From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 02:39:15 MST
Michael M. Butler wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>>and don't say this is 'nonsense and inappropriate'. I've seen situations
>>like this or exactly like this in the lives of many addicts.
>>
>
> It's not nonsense or inappropriate.
>
> However, restitution, and putative "tough love/hitting bottom/you'll-thank-me-later" effects,
> have just about nothing to do with modern day civil asset forfeiture as practiced in the USA.
>
AMEN. And again, there are many users of many different
substance who are in no way "addicts", so using this language is
negatively polarizing of issues of human freedom. Hell, you can
have everything you own seized by forfeiture laws if one joint
is found on the premises. I defy anyone to tell me how that
makes any sense or how someone occassionally smoking pot (or
firing up at the end of the workday for that matter) can be
equated with being a junkie.
For the record I once knew a lot about drugs but was never into
anything physically addictive for very long except for tobacco,
which was a real pain to kick. Speed and cocaine were briefly
in my life but I considered them to be "dumb" drugs with the
payoff not worth the cost. Short-term memory decreases fast
enough as I age without smoking pot, which I gave up many years
ago. But I affirm anyone's right to mix or buy whatever
chemical cocktail s/he wishes AND to live with the (natural, not
inflated legal) consequences.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST