Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Drugs in America
Message-ID: <1062@terak.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 16:11:56 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.1062
Posted: Mon Feb 24 16:11:56 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 21:15:53 EST
References: <2607@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <413@packard.UUCP> <1137@ihlpa.UUCP>
Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 66

An unusual viewpoint on whether to legalize drugs...

About ten years ago the U.S. virtually closed the border with Mexico.
Every single car returning from Mexico was thoroughly searched.  That
means it was partially dismantled, with the owner having to put it back
together.  Even with the border traffic reduced by more than 90%, it
still took 7 hours to cross at best, 15 hours during the day.  [This
situation only lasted a week or so, until Mexico convinced the U.S. that
the Mexican border towns were being economically devastated.]

Anyhow, one of the local law enforcement officials was on the TV news
pointing out that because of this strict enforcement, the street price
of heroin had doubled in just a week.

I suppose he was thinking that because of the higher price, junkies all
over the Phoenix area were convinced to go cold turkey.  He probably
imagined that within a few years those junkies would all be high-ranking
managers in Fortune 500 companies, grateful as heck for the day that
high prices forced them to see the light.

What I was thinking was, "Great.  Now those junkies will have to steal
*twice* as many TV sets in order to support their habits.  Then my house
insurance will double next year."

In addition, my taxes are going to have to increase in order to pay for
the extra Customs agents.  And to pay for additional foreign aid to
Mexico to offset the loss of trade (both legitimate and illicit).  And
to pay for prosecution of any smugglers that the Customs folks caught.
And to pay for extra police to investigate the additional stolen TV
sets.  And to pay for prosecution of smugglers and junkie-thieves.  And
to pay the court costs for trials of smugglers and junkie-thieves.  And
probably to pay for the Public Defenders assigned to the smugglers and
junkie-thieves.  And then (for those cases in which a conviction is
actually obtained), for incarceration of the smugglers and junkies.  And
for Probation Officers, and...

What in heaven's name are we doing????  If we had left the smugglers and
the junkies alone, they would have left *us* alone.  It would save us a
*ton* of money.

A junkie isn't useless because he's a junkie.  He's a junkie because
he's useless.  If you take away his heroin, he won't become a pillar of
the community; he'll become a street criminal.

But...  a system seldom survives for long if there isn't a reason for it
to exist.  And the anti-drug system has existed in the U.S. for over 50
years.  Why has it survived?

I believe that the anti-drug laws continue to exist for two reasons.
First, the drug enforcement provides an excuse for the high price of
most drugs; it is a *very* lucrative industry for certain people.  Those
people use some of their money to assure that the enforcement continues.

Second (and probably more important), it provides a relatively harmless
job for the kind of person who thinks he is the right hand of God.  Make
him a DEA agent, and send him off to harrass junkies.  Remember, junkies
are of no value to society anyway.  If you think that the IRS, traffic
police, and Child Protective Services folks are overly zealous, they've
got nothing on most drug agents.  I'd hate to think of drug agent types
on traffic patrol with radar guns.  The streets would be at a total
standstill.

For this second reason, I lean toward keeping laws against "junkie"
drugs (basically heroin).  Even though we all pay for it.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug