. In conclusion, it seems that the cost of maintaining prohibition of drugs is much greater than the cost of legal drug sales would be. In fact, in 1988 Ostrowski challenged nine major players in the drug war (George Bush, William Bennett, Assistant Secretary of State for drug policy Ann Wrobleski, White House drug policy adviser Dr. Donald Ian McDonald, and the public information directors of the FBI, DEA, General Accounting Office, National Institute of Justice, and National Institute on Drug Abuse) challenging them to name any study "that demonstrated the beneficial effects of drug prohibition when weighed against its costs." None of the nine were able to cite such a study. For more than a century, America has been threatened by horror stories about the effect of drugs. It seems about time that our country took a more objective look at the situation it has fallen into. The radical changes that legalization would bring no doubt terrify many people. However, ever-increasing enforcement efforts seem to be leading nowhere but down. Every time criminals are convicted, the huge profit basically ensures that someone will move in to take their place. While the demand for drugs continues, someone will meet that demand, especially with the profits available in a prohibition system. America must begin to study legalization options. For the sake of consistency, for the sake of the American tradition of limited government intrusion, and most of all, for the sake of every American citizen who suffers from drug laws in place today, America must open its eyes and learn a lesson from its own past. As we saw in the 1920's, if a population wants something badly enough, someone will oblige them, whether it be Chicago's Al Capone or Medellin's Jorge Ochoa. As soon as America stops adding to the problems with drug laws, it can spend its time, energy, and money on the underlying causes and effects of drug use and abuse. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bibliography "America After Prohibition: The Next Debate Over Drug Legalization: How Would It Work?" (Collection of essays) in Reason, October, 1988. p. 22-29 "Americans Are Placing Issue of Drugs At the Top of Their National Agenda," in The Washington Post, 18 August 1989. p. A1. Baltic, Bernard. "Drug Laws are the problem, not the solution," in The Plain Dealer, 2 April 1989. p. 1-C. Bandow, Doug. "The U.S. Should End Its War on Drugs," in Chemical Dependency, Claudia Debner (ed.) St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven Press, 1985 Barnett, Randy E. "Curing the Drug-law Addiction: The Harmful Side Effects of Legal Prohibition," in Dealing With Drugs, Ronald Hamowy (ed.) San Francisco: Pacific Research Inst., 1987. "Bush Heats Up War on Drugs," Chicago Tribune, 6 September, 1989. p. 1. Chaiken, Marcia R. and Bruce D. Johnson. Characteristics of Different Types of Drug Involved Offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, Office of Communication and Research Utilization. 1988. Daniels, Mitch. "Bennett Knows Best," in The Washington Post, 22 August 1989. p. A19. Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Drug Frenzy: Why the war on drugs misses the real target," in Utne Reader, March/April 1989. p. 76. "Going Too Far: The drug thugs trigger a backlash in Colombia and Kennebunkport," in Time, 4 September 1989. p. 12. Kaplan, John. The Hardest Drug. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Latimer, Dean. "Cocaine Use is Sensationalized," in Chemical Dependency, Claudia Debner (ed.) St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven Press, 1985. McBride, Duane C. "Drugs and Violence" in The Drugs-Crime Connection, James Inciardi (ed.) Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, 1981. Moynihan, Daniel. "The U.S. Should Strengthen Its War on Drugs," in Chemical Dependency, Claudia Debner (ed.) St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven Press, 1985. Ostrowski, James. "Policy Analysis: Thinking About Drug Legalization." Washington, D.C.: The Cato Institute. 1989. Rich, Robert M. Crimes Without Victims. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978. "Should drugs be legalized?" (opposing editorials) in Utne Reader, March/April 1989. p. 80. "U.S. Stops Some Airborne Drugs but Admits the Smugglers Are Winning," in The New York Times, 30 July 1989. p. 1. Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "The Enemy Within," in U.S. News and World Report, 11 September 1989. p. 91. -- |----Joe Germuska | germuska@casbah.acns.nwu.edu | ---- (708) 864-5939 ---| |-Join the Peter Gabriel Mailing List:gabriel-request@casbah.acns.nwu.edu-| |"Old men sing about their dreams, women laugh and |"How can we be in when| |children scream, and the band keeps playin' on..."|there is no outside?"-| *************************************************************************** JUNE 93 UPDATE/JUNE 93 UPDATE/JUNE 93 UPDATE ATOMIC BOOKS / 229 West Read Street / Baltimore, MD 21201 Voice: 410-728-5490 Fax: 410-686-0000 Internet: atomicbooks@pro-cynosure.cts.com Please E-Mail for US and Int. Shipping Rates. Maryland residents add 5% sales tax. Orders shipped within 48 hours if everything is in stock. You will be notified by E-mail if items are out of stock and we can make arrangements to either hold the order until all items are in stock or to ship seperately. If you are looking for a title that is not listed, please call or E-mail me. PSYCHEDELICS Titles in Stock (E-Mail for Additional Topics Lists) (NEW TITLES followed by ASTERISKS ***) Acid Dreams:The Comp Social History of LSD.....11.95 America's Favorite Drug-Coffee And Your Health.....5.00 Archaic Revival (Terrence McKenna).....13.00 Cain's Book (1950-s Heroin).....9.95 Drug Testing at Work.....17.95 The Drug User:Documents 1840-1960.....10.95 Ecstasy: The MDMA Story (Eisner).....17.95 Emperor Wears No Clothes:Hemp & Marijuana Conspiracy.....14.95 Fire In The Brain: Clinical Tales of Hallucination.....10.00 Flashbacks (Leary Autobiography).....15.95 Food of the Gods (Terrence McKenna).....13.95 Free Rides: Get High w/o Drugs.....8.00 >From Chocolate to Morphine-Everything You Need to Know About Mind-Altering Drugs ***.....13.95 Haight-Ashbury Flashbacks (Summer of Love).....9.95 Hallucinogens: Cross-Cultural Perspectives.....10.95 Hippie Papers (reprints classic Haight Ashbury fliers).....10.00 Laughing Gas: 70's classic on Nitrous Oxide.....12.95 LSD My Problem Child (Albert Hoffman) limited numbers left.....15.00 PIHKAL: A Chemical Love Story.....21.95 Plants of the Gods 19.95 Politics of Ecstasy (Timothy Leary).....12.95 Psychedelic Chemistry.....16.95 Psychedelic Monographs and Essays #6.....20.00 Psychedelics Encyclopedia.....24.95 Smart Drugs and Nutrients.....12.95 Steal This Urine Test (Abbie Hoffman).....11.00 Storming Heaven:LSD and the American Dream.....13.00 NEWSLETTERS: E-Mail for availability of Current Issue Island Views (Albert Hoffman Foundation).....3.00 PlantWise (Psychoactive Plants).....5.00 Psychedelic Illuminations #3 ***.....5.00 Smart Drugs Update (Morgenthaler/Dean).....6.00 Urine Nation News (Drug Testing).....2.00 COMIX Neurocomix (Timothy Leary).....2.25 Suburban Teens on Acid (D.Worden) RECOMMENDED!!!.....2.50 all replies to ATOMICBOOKS@PRO-CYNOSURE.CTS.COM you can encrypt your e-mail orders if you like or even order through e-mail using PGP 2.2. Just make sure that we have your public key first! -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.2 mQBPAiv7e0sAAAEB/AigAUOxhkkceOsU1+nEPAiZOhAxplHUeUR2djVl42QU+sbb 8YTcFQGubvyqNT3yOE6uH5mAJGH4rYtbV8JsStEAEQEAAbQvQXRvbWljIEJvb2tz IDxhdG9taWNib29rc0Bwcm8tY3lub3N1cmUuY3RzLmNvbT4= =UlZx -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Internet: elrod@pro-cynosure.cts.com | PGP Public ProLine: elrod@pro-cynosure | Key available UUCP: crash!pro-cynosure!elrod | upon request -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- . "We intend to destroy all dogmatic verbal systems" . . ---William S. Burroughs . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- *************************************************************************** r w AM-DrugSeizures 06-15 0537 ^AM-Drug Seizures,520< ^Conservative Hyde Teams With Liberal ACLU Seek Curb On Property Seizures< ^By LARRY MARGASAK= ^Associated Press Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) _ U.S. Customs agents in Florida searched a professor's new $24,000 sailboat for drugs. In seven hours, they found nothing but damaged the boat so thoroughly, it had to be sold for scrap. A disabled Kentucky retiree was acquitted on state charges after police found 500 marijuana plants on his farm, but he was forced to pay the federal government $12,500 to get his confiscated property back. Conservative Rep. Henry J. Hyde cited these examples Tuesday, as he proposed restrictions on government seizure of property in suspected drug cases. In doing so, he teamed up with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. The Illinois Republican told a news conference that money and other property is being taken ``in terribly unjust ways'' under civil law _ often from those never charged with drug crimes. He introduced legislation to curtail this method of pursuing drug profits and obtaining money for use by law enforcement agencies. Under current law, authorities only need to show ``probable cause'' that property was used illegally in order to seize it. The owner must then prove his or her innocence to get it back. ACLU President Nadine Strossen joined Hyde at the news conference to back his bill. But she also called civil forfeiture unconstitutional and proposed its abolition, because the burden of proof is on the defendant. Hyde, who would not endorse abolition, said his bill would: _Require the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that an asset was purchased with the profits of crime or was used in committing a crime. _Provide a lawyer for those who can't afford one but want to challenge a civil forfeiture. Currently there is no right to appointed counsel in these cases. _Abolish the requirement that a property owner post bond to contest a seizure. _Clarify that lack of consent to illegal activity is a valid defense to forfeiture. ``Nothing less than the sanctity of private property is at stake here,'' Hyde said. ``This is unjust; this is abusive, and it must be addressed.'' Hyde said he might have a tough time selling fellow conservatives on the need for the legislation, since the money from seizures goes into a fund used for law enforcement which had $531 million in deposits last year. But Strossen said no one can accuse Hyde, a strong backer of anti-drug measures, of being soft on crime. Strossen said civil forfeiture, used since 1984, ``has become a nightmare for thousands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens'' who are subject to ``Draconian property deprivations.'' Also backing the legislation was Nancy Hollander, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She said authorities have focused their forfeitures on ``minor participants and innocent people, not big drug dealers.'' Hollander said that forfeiture revenues ``have assumed an indispensable role in law enforcement budgets, creating a situation in which seizure targets are sometimes selected by the bounty available to the enforcement agency ....'' AP-DS-06-15-93 1526EDT< --- Belts?Belts??? We don't need no stinkin' belts! Dan Liebster Bellcore dl@silat.bellcore.com 201.829.4797 *************************************************************************** From: cyu@delfin.com (Cristina Ungstad Yu) Subject: Re: "End The Drug War" stamps for snail mail envelopes now available!!! The stamps are the stick-on kind. They are *not* postage stamps. I ordered some and they arrived promptly. The prices were (I believe) $5 for a sheet of 30 and $10 for three sheets of 30. They are professionally done, and look rather attractive and distinctive. I'm not affiliated with this group, but I think they've got a darned good idea. I purchased a bunch of postage-paid postcards, then I stick a couple stamps on a couple every month or so and mail them to Washington. Here's the address again: Save Our Liberties 187 Acalandes Dr. #14 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 -Cristina Yu *************************************************************************** This sad message was posted to SCODAE, a "drug-abuse education" mailing list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 13:50:52 -0600 (MDT) From: "John J. Gibson" To: Multiple recipients of list SCODAE Subject: Poppy Seed Info Needed.... Hello Everyone, I'm new to this LISTSERV, but I have an extremely urgent request that perhaps only YOU in the Internet community can help with now.... My wife recently moved to Arizona to start her "Dream Job" (offered in July) and was given the standard pre-employment physical at a local hospital. She was given no warnings of what NOT to eat, and I believe was not even asked what she had recently eaten. She ate two poppy seed muffins that morning and registered a positive morphine level on their drug test that afternoon. She was fired because she was a "drug abuser". There are a few other circumstances that seem to have complicated this situation. We've found out that the NIDA suggested limit is 300; she scored about 1,000 and we are trying to figure out "why". The nurse said she was extremely dehydrated (after working in 100-degree temperatures) and that her keytones (?) were high (she had eaten very little the last few days). She is also vegetarian. We've heard that these other factors may have been the reason for her score, but we have no solid medical research to back this up.... Does anyone out there know of any research or other cases that can help us prove the truth? Is there another LISTSERV with someone who could provide this information? Are there any experts out there we could talk to? Any suggestions you have would be appreciated! We are trying to get the actual lab results (and will ask for a re-test of the same samples), but the hospital has been very slow in giving us a copy. She also had a surprise test which proved clear, but they discounted these results because a "drug-abuser would have expected a second test". We are now trying to prove the truth so my wife can keep her Nursing license and her livelihood. Previous to this test, we thought these drug tests were a good idea; as you can imagine, this experience has shaken that belief somewhat. In fact, it has almost devastated our lives. Not only did we move all our belongings there (at our own expense), established a residence, etc., but the hospital reported her to the State Nursing Board and nobody will hire her now that she has this "record". After 20 years of experience and higher education (with absolutely NO drug abuse), she gets this for eating two supermarket muffins for breakfast. The scary thig is that this could happen to anyone.... Thanks VERY MUCH in advance for all your help! **************************************** John J. Gibson Director of Computing Dean's Office College of Business Administration University of Northern Colorado Greeley, CO 80639 TEL: (303) 351-1227 FAX: (303) 351-2500 Internet: jgibson@Slinky.UnivNorthCo.edu **************************************** *************************************************************************** Excerpts from _Our Right To Drugs: The Case For a Free Market_ by Thomas Szasz (c) 1992 ISBN 0-275-94216-3 Casting a ballot is an important act, emblematic of our role as citizens. But eating and drinking are much more important acts. If given a choice between the freedom to choose what to ingest and what politician to vote for, few if any would pick the latter. ... The trick to enacting and enforcing crassly hypocritical prohibitions, with the conniving of the victimized population, lies in not saying what you mean and avoiding direct legal rule making. Thus, the Founders did not declare, in so many words, "To justify slavery, in the slave states blacks shall be counted as property; and to apportion more congressional seats to the slave states than they would have on the basis of their white population only, black slaves shall be counted as three-fifths persons." ... ...There are three distinct drug markets in the United States today: 1) the legal (free) market; 2) the medical (prescription) market; and 3) the illegal ("black") market. Because the cost of virtually all of the services we call "drug treatment" is borne by parties other than the so-called patient, and because most people submit to such treatment under legal duress, there is virtually no free market at all in drug treatment. Try as we might, we cannot escape the fact that the conception of a demand for goods and services in the free market is totally different from the conception we now employ in reference to drug use and drug treatment. In the free market, a demand is what the customer wants; or as merchandising magnate Marshall Field put it, "The customer is always right." In the prescription drug market, we seem to say, "The doctor is always right": The physician decides what drug the patient should "demand", and that is all he can legally get. Finally, in the psychiatric drug market, we as a society are saying, "The patient is always wrong": The psychiatrist decides what drug the mental patient "needs" and compels him to consume it, by force if necessary. ... Naturally, drug companies defend the practice [of advertising]. "The ads," they say, "help educate patients and give consumers a chance to become more involved in choosing the medication they want." But that laudable goal could be better served by a free market in drugs. In my opinion, the practice of advertising prescription drugs to the public fulfills a more odious function, namely, to further infantalize the layman and, at the same time, undermine the physician's medical authority. The policy puts physicians in an obvious bind. Prescription laws give doctors monopolistic privilege to provide certain drugs to certain persons, or withhold such drugs from them. However, the advertising of prescription drugs encourages people to pressure their physicians to prescribe the drugs they WANT, rather than the drugs the physicians believe they need...Missing is any recognition of the way this practice reinforces the role of the patient as helpless child, and of the doctor as providing or withholding parent. After all, we know why certain breakfast food advertisements are aimed at young children: Because while they cannot buy these foods for themselves, they can pressure their parents to buy the advertised cereals for them. Similarly, the American people cannot buy prescription drugs, but they can pressure their doctors to prescribe the advertised drugs for them. ... If ever there were services that are fictitious or even worse, they are our current publicly financed drug treatment services. The wisdom of our language reveals the truth and supports the cogency of these reflections. We do not call convicts "comsumers of prison services", or conscripts "consumers of military services"; but we call committed mental patients "consumers of mental health services" and paroled addicts "consumers of drug treatment services". We might as well call drug traffickers -- conscripted by the former drug czar William Bennett for beheading -- "consumers of guillotine services". After all, Dr. Guillotin was a doctor, and Mr. Bennett used to teach ethics. ... Although it is obvious that the American drug market is now completely state controlled, most people seem at once unaware of this fact and pleased with it, except when they want a drug they cannot get. Then they complain about the unavailability of that particular drug. For example, cancer patients complain that they cannot get Laetrile; AIDS patients that they cannot get unapproved anti-AIDS drugs; women, that they cannot get unapproved chemical abortifacients; terminally ill patients in pain, that they cannot get heroin; and so on...Sadly, the very concept of a closure of the free market in drugs is likely to ring vague and abstract to most people today. But the personal and social consequences of a policy based on such a concept are anything but abstract or vague...the voluntary coming together of honest and responsible citizens, trading with one another in mutual trust and respect, has been replaced by the deceitful and coercive manipulation of infantalized people by corrupt and paternalistic authorities...helping politicians to impose their will on the people by defining self-medication as a disease... ... Ever since Colonial times, the American people have displayed two powerful but contradictory existential dispositions. THey looked inward, seeking to perfect the self through a struggle for self-discipline; and outward, seeking to perfect the world through the conquest of nature and the moral reform of others. [Any guess which of the two is morally reprehensible? You got it. If you want to change the world, change yourself first.] The result has been an unusually intense ambivalence about a host of pleasure-producing acts (drug use being but one) and an equally intense reluctance to confront this ambivalence, embracing simultaneously both a magical-religious and rational- scientific outlook on life. ... In 1914, Congress enacted another landmark piece of anti-drug legislation; the Harrison Narcotic Act. Originally passed as a record-keeping law, it quickly became a prohibition statute. In the course of the next seven years, by a curious coincidence of history -- if, indeed, it is coincidence -- in Rissua, the Soviet Union replaced the czarist empire, while in the United States, the free market in drugs was replaced by federal drug prohibition possessing unchallengeable authority. Excerpts from two key Supreme Court decisions quickly tell the story. In 1915, in a test of the Harrison Act, the Court upheld it, but expressed doubts about its constitutionality. "While the Opium Registration Act of December 17, 1914, may have a moral end, as well as revenue, in view, this court, in view of the grave doubt as to its constitutionality except as a revenue measure, construes it as such." Yet only six years later, the Court considered objection to federal drug prohibition taboo...In 1914, trading in and using drugs was a right. In 1915, limited federal drug controls were a constitutionally questionable tax revenue measure. By 1921, the federal government had gained not only complete control over so-called dangerous drugs, but also a quasi-papal immunity to legal challenge of its authority. ... Although we now shamefully neglect and obscure the differences between vice and crime -- and hence the differences between peaceful persuasion and government coercion -- these differences form the pillars on which a free society rests. Conversely, denying these distinctions (by metaphorical bombast, sloppy thinking or political propaganda making use of both) is the decisive step in transforming self-restraint into the restraint of others, temperance into prohibition, persuasion into persecution, the moral ideals of individuals into the immoral madness of crowds. All this [Lysander] Spooner saw clearly: No one ever practices a vice with any...criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others. Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and co-equal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property. ***************************************************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank