Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <2041@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 02:02:56 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.2041
Posted: Sat Mar 16 02:02:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 23:35:09 EST
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax:-540600:inmet:7800325:177600:747
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Mar 13 11:30:00 1985

Drug sales in Ca. may indeed be "free" in the sense that the price is not
directly regulated, but the market is hardly FREE unless there are no
interventions by government.  If it really WERE a free market, for example,
people would be able to advertise brands of pot, legitimate pharmacy-chains
would be able to have nice, attractive displays of opiates, and 
you'd see pot-vendors at baseball games.

Whether the people who sell drugs NOW are effectively regulated in their
behavior has little to do with whether the market is regulated.  In
particular, if someone is liable to arbitrary loss of their rights to
government BECAUSE they're in a particular business (even though they
initiate neither force nor fraud) that is NOT a "free" market.