>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <03bc01bf1871$364b7870$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Of Targum and Teleposky >Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:28:27 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Following this "Guest Commentary" is my letter to the Daily Targum (not to >be confused with the Weekly Targum, circulation rival with TIME and >Newsweek). > >Yes, I am reduced to writing letters to college newspapers, but after >reading Mr. Teleposky's piece, you will see how difficult it is to resist. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > >========== > >Pubdate: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 >Source: Daily Targum (NJ) >Copyright: 1999 Daily Targum >Contact: opinions@dailytargum.com >Address: 126 College Avenue, Suite 431, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 >Fax: (732) 246-7299 >Website: http://www.dailytargum.com/ >Author: Chris Teleposky, Guest Commentary >Note: Chris Teleposky is a Livingston College senior majoring in >administration of justice. > >LEGALIZE MARIJUANA? NO WAY > >Recently, there has been a flurry of articles regarding the legalization of >illicit drugs, especially regarding marijuana. This no doubt coincides with >the current views accepted by most of the college population. The problem I >have with these groups is that most of the arguments they use in regard to >marijuana legalization are trivial and hold no credibility whatsoever, but >end up commanding so much respect among so many people. The fact is that >many of these people get their information from popular misconceptions and >hearsay. Most people don't even know that out of the three basic >classifications of drugs (i.e. stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens) that >marijuana is a hallucinogen. > >Among some of the popular arguments from proponents of legalization is the >relation to alcohol and how alcohol is a bigger problem than marijuana. >Now, I agree that there is a problem with alcohol in this country, but what >does that have to do with the question at hand? Absolutely nothing. When >asked about this relation, Dr. Franz Winkler stated, "An illness does not >become more attractive by a statement that another one is just as bad." >This comparison used by advocates of legalization is comparable to telling >a terminally ill cancer patient that AIDS is just as bad. Do you think that >makes them feel any more comfortable with what they have? > >Now, I'm a fair person and I feel that this comparison between marijuana >and alcohol should be discussed in order to clarify why the two drugs >cannot be compared. By comparing the two of these drugs you are literally >comparing apples to oranges. First, if you examine the metabolism rates of >each of the drugs you will find a profound difference. By metabolism rate I >mean the time it takes for the body to get rid of the drug. The human body >can rid itself of alcohol at the rate of 0.015 percent an hour. That means >that if you have a blood alcohol level of 0.06, which is still under the >legal limit, it will take you four hours to get rid of all the alcohol. >Marijuana, on the other hand, can be detected within the body forty-five >days after use and can be found in brain tissue up to six months after use. >An another criterion that must be looked at is the addiction rates of the >two drugs. Contrary to popular belief, alcohol has a 10 percent addiction >rate. Marijuana has an addiction rate of 26 percent. This means that two >and half times more people become addicted to marijuana than alcohol. > >There are some smaller points I would like to touch on regarding some of >the arguments used by groups such as NORML. They state that if the drug was >made legal the government could regulate its manufacture and distribution, >thus rendering everything OK. The problem is that government regulation >does not mean a whole hill of beans to anything. For example, alcohol is >government regulated and this country has a big problem with that. I'm >surprised that these activist groups do not agree with me on this. I mean >weren't they the ones who first used the alcohol argument to justify >legalization stating that it was a bigger problem than marijuana? > >Marijuana is illegal for a reason. It was made illegal a long time ago >because of persistent efforts from countries such as India and Egypt to do >so because of the wide spread health and social problems this drug caused >within their societies. It is illegal because it is addictive. It is >illegal because of the physiological harm it causes to the body. Smoking >one "joint" is equivalent to 20 tobacco cigarettes in damage to your lungs. >It causes profound brain deformities after prolonged use. It depresses your >body's ability to reject poisons, which becomes extremely dangerous when >taken with large amounts of alcohol. It greatly impairs motor skills and >dexterity. The drug increases your heart rate. It also causes dysfunction >with your body's immune system. The list can go on and on. > >Medical technology in the 70s could only detect marijuana in the body eight >days after use. Today it can be found 45 days after use. Medical technology >will only get better and more will be learned about this drug. Marijuana >will never, ever be legal. > >========= > >Dear Distinguished Editors of the Daily Targum, > >One cannot help but comment on the journalistic efforts of one Chris >Teleposky, of the eminent Teleposkys of Edison, New Jersey, who graced your >October 8, 1999, issue with more than a little piece of his mind by way of >his Guest Commentary, "LEGALIZE MARIJUANA? NO WAY!" One is, of course, >tempted to quote the immortal Wayne Campbell-surely Mr. Teleposky's >intellectual equal-by simply responding, "WAY!" and leave it at that. But, >no. When Mr. Teleposky takes it upon himself to quote the noted man of >science, Dr. Franz Winkler, whomever he may be, one must respond at length, >although not necessarily not in depth. > >The Daily Targum informs us that "Chris Teleposky is a Livingston College >senior majoring in administration of justice." Indeed. He is obviously not >majoring in logic, reason, science, history, or English composition. >"Administration of justice" is about right. His command of grammar and >syntax, with a little work, is just about up to the arduous literary task of >filling out police reports. In fact, one suspects Mr. Teleposky has a job >awaiting him at the New London, Connecticut Police Department, those stellar >administrators of justice who refuse to hire anyone with an IQ over 90. > >But I digress. The subject is "Marijuana Legalization? Way! or No Way!" When >faced with the argument from the evil legalizers that if alcohol-more >harmful than marijuana-is legal, then marijuana should be legal, too, Mr. >Teleposky responds: "When asked about this relation, Dr. Franz Winkler >stated, 'An illness does not become more attractive by a statement that >another one is just as bad.'" Indeed. But for how long has the consumption >of alcohol been considered an "illness"? And just who the hell-you will >pardon my French-is Dr. Franz Winkler? A faculty search shows no such Dr. >Winkler at Livingston College, or at all of Rutgers University, for that >matter. An Internet search reveals only an Austrian Dr. Franz Winkler, an >authority on algorithmic algebraic geometry, polynomial system solving, and >symbolic geometric commutation. An expert on alcohol and marijuana >comparisons? I think not. > >But enough quibbling over experts. I cannot pretend for a moment that Mr. >Teleposky and I disagree on everything. When, for example, he points out in >his inimitable style "that government regulation does not mean a whole hill >of beans to anything," well, amen to that! Although I must admit it is an >unorthodox observation coming from one who plans to devote his life to the >administration of justice. And when Mr. Teleposky informs us that marijuana >"is illegal because of the physiological harm it causes to the body. Smoking >one 'joint' is equivalent to 20 tobacco cigarettes in damage to your lungs," >it surely makes me want to imprison each and every one of the 61 million >cigarette smokers in this country for their own damn good. Administration of >justice, ho! > >And how could I pretend that I learned nothing from Mr. Teleposky's Guest >Commentary? For example, I discovered that marijuana and alcohol have >"metabolism rates." Surely, this must mean these drugs are alive, as only >living things have "metabolism rates," no? And how astonishing to learn that >marijuana has "an addiction rate of 26 percent." Wherever did this >information sally forth? Fortunately, Mr. Teleposky doesn't clutter up his >commentary with references or citations. How considerate of him! > >Oh, but let us not forget history, Teleposky style. Marijuana, we are >informed, "was made illegal a long time ago because of persistent efforts >from countries such as India and Egypt to do so because of the wide spread >health and social problems this drug caused within their societies." Ah, >yes, indeed: our legal system is, of course, grateful to the "persistent >efforts" of India and Egypt. In fact, isn't our Constitution based on Indian >and Egyptian Common Law? I think it is. > >How proud Livingston College must be to turn out such prize administrators >of justice as Christopher Teleposky! It would be a lot more fun to read the >arduous prose of such thinkers if only they didn't control the law, and if >only one person in this country wasn't arrested for a marijuana offense and >a human life destroyed every 39 seconds with such logic and reasoning. > >Sincerely, > >Peter McWilliams >author, "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: >The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country" >www.consenting.org >peter@mcwilliams.com > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------