Rants

Now to defend myself: In my article, my point (however clearly I put it) was that I would rather have drug trafficking done by no-one, much less by the government which is supposedly here to help us with our problems rather than magnify them. I think we all agree that if marjuana was legalized, it would be more accessable to the average person (Little Jimmy could rob a pharmacy, forge a prescription (it's easier than you'd think) or commit some other sort of crime to obtain it, rather than just buy it direct from the dealers and crime lords). Why not recruit more police officers to go undercover and stop the drug trafficking that occurs now, rather than destroying more innocent lives for a 'good cause'?

Follow Up To: Legalized Marijuana: WHY?
Posted: [6/29/2001 5:58:38 AM | Chris Franson]


I would like to start my follow up to Franson?s article by declaring that I am a supporter of the Republican Party. I am not a conservative republican; instead I am a fairly liberal republican. But yes, I am a republican.

As Franson stated: ?Little jimmy is interested in getting high, and he doesn't want to kill himself using inhalants, or pay a whole bucketful of greenbacks to get hooked on cocaine or heroin.? This is the scenario that Franson created for his argument; I will use the same. In the current situation Little Jimmy would walk down to a park, a street corner, a back alley, or any other place that has some dealers near by. Little Jimmy gets some marijuana laced with LCD and Little Jimmy ends the next day dead with an overdose. That probably won?t occur but it could . . . and probably does. If marijuana was legalized this situation would never occur.

Little Jimmy goes to the local drug store to get his marijuana, and he gives the pharmacist his forged prescription, and walks out with his marijuana -- this would hardly ever happen because the chances that little Jimmy can actually forge a prescription and get away with it are so small. I am sure when congress instates the bill that they will take some precautions, so that it would be very difficult to forge a prescription for marijuana. For the sake of discussion though, what if Little Jimmy gets away with it. He is going to have safer marijuana ? some that isn?t laced with LCD. Jimmy doesn?t end up dead with an overdose the next day, but instead just gets a little high.

?Why may I ask would we want to make drugs even more accessible to young people in this already drug-infested society?? (Franson) More accessible! What is easier going to a street corner or park or wherever to get drugs, or getting the paper that doctors write their prescriptions on, then forging their signature, then walking over to a local pharmacy, then waiting for fifteen to thirty minutes because the pharmacist takes so bloody long. Which is easier?

There is no reason to keep allowing the drug lords to control this profit making, life-destroying drug. Instead I would rather have the Government control the trafficking of this drug. This is a simple choice, who would be better to have control the drugs and the outcome of little Jimmy?s drug experience, the mobs, gangs, and drug lords or the government . . .?

I'm coming out, not in the way your thinking, but in my beliefe that pants are one of the most evil creations ever made by man. They are confining, create social groops, are a cause of aggression, and cots people lots of money for a needless item. They surve no purpose, I see nothing wrong with the naked human body my self. Some may be offended by it, I say "don't look then" Well, that concludes my first article in a while, and dear god, take thoes pants off

I have often thought about making the government better, mainly late at night. One night I came up with the idea of a government system, where there is no government, and yet the peace and civilization continues. How, you may ask, my answer is through Technomonarcommunism. It is a system, where through transmitters in planted in the brain, and a linking mainframe, you get a unified conciseness. This way, there would be no injustice, no hatred, no misunderstandings, and none of the little things that slow our everyday lives. Think of the organization, the preciseness, the shared knowledge. Your brain is just a place for the storage of data for the system, and there would be only one control. This control would have access to any knowledge that anyone hooked to the system at any time had had. This knowledge intern, with other knowledge, could be used for the ultimate good of man kind. People would just be limbs of the system, a creature really. As said by some great philosopher, when many join, it creates something greater than the things them self. This would be the case. But in order to maintain the system, there would have to be at least one person not attached to the system. This person would be able to override anything the system did, and would have the ultimate word. This is where the "monarch" comes in to the name.

-Some may say that this removes individualism, this may be so, but I belive it is for the ultimate good of man kind. The world would stop waiting energy on useless things. Also, when it becomes necessary to leave this world, fore the sun going collapsing or such, it would help majorly in the design and manufacturing of the interstellar space craft capable of getting us to another suitable world. I, my self, am a big fan of individualism, but it becomes necessary, in a turn of events, to give up your rights and wants for the bettering of mankind. Mankind is a virus, just to let you know, but hell, if were going to destroy this world, might as well take it out as one big powerfull creature!!!

Remember the Presidential election from this past year? The Florida controversy? Al Gore complaining on national television for weeks on end? What a mess! The whole thing seems to me to be done in a shoddy, back-asswards manner. But what I consider the most appalling travesty of this whole mess is the manner in which the election was decided. The Supreme Court, the highest, most respected court in the land, was used to decide the election, which it could not legally do!

Under current law, the US Supreme Court is forced to make decisions in a manner completely nonwithstanding of political affiliation. The election, as I see it, could only have been decided correctly on a political basis, since an election is an entirely political event. So why then should the Supreme Court decide this case? Isn't it a matter of what the people of the United States, and of Floida as a whole think, and want to happen in their great nation?

It also baflles me as to how the good ol' liberals even got to this decision in the first place. I mean, this is a case in Florida. Perhaps it is a major part of a Federal case, but it is still a Floridian matter. Why not ude a state court or other such law-interpreting body, rather than a court which would have to go against one of its most central rules to decide the case?

Thirdly, for those of you who claim that this decision wasn't a political one, this ruling basically decided the election. I feel that it is a terrible travesty of the rights of Americans to have a major political decision be decided not by the people, but by nine powerful people in black robes.

In conclusion, I am not lamenting the decision to elect George W. Bush president. I would actually prefer a man who stumbles over his words to an outright liar ("I invented the Internet!") and a major censorship advocate ("Remove raunchy shows like Seinfeld from the air!"). I am simply lamenting the way in which this great country elected their 43rd President. The conservative candidate had obviously won, and the liberal demands that there be a recount of the votes, while hidden caches of liberal votes were brought forth from the depths to be recounted again and again. It just seems like a mess to me.

~ Chris Franson
Coming Soon: Welfare reform.

Consider this situation: little jimmy is interested in getting high, and he doesn't want to kill himself using inhalants, or pay a whole bucketful of greenbacks to get hooked on cocaine or heroin. So he walks down to his friendly local drugstore with a forged prescription for some medicinal marijuana, claim that he has stomach ulcers, and walks out of the store with enough pot to get and keep him high for a month.

A scary thought, but its the truth: under the drug legalization bill, created by the liberals who we love so much, huge quantities of marijuana would be kept and dispensed to people with only a doctor's prescription, which can easily be falsified. Why may I ask would we want to make drugs even more accessible to young people in this already drug-infested society?

Also, marijuana is considered a gateway drug; that is, its use leads to the use of other, more powerful drugs. If marijuana were legalized, the people who used marijuana might very well open the gateway, to LSD or cocaine, or another powerful drug. If they could get lots of people to say that that drug was the only true cure for the pain of AIDS, cancer, or other such terminal illnesses, then it becomes possible for lil' jimmy to go get stoned as hell on medicinal LSD. That is, of course, until he thinks he's being attacked by a monster and stabs himself to death, or thinks he can fly and jumps off the top story of a high-rise building.

Why, may I ask, do liberals even want to legalize drugs in the first place? Supposedly they want to put people out of their pain and suffering if they have a terminal illness, or restore their appetite during chemotherapy and such. I hate to be blunt, but isn't that what morphine and appetite supplements are for?

Lastly, have liberals weighed the consequences of this idea against the possible benefits? I mean, is it seriously worth shattering so many young minds and lives through drug addiction to remove pain from a few individuals? Is it really worth so many lives to end a few isolated cases of suffering? Also, cannot morphine and other existing, legalized pain relievers be used effectively?

In conclusion, I believe that liberals need to seriously look at their plans to increase the availability of illicit drugs. Why would anyone in their right mind make the decision to risk so many young, innocent lives to end the suffering of a few? Why breed a whole generation of drug addicts to supposedly deliver pain relief and appetite increases where conventional methods have not yet been proven to be ineffective? It simply makes very little sense to me. Chalk another ineffective, unnecessary, potentially dangerous plan up for the good ol' liberals.

~ Chris Franson
Soon to come: defacing the Presidential election of the year 2000.

Animal testing is causing a lot of heat in today's political climate. On the one side of the debate, the fact that testing of this nature has saved thousands upon thousands of human lives. On the other, the debatable argument that the testing has the same moral implications of torturing a person. How then will we decide our opinions on this very important matter? Let's hear the arguments:

Conservatives argue that Animal Testing has saved countless millions of human lives, reduced plagues of pandemic proportions to sticky-looking liquids in test tubes in microbiology labs, and is moving us closer to creating cures for horrific diseases, such as Ebola and cancer every day. Obviously, for these reasons, Animal Testing is something that we want to keep around.

On the other hand, liberals argue that animals have senses of touch as well, and can feel pain just as acutely as a human infant can. Since they can think and feel and (to an extent) reason, that they should get the same treatment as humans, even though they are, in reality, animals. Also, they argue that conservatives should look at this issue from a cosmic perspective; to ask themselves how important humankind really is in the universal plan?

What I consider interesting is that whenever I've ever asked a liberal who they'd rather have live, their family or a group of lab rats, I've gotten the same answer, and it's not exactly the one you'd expect from a person who would risk their lives to save a tree in an old-growth forest.

Also, liberals fail to consider one major point: animals involved in testing almost never feel pain. In fact, something like 94% of lab animals never even feel pain as a direct result of testing.

So now, it's time for you to make the decision: should we preserve our ways of testing animals to save countless human lives, or should we give it all up to save a few rats bred especially to be tested on? For me the decision is easy. How about you?

I just want to thank Jesse for letting me in on this.

~Chris Franson