About Us

December 28th 04, 01:33 AM

Don't they make beer there?

December 29th 04, 02:30 AM

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Ever hear of "Needle Park"...???

No!

Where is it - in Switzerland?

ta DAAAAAAH!

I'll take that as a yes.

I know that The Netherlands has very loose rules in certain districts
on things like recreational drugs, but I don't know about Switzerland.

The government sponsors free needle exchanges and disposal.

That's just pragmatism.

Works like this:

Anybody dumb enough to inject themselves with drugs of unknown origin isn't
likely to be very fussy about the sterilization of their needles. So rather
than have to deal with the complications of needle-borne diseases, they give
out clean needles in trade for dirty ones.

Does that really reduce the public burden of illegal drug abuse? I don't know.

How many drug addicts does Switzerland have, anyway?

73 de Jim, N2EY

January 9th 05, 10:38 PM

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/31/2004 10:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Remember Cecil, W5DXP/W6RCA? His take on the problem was that all
"recreational" drugs should be legalized for adults. But if someone was
caught
providing them to minors, or caused problems while under the influence, the
penalties would be much higher than today. IOW, if you want to get high, go
ahead, but if you cause something bad to happen, don't try to use the drugs
as an excuse.

Uh huh...And that won't work.

Is what we have in place now working? People who want them seem to have no
problem getting their hands on illegal drugs. Heck, how long did Rush Limbaugh
abuse *legal* drugs (in an illegal way) before being caught?

We have rules like that for alcohol and firearms yet people still insist
on being stupid with them.

Of course. People are stupid with gasoline and electricity, too. Also motor
vehicles of all kinds.

The problem with the laws are that we WON'T use them to their full
extent.

I agree 100%! That's the key to Cecil's idea: Enforce the laws based on
*outcomes* of someone's behavior.

Personally, I believe that we have more than enough laws to punish
people
who use those weapons illegally or improperly. Yet everytime there is some
tragedy with a firearm, we go through yet another knee-jerk reaction of
insisting that we take away the guns rather than enforce the laws on the
books.

Let's get this straight:

The solution to firearms abuse isn't banning firearms. Instead, the solution is
to have serious and swift punishment for the *abuse* of firearms.

And I agree 100%.

So then it follows logically:

The solution to drug abuse isn't banning drugs. Instead, the solution is to
have serious and swift punishment for the *abuse* of drugs.

Same with alcohol. It's only been in the last 10-15 years that we've
finally decided to drop the hammer on alcohol abuse and DUI, but even then
it's
not unusual to find people who are still behind the wheel after four, five or
more DUI's.

Because the laws aren't perfect, and there's a long history of classifying
alcohol related highway deaths as "accidents".

So...as I see it the ONLY benefit to legalizing drugs would be the
potential tax revenues. But then we'll only spend those revenues building
rehab facilites or more prisons to house the offenders, so what's the use?

Remember that about 85 years ago, ethanol was banned as a beverage in the USA.
Rather than curbing the consumption and abuse of ethanol, banning it made the
problem worse, and created/empowered new levels of organized crime.

73 de Jim, N2EY

January 10th 05, 01:35 AM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Remember that about 85 years ago, ethanol was banned as a beverage in the
USA.

Wrong, completely WRONG.

There's nothing in the 18th Amendment (which went into force in 1920)
which says "ethanol."

Paragraph 1 of the 18th Amendment says "After one year from the
ratification of this article, the manuafacture, sale, or transportation of
intoxicating liquors within, the transportation thereof into, or the
exportation thereof from the United Staates and all territory subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

Note that the word "beverage" doesn't show up until the last line, almost
an afterthought.

Absolutely nothing mentioned "ethanol."

That Amendment was repealed 13 years later.

Rather than curbing the consumption and abuse of ethanol, banning it made the
problem worse, and created/empowered new levels of organized crime.

You tellum, Mr. Crime Fighter.

What all of that has to do with "amateur radio" or "mode/band use in 1961"
is unknown.

None of Prohibition happened when you existed. Why are you so
concerned about it? It isn't the FCC's or NTIA's job to enforce
anything about alcohol. Try the ATF.

There are several other newsgroups that just love to talk about such
things. Try those venues, okay?

January 10th 05, 03:49 AM

Lenof21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Remember that about 85 years ago, ethanol was banned as a beverage
in the
USA.

Wrong, completely WRONG.

There's nothing in the 18th Amendment (which went into force in
1920)
which says "ethanol."

You are correct! My mistake.

Paragraph 1 of the 18th Amendment says "After one year from the
ratification of this article, the manuafacture, sale, or
transportation of
intoxicating liquors within, the transportation thereof into, or
the
exportation thereof from the United Staates and all territory
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby
prohibited."

Note that the word "beverage" doesn't show up until the last line,
almost
an afterthought.

It's still there.

Were there any intoxicating liquors banned other than those containing
ethanol?

Absolutely nothing mentioned "ethanol."

Were there any intoxicating liquors banned other than those containing
ethanol?

Was it not ethanol that *defined* whether a beverage was an
"intoxicating liquor" or not?

That Amendment was repealed 13 years later.

Think about *why* it was repealed.

Rather than curbing the consumption and abuse of ethanol, banning it
made the
problem worse, and created/empowered new levels of organized crime.

You tellum, Mr. Crime Fighter.

Is that statement untrue?

What all of that has to do with "amateur radio" or "mode/band use
in 1961"
is unknown.

Then answer this question, Len:

You previously wrote:

"All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace
period."

Is that true?

Or did you make a mistake, Len?

Note that you wrote "all licensees", not just those who had submitted
renewals to FCC prior to their license expiration date.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us