Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!columbia!cucca!travis
From: travis@cucca.UUCP (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Drugs in America
Message-ID: <178@cucca.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 17:31:32 EST
Article-I.D.: cucca.178
Posted: Sat Mar  1 17:31:32 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 19:40:38 EST
References: <417@packard.UUCP>
Reply-To: travis@cucca.UUCP (Travis Lee Winfrey)
Organization: Columbia University Center for Computing Activities
Lines: 81
Keywords: drugs, drug abuse, drunk driving
Summary: drug abuse is not always a private matter

In article <417@packard.UUCP> jah@packard.UUCP (JA Harrison) writes:
>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:
>
>[omitted example of bad business decision impinging on taxpayers]
>
>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.

[Warning and advance apology: this is my first posting to net news.]

No, it's not as simple as self-appointed "religious" and "moral" people
deciding that you shouldn't ingest demon rum, or smoke marijuana, even
in the privacy of your own home.  Society does have a valid right to
reegulate your drug usage.

Every drug I can think of right now, with the quasi-exceptions of
nicotine and caffeine, seriously affect one's ability to get along in
life, for a long or short time.  By that I mean driving while drunk,
stoned, or on anything else (including antihistamines!) has the
possibility, however great or slight, of not killing just you, but
also any number of people who are on the road with you, and who had no
choice in the matter of your drug usage.  Not only driving skills are
affected, of course: the crimes of alcoholics or addicts inflicted on
their immediate family, friends, and neighbors is also well known.
Lastly, there is the involuntary consumption of drugs, such as
cigarette smoke in the office, or pot at an average concert.

All of these things have an immediate and obvious effect on other
people, but there is more to society's cost than welfare payments and
other aid programs.  To pick two examples of celebrity abuse of drugs
(why?  I dunno.  I'm making this up as I go.), both Richard Pryor and
Ricky Nelson had serious problems with freebasing cocaine.  Richard
set himself and fire and lived; Ricky set fire to his plane, killing
himself, his friends, and the plane's staff.  In both cases, society
had to go about picking up the pieces.  Richard Pryor used enormous
amounts of resources, beginning with the emergency services, which
could have been elsewhere, and ending with the lengthy recovery from
his burns.  I'm sure he paid handsomely for all of these things, and
I'm definitely not saying that his intense suffering didn't count for
something, but the simple fact remains that had he not been trying to
process the cocaine in order to get a better high, he wouldn't have
set his face on fire!  With Ricky, it's obviously worse.  Not only did
he kill himself and others, but the nature of his accident brought in
emergency and government resources which would not otherwise have had
to be spent.  The friends and relatives affected by this tragedy paid
for his fun with with suffering; the rest of us paid in higher taxes
and insurance premiums.  As wealthy men, these were the only costs
inflicted on society that I can think of right now; if they were
common street junkies, we would also pay, individually, and in terms
of society, by the various crimes performed to pay for their freebasing.
And I don't even want to think about the crimes which pregnant junkies
inflict on their unborn babies -- but it happens every single day.

Don't get me wrong: I like drugs of all kinds, honest.  I wish that
there were less regulations on many of them.  But the facts
surrounding drug usage should force us to realize that there are many,
many people who cannot handle their usage, and this, sadly, affects
everyone.  (quick digression: the same applies to gambling.  I haven't
spent a buck on a lottery ticket, ever, but how many stories have you
heard of people blowing hundreds of dollars *every week*?)  To think
of drug usage only in terms of individual rights ("why can't I do
...??") is simply wrong.  Although I am in favor of deregulation, I
think our society must face the problems of abuse much more
aggressively and with less tolerance.

t