Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!uwvax!topaz!packard!jah
From: jah@packard.UUCP (JA Harrison)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: re: Drugs in America
Message-ID: <417@packard.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 15:59:25 EST
Article-I.D.: packard.417
Posted: Mon Feb 24 15:59:25 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 20:23:24 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner
Lines: 29

In article 3049 Steve Stricklen writes:

"If continual use of a particular drug renders a person less
capable or incapable of supporting herself or himself, various
welfare systems, either federal or state, are likely to be called
upon to take up the slack. This is an unfair burden on the tax-paying
populous..."

I suppose this is true; however, the taxpayer generally picks up the
tab for many mistakes people make -- business is a good example:

If I told you that I wanted to start a business selling wax mosquitos
as paper weights, you could probably predict the failure of 
that business. If I chose to start it anyhow, the taxpayer would
ultimately pick up the tab for this failure through tax writeoffs.

Drug use, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, etc., are all
habits of choice. They may be bad habits, but if people choose to
engage in them, they should be allowed, as long as there is no direct
effect on others.

I don't believe there is any significant action that has no consequence
to the taxpaying public. Drug use has been singled out, as has 
prostitution (on the state level anyway) for mostly moral, i.e.
religious reasons that to me are unacceptable.



					John A. Harrison