Chalkhills Digest Volume 5, Issue 344
Date: Monday, 20 December 1999
Chalkhills Digest, Volume 5, Number 344
Monday, 20 December 1999
Today's Topics:
RE: Redneck Wonderland musings
Redneck Wonderland musings
Re: Ringo and more
Irony <no wua-isosp>
Knights in shining Mersey
This post is drug-free!
Wishful Collaborations
the best of 99
Re: Weird CD Pressings
Meaning of Redneck Wonderland
You're my drug
i can't stop; i'm a posting addict
Sir Paul
Re: It's all just a Blur
Goose Bump Moments
some definitions
A bit more drugs..
Administrivia:
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org> with the following command:
unsubscribe
For all other administrative issues, send a message to:
<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org>
Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:
<chalkhills@chalkhills.org>
World Wide Web: <http://chalkhills.org/>
The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.
Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7 (John Relph <relph@sgi.com>).
Countdown to Christmas / 5 days / Countdown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-ID: <385B17F0.F32A5E25@netnitco.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:13:20 -0500
From: "Jeffrey C. Krajewski" <krajsjg@netnitco.net>
Subject: RE: Redneck Wonderland musings
>Anywho, I would like to address the Austrailians herein, or anyone else who
>has Midnight Oils' _Redneck Wonderland_.
>Anyone else have this album? Tell me what you think of it.
Good Evening,
Yes I confess I am a lurker, but I just had to second an emotion
if you will, about "Redneck Wonderland" being one of my favorite , but
unfortunately overlooked releases of 1998. There is not a lame tune on
it. In my opinion it's the best thing to be released by the Oils since
"10...to 1" To John Chauncy Gardner ,what did you think about" Red
Sails in the Sunset" and "Breathe"? I too live in the mundane Chicago
winter region, but you have to admit, it's better to have a little
snow than all the high winds coming from all directions blowing the
piss out of everything. Getting back to the lurker thing, you have my
deepest apologies.
I, along with many others, had the privilege to meet Andy
Partridge last spring at Borders in Chicago (just four blocks from
where I work). Of all the questions I could of asked him, I asked him
what gear he was going to use to finish AV2. Radar was his answer,
having done AV1 on Protools. He was tired and so was I and we parted
ways, but not without getting some groovy photos of us together( all
thanks to Mr. John Hedges of XTCware Fame) . The main reason I lurk is
because there's no time to reply such as now. Next time I'll tell you
my conversation with Barry Andrews. Mr. Gardner if you haven't heard
those other two Midnight Oil CD's I suggest you do. To everyone
else... the possibilities are endless.
Kraj
------------------------------ Message-Id: <l03130301b480bf17fe52@[204.144.224.43]> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 22:35:42 -0600 From: Brian Landy <blandy@lawyernet.com> Subject: Redneck Wonderland musings >It did not receive much broadcast air-time here in 1998, the year of its >release, or this year for that matter (here in the low-pressure zone of >Chicago, Illinois), but was wondering how this album was received in other >part of the world??? I happened to get this album right before reading your message. I got to track 8 before my CD player malfunctioned. The album is a darker departure for Midnight Oil. I am impressed. ================================== Brian Landy, Attorney at Law ==================================
------------------------------ From: WTDK@aol.com Message-ID: <0.29a0e827.258cbaf5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 05:24:53 EST Subject: Re: Ringo and more In a message dated 12/16/99 11:07:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, <owner-chalkhills@chalkhills.org> writes: > for some reason ringo's drumming has become a point of debate. i have > read, i believe, in the abbey road recording sessions logue or a music > magazine, that some speculate that the drum solo performed on abbey road > was performed by paul. he had prodded ringo to play a solo, but ringo > flatly refused, so the 'story' goes. Can anyone clarify the issue? According to Mark Lewisohn's definitive book on the Beatles The Beatles Recording Sessions Ringo did indeed record the drum solo. He made it clear to Paul and the others that he thought it completely unnecessary. It was recorded on July 23, 1969 and there is some debate about it being a "solo" as the original 8 track tape revealed other instruments overdubbed to that 16 second "solo" as well. Obviously the other instruments didn't make the final cut. Interestingly, although John was there for the sessions for The End, he wasn't there during the first week of recordings for July (he had been in a car accident). So Here Comes the Sun, Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight and the vocal overdubs for Carry That Weight feature only the surviving 3 Beatles. On the XTC front Mobile Sound Fidelity is going out of business so I'd suggest that those of you who have been putting off the purchase of the Gold Audiophile editions of Skylarking and Oranges and Lemons snatch them up while you can. Both features superior sound quality when compared to the original Geffen/Virgin CDs. Speaking of Geffen it's curious that in America Geffen's edition of English Settlement doesn't have a booklet with lyrics. A bit strange when considering that all other US editions match the Virgin counterparts exactly. I miss the hand lettered lyrics that appeared on my vinyl edition (it was on the inner sleeve for the US single disc edition put out by Epic Records). The inner sleeve had a homemade quality which I miss on the import CD I have now. Happy Holidays everyone! Wayne
------------------------------ Message-ID: <003701bf497f$1d0982a0$394e97d0@t17fw> From: "Simon Deane/Gina Chong" <ginsim@netvigator.com> Subject: Irony <no wua-isosp> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:41:27 +0800 I thought I would share with you an excerpt from the Christmas edition of The Economist on irony. Irony has figured heavily in many posts during the course of the last year (can you guess which ones, Scott?), so the article is in my view particularly pertinent (how about that for some gratuitous alliteration) to our ongoing discussions. It also touches on the inability of many of our colonial cousins to "get it" - there's no shame in that but you're missing out on a lot of fun, mateys. (Incidentally, I have a very good American friend who thinks it was a very bad thing that the US got its independence from us Brits, all those years ago. I don't know whether he's right or not as I'm not an American but judging from some of the posts here recently, well....) The link and excerpt are below. http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_xm3604.html <...what exactly is irony, and why do the British appear to prize it so highly? It is important to distinguish irony from sarcasm (which is notoriously the lowest form of wit). Both irony and sarcasm involve saying the opposite of what you mean. But when someone is being sarcastic, there is no doubt that the listener is intended to understand this. Irony, however is different. Many people, when hearing an ironic remark, may not realise that it is meant in jest. So irony is much more subversive than sarcasm, and also much more funthose who realise that an ironic remark has been made are instantly complicit, and they can enjoy the fact that there are others who have missed the joke. .......Perhaps this is one reason why irony is a particular favourite among British diplomats. It allows them to tease foreigners, without the foreigners realising they are being teased. .......While irony aimed at foreigners may seem unpleasantly supercilious, much of the British sense of irony is directed at themselves. Irony is particularly good at puncturing pretension, and at exposing the gap between appearance and reality. ........These attitudes die hard. The ironic tone has become a staple of British literary style, but can still cause considerable confusion overseasas writers for this newspaper occasionally discover. A recent article on Paul Gascoigne, a footballer who had been caught beating his wife, began: It could happen to anybody, really. Go out for a meal with the wife, have a few too many, she starts to nag, and before you know whats happened, shes lying on the floor covered in bruises. It did not occur to the author that anybody might seriously regard this as an endorsement of wife-beatingat least not until the outraged letters began arriving from the United States. > I'd recommend the whole article - for instance, it contains some fascinating comments about how irony has replaced the gunboat in British diplomacy, (wait for it..............) something which will be of particular interest to fans of "White Music"*. Well, if I don't write in again for the next week or so, a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new century to all you Chalkhillians out there. All the best. Simon Deane * Note how the author has here very cleverly combined a touch of irony with some XTC content, thus neatly rounding off his message. (...err....as it's Christmas, I'm being ironic here too....)
------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991218190355.007d7e70@192.168.1.1> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:03:55 +0100 From: Giovanni Giusti <giovanni@delizia.com> Subject: Knights in shining Mersey >Chalkhills Digest, Volume 5, Number 341 >From: David Oh <davidoh@interlog.com> >my only question is this: why was macca knighted while george and ringo >were not? what places him above the other two? i don't get it! In fact, all four of them were knighted at the same time. Then John gave back his knighthood in the early 70s (I think) to protest about something that the UK government did - but more probably because he felt awkward being a pot-smoking, long-haired baronet. The other three didn't bother. They're all still Sirs. I'm surprised, o much-vocal David, by this gaping whole in your all-encompassing knowledge. I guess nobody is perfect. Giovanni
------------------------------
Message-ID: <19991218203759.33047.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom@hotmail.com>
Subject: This post is drug-free!
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:37:59 GMT
First a few replies to some messages in older digests. I can't remember who
made the original comments, though.
Someone said that they didn't care much for Weird Al's most recent release,
Running With Scissors, and mentioned being an "old-school Al fan." I'm a
bit curious as to what the difference between "old-school" and more recent
Weird Al is, considering that he's still doing pretty much the same stuff
(parodies of what's popular, plus original songs in various styles).
Admittedly, I like some of Al's earlier work better, but I can't see too
much change in his style.
Someone else mentioned that they might like to see (or hear, rather) a
collaboration between XTC and They Might Be Giants. I agree, but I have
been wondering for a while what Andy's opinion of TMBG is. I know that he
agreed to record something for John Flansburgh's Hello Recording Club, but
he wasn't that fond of "XTC Vs. Adam Ant" (admittedly not a favourite of
mine, either, but I don't have a band that features prominently in the
lyrics), and, as far as I know, he never really commented on TMBG's cover of
"25 O'Clock," aside from saying that the Ruben Blades and Sarah McLachlan
songs were the only ones on _Testimonial Dinner_ that he really liked. Does
anyone know anything else about Andy's opinion of TMBG, or does he even know
enough about Their music to really form an opinion?
Nicole:
>I remember someone telling me that Prince of Orange was previously
>released. If so, does anyone have the cd or single? If so... :-)...
>would anyone be willing to sell it to me?
This was probably the Hello CD that I just mentioned. Unfortunately, I
don't have it. You could check <http://www.tmbg.com/> to see if it's still
available, although I think TMB Productions only offers it in a package with
the rest of the Hello albums from whatever year it was when the CD was
released (if it's still offered at all).
Tom:
>Haven't you all noticed that when you ask someone whether thay've heard of
>xtc most say no, but if you ask a musician most say yes. XTC are
>musician's
>musicians.
>From what I've heard, I would tend to agree, although that still leaves open
the question of why I like them, since I can't really play any instrument
more complex than a kazoo. I guess there are exceptions to every rule.
Besides, I think I might have the right sort of personality and tastes to be
a musician; I just lack the talent.
Mark Strijbos:
>BTW: A couple of years ago our local VPRO broadcasting company
>used to play "Bushman President" (and others o.c.) between
>programs.
Having heard only two Homo Safari pieces ("Frost Circus" and "Procession
Towards Learning Land"), I feel a bit left out when people mention these
pieces. Are they available anywhere but as the B-sides of out-of-print
singles?
Nathan
------------------------------ Message-ID: <001701bf49a1$902e9f00$1c5bd2cc@maine.rr.com> From: "J Bogner" <jbogner1@maine.rr.com> Subject: Wishful Collaborations Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:48:04 -0500 Kevin said in Chalkhills Digest # 5-339 . . . . >The people I think Andy should colaborate with: >Adrian Belew & the bears (re-united): with Andy on lead vocals, and Adrian >and Andy alternating solos like on Books. (By the way, whoever suggested >Belew as permenant replacement for Dave, Right on! Excellant choice. >Couldn't think of someone better suited for the job [besides dave himself, >of course]) I would go one step further with the addition of Stewart Copeland (The Police) on drums. Someone on Chalkhills mentioned this before-still a great idea. What a powerhouse of a band that would be ! Andy B.
------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991218230056.16700.qmail@web1606.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:00:56 -0800 (PST) From: James Reimer <halo_sugar@yahoo.com> Subject: the best of 99 here are my best of the year, in no particular order: XTC - AV1 Gomez - Liquid Skin Seven Percent Solution - Gabriel's Waltz Tom Waits - Mule Variations Flaming Lips - The Soft Bulletin Various Artists - Reich:Remixed Jimmy Eat World - Clarity Jason Falkner - Can You Still Feel? Beck - Midnight Vultures Underworld - Beaucoup Fish Richard Thompson - Mock Tudor Sloan - Between The Bridges Art Of Noise - The Seduction of Claude DeBussy Richard Buckner - Bloomed NIN - The Fragile Sleater-Kinney - The Hot Rock Blur - 13 Ben Folds Five - The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner The Folk Implosion - One Part Lullaby
------------------------------ From: WTDK@aol.com Message-ID: <0.5b2298be.258d6f27@aol.com> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:13:43 EST Subject: Re: Weird CD Pressings In a message dated 12/18/99 11:38:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, <owner-chalkhills@chalkhills.org> writes: > I suspect that this is one of > the earliest pressings of "The Big Express," possibly manufactured not > long before or after "Skylarking" came out on CD. Incidentally, around > the outer ridge of my CD the printed surface is eroding in a few > places, revealing the silver layer underneath. Although I haven't had this experience with The Big Express (I did buy one of the early bizarre Virgin issued editions of Drums and Wires though), the issue of the erosion of early CDs is a good point. In fact if you own any European editions of XTC stuff pressed in the mid80's you may want to take a look at them. CD Review ran an article a couple of years ago on a whole series of CDs pressed by Virgin UK (with the PDO stamp on them) that showed early signs of fatigue and erosion. Evidently the aluminum content was low and the pressing process flawed making them vulnerable to decay within a decade. This appears to be true of any CDs pressed by Virgin around this time frame with the PDO stamp on it. If you haven't played a CD from this time frame in a while you may want to inspect it. XTC Content: Although I prefer the Geffen edition of Drums and Wires (I don't mind the sequencing for the bonus tracks on D&W--they fit in quite nicely and I've become used to them), I do have the edition of D&W with the mislabeled tracks. Additionally, the EP bonus tracks are placed at the end. So at least they got it right the first time. Why Geffen's edition is so different (including bonus tracks and lyric sheet) is beyond me. Perhaps it mimics the Japanese edition (which as we all know always includes a lyric booklet/sheet). Hard to say. These differences make collecting (and life) a little more interesting. Wayne
------------------------------ Message-ID: <006a01bf49ae$af33adc0$160393ca@matthew> From: "Matthew Seery" <mseery@SoftHome.net> Subject: Meaning of Redneck Wonderland Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:20:56 +1100 Sorry no XTC content: The Mole wrote: >John in Chicago wanted to know about peoples reaction to Redneck >Wonderland by Midnight Oil. I have been an Oil fan for along time and I >reccomend all of their LPs to anyone who likes their tunes to have >meaning behind the guitar solo's. Redneck is no different more of the >same from this incredible band. I don't think it is quite as good as >Blue Sky Mining but it is close. Definitly overlooked by the Radio this >year. Just so no one thinks it is Racist either "Redneck" refers to a >type of Australian Kangaroo. Actually "Redneck" in this case does refer to the narrow minded racist views that people associate with this word. The name Redneck Wonderland is not an endorsement but rather a comment on the rise of people like Pauline Hanson and the support that her narrow minded simplistic views have gained since the change of government and hence the political climate in 1996. In Australia, the term Redneck is often identified with people whose political views are from the extreme right. It also seems to be associated with certain people who live away from the big cities who love to shoot the crap out of anything that moves and who think Indonesia is going to invade Australia tomorrow. I think the point that Midnight Oil were trying to make was that you don't need to go out to the bush to find "rednecks". They can be found in the cities in all different walks of life. However, I don't think they were trying to suggest that most Australians were this way inclined. I've heard of Red Kangaroos but not Redneck Kangaroos. Perhaps the Redneck Kangaroo can be found out the front of the zoo's in Australia protesting against the migration of foreign animals such as Elephants, Lions, Giraffes etc. ;) For the record I think Redneck Wonderland is the best thing Midnight Oil have done since the mid eighties. Matthew Seery
------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:37:10 +0000 From: Scott Barnard <gforsche@videotron.ca> Subject: You're my drug Message-id: <000d01bf4986$e54df500$0f66c818@oemcomputer.videotron.ca> Ah, Reefer Madness. Finally, a worthwhile subject which we can all discuss without a hint of hysteria in short, succinct posts. My turn! Can we do abortion next?
------------------------------ Message-ID: <19991219040029.94623.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Megan Heller" <hellerm@hotmail.com> Subject: i can't stop; i'm a posting addict Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:00:29 CST I'm staring with XTC content, but it's all downhill from there. Shigemasa Fujimoto reports-- >Regarding Mr David Oh's question, what I can say for sure is that >there have been at least two versions of THE BIG EXPRESS on CD. well, in addition to the versions you mentioned, there's the Geffen version released in the US (catalog 9 24054-2). It has the fourteen tracks and appropriate song listings. I have that German version of D&W, and it confused me to no end when I got it. whoops, downhill from here. Tom Johnson informs-- >I am well aware that American Indians use and >have used peyote for their rituals, and they are legally allowed to do this >because it is their culture. However, this is a tiny fraction of the >population, and it is not an abused privelege. *I* do not need drugs in >order to reach my spiritual side - and neither does anyone. thanks for telling us. I'll go inform the thousands of tribal cultures who have been so sadly misinformed. and continues-- >You cannot teach morals if there is no punishment for not being moral. >Laws may not teach a moral, but they prevent most people from straying, >thereby teaching them that something is at least wrong. You suggest that >education will prevent people from abusing drugs - how so? By giving free >access to drugs, you take away the necessary weight behind the argument to >not use them. Many people listen when you say, "Don't do drugs because >they're illegal." How many of them will listen to you if you say, "Don't >do drugs because they're dumb and dangerous?" well, I did. I've broken a lot of laws, none of which have harmed another person, and most ridiculous laws (not all-- I guess I don't think the jaywalking law is ridiculous). I could have very easily done drugs on many occasions in college where I wouldn't have gotten caught. Even after I realized that many drugs weren't half as dangerous as I'd been told, by that time I felt like it just wasn't my thing. But education worked for me for a number of years-- when I was in fifth grade, a police officer came and showed us a slide presentation of the physical manifestations of long-term heavy drug use. He appealed to our sense of vanity rather than our non-existant sense of mortality, and scared the bejeezus out of us. >We've been trying that for over 3 >decades with cigarettes, haven't we? Has it worked? It's kind of a different situation. One, it's been less than three decades. Two, prior to the turnaround, cigarettes were the ultimate in glamour and even said to soothe the throat. Legalization of some drugs would have the chance to start at the other end of the spectrum. John Peacock argues-- >If the government were really interested in preventing people from >putting substances into their bodies that cause them real harm and >have a drastic effect on the length and quality of their lives, it >would ban lard. pssh. Try the drugs and chemicals they pump into food and vegetables (especially here in the US)! At least drug legalization would make it a matter of choice! Jon Rosenberger made a point-- >By the way the only point that I have not seen made about this on >either side that I will add is that sending someone to prison for >taking drugs is like sending a swimmer to the pool. They are going to >get just as wet as they will on the outside. very good point, and reminds me of reading "In the Belly of the Beast" a few years ago. I certainly believe in decriminalization wholeheartedly, and in legalization in many cases. Sebastien Maury posted my favorite comment of all-- >Subject: we're on a mission from Gahd. >Religious nuts, anti-drug freaks, gun-slingin psychos. Nice to know >we're such a stable bunch. If someone's going to tell me to stop >sleeping with boys then I'm *really* gonna get mad. word to that. It's quite troubling how many sexual acts *are* illegal in many states in the US (see above broken laws). Is this the kind of legislation of morality we should put up with? (do you have any idea in how many states sex outside of marriage is illegal? heterosexual and homosexual oral sex? and these laws have been enforced as recently as in the last twenty years) >Obviously we're >close to pre-faux-millennium meltdown. there must be something in the air. Still, at least now the list is talking about *something*. off-topic shmoff-topic. m.
------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:00:08 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff <blukoff@alvord.com> Subject: Sir Paul Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912181847330.14795-100000@locutus.alvord.com> davidoh wrote: > my only question is this: why was macca knighted while george and ringo > were not? what places him above the other two? i don't get it! Charity work, founding LIPA. He wasn't knighted merely for being a Beatle. I read in one of the London papers that Tony Blair is a huge fan of the Beatles and may be recommending that Sir Paul be made a Lord this New Year's. While I find the concepts of appointed nobility and non-elected legislative houses ridiculous, I figure as long as Andre Lloyd Webber gets to be a Lord it is only right that Paul does as well!
------------------------------ From: RiknBkr@aol.com Message-ID: <0.f7ca1de7.258dd11c@aol.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:11:40 EST Subject: Re: It's all just a Blur In a message dated 12/17/99 1:27:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, <owner-chalkhills@chalkhills.org> writes: > I just purchased my first Blur album, The Great Escape. I had heard > that Blur were good, but I forgot which albums people had said were > good, so I just bought the one that I thought had the best album > design, and that one turned out to be The Great Escape. > > I think the Album Design definetly does the album justice. I love > the album, it's great. So, which one should I buy next? I heard > Parklife is good. Parklife is good, but I prefer Modern Life is Rubbish. I think it got a critical panning, but I enjoy it due to its XTC/Jam leanings.
------------------------------ Message-ID: <000601bf49fe$c4923420$5979aad2@p13s574p> From: "John Boudreau" <aso1@mocha.ocn.ne.jp> Subject: Goose Bump Moments Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:54:16 +0900 Anybody else get goosey bumpy all over when listening to the intro of " Then She Appeared " ? The multi-layered guitars ; Colin's boom doodoodoo doo doo doom ... doo doo doom bass line ; and Mattacks' rrrratta-tat-tat snare drum perfect in its simplicity ... 22 seconds worth of fave XTC musical moments ... John In Sushiland
------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19991219065033.0070f004@mail.interlog.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 06:50:33 -0500 From: David Oh <davidoh@interlog.com> Subject: some definitions for the record, according to the concise oxford dictionary, 1990 edition... decriminalize: v.tr. (also -ise) cease to treat (an action etc.) as a criminal. legalize: v.tr. (also -ise) 1. make lawful. 2. bring into harmony with the law. and while we're at it... freedom: n. 1. the condition of being free or unrestricted. 2. personal or civic liberty; absence of slave status. 3. the power of self-determination; independence of fate or necessity. 4. the state of being free to act (often foll. by to + infin: we have the freedom to leave). 5. frankness, outspokenness; undue famililiarity. 6. (foll. by from) the condition of being exempt from or not subject to (a defect, burden, etc.) 7. (foll. by of) a) full or honorary paticipation in (membership, priviliges, etc.). b) unrestricted use of (facilities, etc.). 8. a privilage possessed by a city or corporation. 9. facility or ease in action. 10. boldness of conception. i could be wrong, but those oxford people seem to really know what they are doing... peace & xtc, davidoh
------------------------------ Message-ID: <000d01bf4a26$85394980$a01017d4@smj> From: "Stephen Jackson" <smj@zen.co.uk> Subject: A bit more drugs.. Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:37:33 -0000 Tom said <No one needs drugs to "profoundly affect their psychological, (existential, and spiritual) foundations" <my parenthesis> Tell that to the many with depression and other mental illness who need drugs like amitriptyline and Prozac to 'profoundly affect their psychological foundations' elsewhere > At least NOT legalizing them will definitely not harm the >future. Legalising drugs might make several inner city areas become safer if the dealing of drugs is taken out of the hands of criminals. Think about Prohibition in the US.... >You cannot re-criminalize >them after that - it would turn out just like prohibition !!!!! Which is exactly the situation we have with cannabis right now!! > You suggest that education >will prevent people from abusing drugs - how so? You're educated right? You've read around this subject? You don't do drugs? See, it works.... You educate young people about the dangers of various substances, and you do it in an honest and unjudgemental way. You give young people the skills to make choices. You don't pretend that young people aren't going to come in contact with drugs. You allow people to make *informed choices.* The ultimate aim is reduction in *harm* How can anyone argue with the sense in that? >Many people listen when you say, "Don't do drugs because they're >illegal." Some certainly, but many? In a recent survey of 15 year olds in North West England, only *13.1%* would consider not doing drugs because they were illegal (a similar percentage wouldn't because they considered them a "waste of money") >How many of them will listen to you if you say, "Don't do drugs >because they're dumb and dangerous?" Very few, but *21%* said they wouldn't because they were *dangerous*, a decision they hopefully made without someone telling them "Don't do drugs"...Education can work..... You see, the illegality of drugs, at least in the UK, is not much of an issue for many young people. Education strategies in British schools work on the basis of young people making their own decisions, based on facts, rather than someone standing at the front telling people what to think and do. > So you mean to >tell me that you are willing to risk it all - to risk the future - just >because a minority of people are tired of their favorite habit being >illegal? Utter utter utter rhetoric. I can see some worth in the legislation of cannabis, and I don't smoke it. I resent the way you paint a picture of anyone who might see some reason to legalise cannabis as a user themselves. You think that legalising cannabis will 'risk the future'? Those who wanna smoke cannabis do so already. Leglisation isn't going to make a great deal of difference to them other than stopping a huge number of people from being criminals. (all the other possible pros of legislation have been already mentioned elsewhere, and have been ignored by you.) To quote figures again, 40% of 15 year olds (in my area) have tried an illicit or illegal substance. For 85% of them, this substance was cannabis. Better build some more prisons....... Steve. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Two steps forward, six steps back.
------------------------------ End of Chalkhills Digest #5-344 *******************************
Go back to Volume 5.
20 December 1999 / Feedback