Is chalk dust healthy?

[Colin Colenso]

______________________________________________________________

Colin, they have just banned smoking in all public places in the entire country of Ireland, that is where this thing is going. Of course some pubs are having riots. The fine for being caught is $6000 or 90 days in jail. How tough is that one?

They've done it for many places in Australia too. And in California it has done huge damage to the bar business.

So much for opening up my cigar club!

It is strange that they call pubs public places. Just wait till the feds bash down your garage door when you and a few buddies are playing pool and having a few beers and smokes. Thank god we have the state to protect us from our foolish selves

 

[ramdadingdong]

They've done it for many places in Australia too. And in California it has done huge damage to the bar business.

So much for opening up my cigar club!

It is strange that they call pubs public places. Just wait till the feds bash down your garage door when you and a few buddies are playing pool and having a few beers and smokes. Thank god we have the state to protect us from our foolish selves

_____________________________________________________________-

They did that on booze in the usa during the l930's.

 

[Colin Colenso]

_____________________________________________________________-

They did that on booze in the usa during the l930's.

Exactly, and prohibition led to high levels of violence and towards distribution of high alcohol drinks which were sometimes highly contaminated.

Now we have the drug war, and hence the same pattern repeats.

Some people may like to read about the drug paradise of the USA back in the 1900's, when drugs were freely available, but didn't seem to do much harm:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu1.html

 

[ramdadingdong]

Exactly, and prohibition led to high levels of violence and towards distribution of high alcohol drinks which were sometimes highly contaminated.

Now we have the drug war, and hence the same pattern repeats.

Some people may like to read about the drug paradise of the USA back in the 1900's, when drugs were freely available, but didn't seem to do much harm:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu1.html

____________________________________________________________
At the turn of the century you could buy anything, there were no laws. The drinks with Heroin, Opium and cocaine did tremendous harm, so much so that is why the laws were passed, to clean up the mess. Coca Cola had to stop putting real cocaine in their drinks. It was a huge epidemic. Look what happened to China and Shanghai during the opium period, total destruction of the society. That was of course pushed on them by the Indian Tea company, the main drug pusher of that era. It was English owned and operated.

Fast Larry

 

[Colin Colenso]

____________________________________________________________
At the turn of the century you could buy anything, there were no laws. The drinks with Heroin, Opium and cocaine did tremendous harm, so much so that is why the laws were passed, to clean up the mess. Coca Cola had to stop putting real cocaine in their drinks. It was a huge epidemic. Look what happened to China and Shanghai during the opium period, total destruction of the society. That was of course pushed on them by the Indian Tea company, the main drug pusher of that era. It was English owned and operated.

Fast Larry

Larry,
I don't have any stats for now, but I'm inclined to think that the drug problems back in those days in the US were minor, certainly less severe than alcoholism and drug addiction today. There certainly was not a lot of drug crime compared to during prohibition or the drug war today which has sent over 3 million to prison. Much more than the entire prison population of China.

Of course much of the British empire was build on the opium trade and they fought wars to protect their ability to trade. I think the term pushed is inapproriate. The consumers were willing, as are the consumers of McDonalds today.

 

[lunchmoney]

I read a book about Cornbread Red several months ago (can't remember the title at the moment). It said that he had x-rays of his lungs taken later in life that showed a build-up of chalk in his lungs, like a coal miner. Seems like if you live in pool rooms all your life, you can't help but breathe in chalk dust and talcum powder. It's gotta go somewhere!

It was Bob Henning"s Biography of Cornbread Red, I was going to make a note of that chapter myself. I don't suppose the cigarette smoking had anything to do with it. Great book by the way.............

 

[chefjeff]

____________________________________________________________
At the turn of the century you could buy anything, there were no laws. The drinks with Heroin, Opium and cocaine did tremendous harm, so much so that is why the laws were passed, to clean up the mess.
<snip>
Fast Larry

Actually, with all due respect to your historical knowledge (probably programmed in a govt education camp?) the opium laws were passed to control those awful Chinese people....my gawd, they had the audacity to be self-sufficient and....DIFFERENT!

Likewise, the pot laws were first enacted as a covenient way to send those awful Mexican people back to Mexico....my gawd, they had the audacity to be self-sufficient and....DIFFERENT!

Drug laws are not against drugs, per se; they are against people...usually people with little political influence.

BTW, the anti-drug-user laws did, and are still doing, nothing to "clean up the mess." In fact, the laws (not the drugs) have increased violence in society with drive bys, burglaries, etc. etc....You don't go to small claims court for accounts receivable problems. How many stills or bathtub gin mills exist today? How may Al Capones exist via alcohol?....answer: almost none. This is because of the repeal on prohibition, not because the killer drug, alcohol, has gone away.

Drugs help certain underacheivers maintain their illusions of happiness. For others, it's a rational way to modify one's thinking processes or physical traits. Who owns YOUR mind and body, you or someone else? That's THE question that gets left out of most drug war discussions.

Only trouble makers harm others; drug users SOMETIMES fall into this category, as do non-users. And when and if they do, then the CRIME AGAINST OTHERS should be sufficient to punish them, not the choice of their state of mind at the time.

To those who think Colin and I are unreasonable, why don't you propose a chalk law to help "clean up the mess?" After all, if it's good for the wetbacks and chinks, it's good for the scum of the poolhalls....maybe they will crawl back into their holes, too. Who cares if these undersireables miscue once in a while?....we have the children to consider!!!!

Sorry for the flare-up, but you've hit one of my hot buttons,

Jeff Livingston

 

[ramdadingdong]

Actually, with all due respect to your historical knowledge (probably programmed in a govt education camp?) the opium laws were passed to control those awful Chinese people....my gawd, they had the audacity to be self-sufficient and....DIFFERENT!

Likewise, the pot laws were first enacted as a covenient way to send those awful Mexican people back to Mexico....my gawd, they had the audacity to be self-sufficient and....DIFFERENT!

Drug laws are not against drugs, per se; they are against people...usually people with little political influence.

BTW, the anti-drug-user laws did, and are still doing, nothing to "clean up the mess." In fact, the laws (not the drugs) have increased violence in society with drive bys, burglaries, etc. etc....You don't go to small claims court for accounts receivable problems. How many stills or bathtub gin mills exist today? How may Al Capones exist via alcohol?....answer: almost none. This is because of the repeal on prohibition, not because the killer drug, alcohol, has gone away.

Drugs help certain underacheivers maintain their illusions of happiness. For others, it's a rational way to modify one's thinking processes or physical traits. Who owns YOUR mind and body, you or someone else? That's THE question that gets left out of most drug war discussions.

Only trouble makers harm others; drug users SOMETIMES fall into this category, as do non-users. And when and if they do, then the CRIME AGAINST OTHERS should be sufficient to punish them, not the choice of their state of mind at the time.

To those who think Colin and I are unreasonable, why don't you propose a chalk law to help "clean up the mess?" After all, if it's good for the wetbacks and chinks, it's good for the scum of the poolhalls....maybe they will crawl back into their holes, too. Who cares if these undersireables miscue once in a while?....we have the children to consider!!!!

Sorry for the flare-up, but you've hit one of my hot buttons,

Jeff Livingston

______________________________________________________________
Jeff please, I agree the war on drugs is a joke and the level of incarsrations going on is obsurd as well. We had a cocaine epedimic prior to wwI, about a third of the country was running around stoned. Women were using it during the day as they were not allowed in salons. They just cut off the source and everyone went cold turkey. Then doctors has to prescribe it, prior to then a drug store was really a true drug store.
Pot was legislated with a racial scare tacticts, the new drug lord of the time convinced congress that black people were smoking weed and going nuts and raping white women. LaGuardia, the mayor of NY did a study of experts saying this was not a dangerous drug and was not addictive, the guy ignored this and pushed the law through. My historical data I am giving you is totally accurate sir. I am not taking any side in this drug issue nor have I on this board, I only am telling you our history, I am just the reporter here, the messenger, do not shoot your messengers.
Best Wishes,
Fast Larry

 

[ramdadingdong]

Larry,
I don't have any stats for now, but I'm inclined to think that the drug problems back in those days in the US were minor, certainly less severe than alcoholism and drug addiction today. There certainly was not a lot of drug crime compared to during prohibition or the drug war today which has sent over 3 million to prison. Much more than the entire prison population of China.

Of course much of the British empire was build on the opium trade and they fought wars to protect their ability to trade. I think the term pushed is inapproriate. The consumers were willing, as are the consumers of McDonalds today.

_________________________________________________________________
Colin, the boxer rebellion 1900, was the outporing of hate of what had been done to the Chinese and to their society by English domination. See the movie the sand pebbles, Steve McQueen. The Chinese trying to stop the destruction of their people by outlawing opium and its use in 1729 but the British pushers ignored this. That caused the opium wars of 1837-42 and their invasion and the unequal treaties. When you give somebody a drug then addict them, then sell it to them, from that point on they are not a willing consumer which was why they put real cocaine in coca cola. They have to buy it, they don't have a choice. Opium crippled the Chinese country, every one was sitting around stoned. They asked the British to stop and take it away, then insisted, and what they got was invaded.

The Americans helped in the plunder as well. They even plundered the forbidden city. You can go into the Nelson art gallery in KCMO and see one of the finest chinese collections any where, even a throne the emperor was sitting on, all plundered and stolen as booty. All that was to protect their drug trade. Yes, they were drug pushers, I stand firm on that. What they did to the Chinese people was one of the worst crimes in history.

At the turn of the century people bought bottles of snake oil, bottles of feel good medicine which could have in them heroin, lardanun, morphine or cocaine. It was estimated there were over 200,000 people crippled by drug use at that time. Most of the women of the time were getting stoned in the afternoons on the stuff. Yes it was a major problem which was why congress had to act. There was no drug crime because it was all legal. You could walk into a store and buy a bottle of heroin. The Harrison act of 1914 ceased all of that. I am just the messenger of these historical facts, do not shoot your messengers.
Best Wishes,
Fast Larry

 

[Colin Colenso]

_________________________________________________________________
Colin, the boxer rebellion 1900, was the outporing of hate of what had been done to the Chinese and to their society by English domination. See the movie the sand pebbles, Steve McQueen. The Chinese trying to stop the destruction of their people by outlawing opium and its use in 1729 but the British pushers ignored this. That caused the opium wars of 1837-42 and their invasion and the unequal treaties. When you give somebody a drug then addict them, then sell it to them, from that point on they are not a willing consumer which was why they put real cocaine in coca cola. They have to buy it, they don't have a choice. Opium crippled the Chinese country, every one was sitting around stoned. They asked the British to stop and take it away, then insisted, and what they got was invaded.

The Americans helped in the plunder as well. They even plundered the forbidden city. You can go into the Nelson art gallery in KCMO and see one of the finest chinese collections any where, even a throne the emperor was sitting on, all plundered and stolen as booty. All that was to protect their drug trade. Yes, they were drug pushers, I stand firm on that. What they did to the Chinese people was one of the worst crimes in history.

At the turn of the century people bought bottles of snake oil, bottles of feel good medicine which could have in them heroin, lardanun, morphine or cocaine. It was estimated there were over 200,000 people crippled by drug use at that time. Most of the women of the time were getting stoned in the afternoons on the stuff. Yes it was a major problem which was why congress had to act. There was no drug crime because it was all legal. You could walk into a store and buy a bottle of heroin. The Harrison act of 1914 ceased all of that. I am just the messenger of these historical facts, do not shoot your messengers.
Best Wishes,
Fast Larry

Hi Larry,
I ain't gonna shoot the messenger. I enjoy a debate.

Regarding the facts of history, these are often difficult to determine, and certain subjective valuations are necessary in any interpretation of historical facts.

Regarding drug addiction, there are various expert opinions on the subject that vary. By some people's accounts, as 90+% of people eat fast foods, then they are addictive.

I do believe, that the often alleged harmfull side effects, and disorientation caused by many illegal drugs are overrated. That they are not much different than alcohol, and I believe most here would not want to see another prohibition on alcohol for various reasons. Forefront being the loss of personal freedom to do as one wishes and the dangerous black market that would evolve under such laws.

Regarding addiction, those interested in the debate that drugs are not addictive may read the opionions of Dr. Thomas Szasz in the transcript of the following debate which gives both sides of the opinion.

http://www.szasz.com/addiction.pdf

 

[Bluewolf]

Hi Larry,
I ain't gonna shoot the messenger. I enjoy a debate.

Regarding drug addiction, there are various expert opinions on the subject that vary. By some people's accounts, as 90+% of people eat fast foods, then they are addictive.

I do believe, that the often alleged harmfull side effects, and disorientation caused by many illegal drugs are overrated. That they are not much different than alcohol, and I believe most here would not want to see another prohibition on alcohol for various reasons. Forefront being the loss of personal freedom to do as one wishes and the dangerous black market that would evolve under such laws.

Regarding addiction, those interested in the debate that drugs are not addictive may read the opionions of Dr. Thomas Szasz in the transcript of the following debate which gives both sides of the opinion.

http://www.szasz.com/addiction.pdf

I have been in the minority for some time in thinking that drugs should be legal if alcohol is legal. Fatty foods, cigarettes all kinds of things are bad for us but along with alcohol, we get to choose to destroy our bodies or be healthy.

If drugs were legal, we would not have over 50% of the police force pursuing these offenders, court costs would be cut as well as the cost of incarcerating these folks. Also since drug traficking is a major source of revenue for organized crime, imo, legalization would reduce their activity as well. We as a country, and as citizens out of our taxes are paying out the ying yang to support this war against drugs, which does not work any better than the phohibition laws kept people from drinking.

When people go underground, such as during the prohibition and in the current case of drug use, more people died from getting bad stuff and it did not change anything. Addicts, whether alcohol or other drugs, cigarettes or fatty food are going to get their fix and when it is illegal, it increases crime rather than to decrease it.

I do no like government control and I do not like paying for such things that are futile anyway.

Laura

 

[ramdadingdong]

I have been in the minority for some time in thinking that drugs should be legal if alcohol is legal. Fatty foods, cigarettes all kinds of things are bad for us but along with alcohol, we get to choose to destroy our bodies or be healthy.

If drugs were legal, we would not have over 50% of the police force pursuing these offenders, court costs would be cut as well as the cost of incarcerating these folks. Also since drug traficking is a major source of revenue for organized crime, imo, legalization would reduce their activity as well. We as a country, and as citizens out of our taxes are paying out the ying yang to support this war against drugs, which does not work any better than the phohibition laws kept people from drinking.

When people go underground, such as during the prohibition and in the current case of drug use, more people died from getting bad stuff and it did not change anything. Addicts, whether alcohol or other drugs, cigarettes or fatty food are going to get their fix and when it is illegal, it increases crime rather than to decrease it.

I do no like government control and I do not like paying for such things that are futile anyway.

Laura

__________________________________________________________

You can always move to Amsterdam. Delta flies out every day. The feds are not going to give up booze or gambling, they are making too much money on it. They really don't care what we do, they just want their piece of the action. Knowing that, I can't figure why they have not put pot in liquor stores and pulled their cut in from it. Laura can you really equate a long neck bud beer with a pipe full of crack cocaine, that is like comparing a mouse to a tiger.

I drink 4 buds a night now, I am fine. You can call me up at midnight and I am dead sober and not slurring any of my words. If I did 4 pipe fulls of crack, and needed some tomorrow, I would be breaking into your house to steal or selling my body to get my next fix. Nobody would give me 2 cents for my body, but a lot of innocent girls become ho's over crack. That is where a lot of the crime is coming from. If I run out of money and can't buy my 4 buds tomorrow, I won't be mugging you in the parking lot for my beer fix.

I'll just go up to a strange bar and hustle 4 beers, tee hee hee. The last time I bought a beer Ike was in office and tricky Dick was veep. That was the last time I paid table time also. I view booze and cigs as drugs. I also think this war on drugs has become a total farce and has been for over a decade or longer. They can't stop nothing, it's just another buracracy justifying its own existence and their phony baloney jobs. If you want to stop drugs, send in the Marines into Columbia for starters, cut off the souce, like they did at the turn of the century. If Teddy Roosevelt was elected today, that is what he would do. Nicaraugra borrowed money from him, did not pay it back, he sent in the marines, repoed the country, fired the president, took over the bank and paid him self back then left. You did not mess with Teddy.

If you want to see crime go down then you can't be having country club jails where these slime bags are better off inside with 3 squares, a bed, Ac and free sex, than they were out side, sleeping on a park bench breaking into cars for a living. If every city copies what Joe is doing, crime would drop to new levels. We used to have jails and prisions like this, crime was low and the lawyers sued to take them away. Now we moddle coddy our scum.

Subject: Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona



In a message dated 6/5/04 1:52:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, about Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) who created the "tent city jail":

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails.
Took away their weights.
Cut off all but "G" movies.
He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.
Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails.
So he hooked up the cable TV again only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.
When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.
He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.
When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
He bought Newt Gingrich's lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.
When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
More on the Arizona Sheriff:
With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports:
About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.
On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before.
Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.
"It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 1/2 years. "It's inhumane."
Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic
He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates:
"It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"
Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one, there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

Best Wishes,

Fast Larry