Airplane shot down in Colombia

In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no
market there would be no 'value stream'...

So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?

That may be the most naive thing I've ever seen written here -- and
*that* is not an easy cliff to scale!



OK, so I suppose you think that prohibition was right. There should be no
alcohol consumed by anyone in the USA. Hey,
wait, that is what brought Dillinger to fame, and some mega bucks to the
Rockefellers...

Naive, huh?

Kennedys -- not the Rockefellers -- THEY stole the oil rights before the
Kennedys ran booze into the country.

While the repeal of Prohibition did result in days of party binging at
certain air-themed motels and Air Venture campsites, would you
characterize that as Matrix-like?

"Binging"? Please.

One of the reasons we like pilots as our "target market" is that they
cannot be alcoholics or binge drinkers and long maintain their
privileges as airmen.

This makes it easy for us to lend them our courtesy van, and rent them
suites with thousands of dollars in artwork and memorabilia in them,
since we *know* they aren't going to get snockered and tear the place
apart, or wrap the van around a pole.

This is NOT true of our non-pilot crowd, BTW, and it's something we
monitor quite closely. (It's also why we never, EVER lend our van to
non-pilots, under ANY circumstances.) Over the years we've had a few
incidents with guests who have drank themselves into a stupor, and
it's never fun to deal with -- but these have NEVER been pilots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 07:17:03 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

I can't reconcile your last two statements with the high level of organized
crime in South/Central America....

I could see why you would say that, but the Narco-states don't fit the
classic definition of a police state because the drug factions can
effectively match firepower with the official state governments and corrupt
its police force.

A classic police state has a disarmed population like Haiti and requires
considerably fewer police per capita to achieve effective crime control.
They achieve this by not granting any rights to the populace. When the
police choose to solve a crime, they simply start rounding up people and
applying very effective methods of interrogation.

Getting back on topic, the legal systems of most of our neighbors to the
south are not based on English Common Law and as a result they are
historically less interested in human rights and more interested in
results.

--
Dallas

In article .com,
Jay Honeck wrote:

While the repeal of Prohibition did result in days of party binging at
certain air-themed motels and Air Venture campsites, would you
characterize that as Matrix-like?

"Binging"? Please...

Jay, you have an aviation-theme for much of your hotel. I don't know what
an "air-themed motel" is... :-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I'm afraid that we, as a society, have little choice but to try to
stop illicit drug use.

I agree, but what we've been doing for so long very closely fits the
colloquial definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results.

The War on Drugs is a monumental failure. We've wasted billions annd created
fabulously wealthy drug empires around the world with our
prohibition/enforcement strategy. That we have failed to do anything
significant to reduce the flow of dope is illustrated by the street price of
cocaine, which has been going steadily *down* every year since the '80s. Why?
Because the supply is going up. The tons of the stuff we seize is just a cost
of doing business to the narco-lords. There's plenty more where that came
from.

I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

As for those who want to keep using, fine; let 'em. But they can't work for
my company 'cause we drug test. They can't go to school or college 'cause
we'll drug test there, too. If they get caught driving under the influence,
driver's license gone; second time: felony. Bottom line: if you want to be a
drug user you can't participate in society with the rest of us; it's up to
you.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

Unfortunately, treatment of drug and alcohol addiction is an abyssmal
failure, far surpassing the failure to stop the flow of drugs.

Not because of lack of money (although there *is* that), but because
it just doesn't work -- period. Take a look at the stats, and it's
absolutely appalling how few people succeed.

People who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are usually damaged in
other ways. I've never yet met a homeless person who wasn't either
mentally ill, addicted to drugs and/or alchol, or all three. My
sister has been in an out of treatment programs for 30 years -- to no
avail. And now, after years of abuse, she is so mentally screwed up
that she couldn't hold a job even if she were cold stone sober.

Multiply her times 10 million, and you see the magnitude of the
problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com...
I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

Unfortunately, treatment of drug and alcohol addiction is an abyssmal
failure, far surpassing the failure to stop the flow of drugs.


Citations?


Not because of lack of money (although there *is* that), but because
it just doesn't work -- period. Take a look at the stats, and it's
absolutely appalling how few people succeed.



The amount of money spent on prevention and treatment is fractions of what has been spent on this so-called war. If we
spent as much money on treatment and prevention of addiction as we have spent in the vain attempt to prevent this stuff
from getting in to the country we would not have the problems you see. I'll bet we could give each 'additcted' person
$30,000 a year just to stay in a home and we would be money ahead...


People who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are usually damaged in
other ways. I've never yet met a homeless person who wasn't either
mentally ill, addicted to drugs and/or alchol, or all three. My
sister has been in an out of treatment programs for 30 years -- to no
avail. And now, after years of abuse, she is so mentally screwed up
that she couldn't hold a job even if she were cold stone sober.

Multiply her times 10 million, and you see the magnitude of the
problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



This is kind of like my naive dream that some day there VFW will disappear. There will no longer be any veterans of
foreign wars because it has been so long since there was a war that the last veteran passed away and none were left...

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 06:58:16 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
:


I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

Hasn't that been the British policy for a long time?*

As for those who want to keep using, fine; let 'em.

As though you could successfully stop them?

But they can't work for my company 'cause we drug test. They can't go to school
or college 'cause we'll drug test there, too. If they get caught driving under
the influence, driver's license gone; second time: felony.

If the tests to which you refer test for _impairment_, not systemic
evidence of past use, I would agree with your view.

Bottom line: if you want to be a drug user you can't participate in society with
the rest of us; it's up to you.

That is as it should be. But society's rejection of drug users should
be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the mere
use of a drug. And there should be provision for appropriate
medical/psychological treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Just as military strategies are not appropriate for the resolution of
_all_ conflicts and disagreements, incarceration is not a rational
approach to changing all unacceptable behaviors.


* http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/bo.../bingspear.cfm

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:06:41 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote in .com:

My
sister has been in an out of treatment programs for 30 years -- to no
avail. And now, after years of abuse, she is so mentally screwed up
that she couldn't hold a job even if she were cold stone sober.

Do you feel that incarceration is appropriate for her?

Dan,

The War on Drugs is a monumental failure.


I hate to say it, but:

Like so many recent Wars led by god's own country - and all for the
same basic reason.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)