Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu From: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Drugs Message-ID: <12233149802.32.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 14:18:52 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12233149802.32.MCGREW Posted: Sat Aug 23 14:18:52 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Aug-86 21:27:35 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 140 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu [ Firstly, you cannot simply whisk away the issue of drugs and children. I am not satisfied with just ignoring the problem. I am not ignoring the problem at all. There should be laws against selling drugs to minors just as there are now laws against selling alcohol to minors. Is the present system working? Does it keep drugs out of the hands of children? To what extent do we have an obligation to child-proof our world? Opponents of pornography often use the dangers of children being exposed to porn as an argument against adults being allowed to have it. Gun control proponents argue similarly. The same argument can be extended to argue against ANYTHING being legal for adults that ought to be illegal for children. What do YOU see the solution as being? ..."in fact this crime REDUCES the cost of cigarettes" - I take it then that you approve of any criminal act that lowers prices, or just those that make government the victim? No. I do oppose this law, but I certainly sympathize with those who want to put heavy taxes on tobacco to make tobacco users pay a higher proportion of the tax load their diseases, carlessness, and productivity loss adds to nonsmoking taxpayers. But the real solution is for NO tax money to be used to pay for these things. I do not advocate breaking unjust laws. Except for laws which I would have to do great evil to obey. I am not aware of any such laws in this country at this time. Reducing the price of drugs will 1) increase the number of overdoses - if there's more (and better) of it people will take more; The vast majority of overdoses are due to variation in concentration. That would go away if drugs were legalized. The concentration would be printed on the package just as the proof of alcohol is printed on containers of alcoholic beverages. I don't think there are large numbers of people who are just waiting for heroin to be legalized so they can start using it. The use of marijuana may increase, though probably not to 1960s levels. I think the use of most drugs would decrease considerably. ... consider how many teenagers smoke legal, cheap cigarettes ... Fewer than in past years. News of the health hazards of substances and behaviors sadly seems to make little difference in the behavior of existing users, but it does have a very real effect on the behavior of potential new users. Making a substance legal or illegal does not seem to have much effect on either. ... Why should anyone want to receive help to kick the habit of a drug which is legal, cheap, and stigma-free? Because it is dangerous. And possibly because their employer or their school requires them to not use it, and tests for it. Millions of dollars are paid every year for help quitting tobacco and alcohol. ... If you really think organized crime will just 'dissappear', I'm sorry but the cure-all won't cure this one. They'll just move on to other things - they said that about organized crime and the repeal of Prohibition too. - CWM] Organized crime thrives by providing goods and services there is a high demand for but that legitimate businesses won't supply because they are illegal. During prohibition, alcohol was in this category. Mobsters lobbied against repeal of prohibition as did prohibition police. They lost that battle, but were able to get many drugs made illegal at the same time as prohibition was repealed. So the taxpayer subsidized game of cops and robbers, or rather narks and pushers, continued. What is sad is not just the billions of dollars that it consumes, but the thousands of lives. Narcotics officers shot. Drug pushers imprisoned for life (at taxpayers expense). Drug users who rob and kill innocent people for their next fix. Teenagers who are enticed into using unknown drugs of unknown quality by pushers who need money for THEIR next fix. Reagan has recently announced a major crackdown on illegal drugs. We will show that it is NOT tolerated, says he. It is the same message that every president since Eisenhower has sent. And it is no more likely to succeed now then before, no matter how many billions of dollars more of our money he proposes to throw down the sinkhole. No matter how many more narcotics agents are to be hired. At best, he will cause the price of street drugs to increase. Is that an improvement? When there are users who will do anything, ANYTHING, for their next fix? So they will have to rob two convenience stores each week instead of one? And government has the power to eliminate ALL of this lossage OVERNIGHT. Usually government cannot eliminate a bad thing at all, certainly not just by fiat, and not without spending many millions or billions. This is a rare exception. The crime rate will plummet, the deficit will be reduced, millions of nominal criminals will be made law abiding citizens again, and prison overcrowding will become a thing of the past. Who pays for this? Only the drug users. How much do they pay? Far less than they do now. Who has to be a drug user? Nobody who doesn't choose to be one. It is true that organized crime will not go away if we JUST legalize drugs, any more than it went away when we JUST legalized alcohol. But if we also legalize all other victimless crimes; gambling (already legal in New Jersey and Nevada), prostitution (already legal in Nevada), Usury (already legal in several states), and pornography (whose definition keeps changing) organized crime WILL just go away. ...Keith [ Who pays for the cops who keep drugs out of the hands of kids? Do these laws that keep drugs out of kids hands include their parents? If a parent chooses to give drugs to his child, is it legal? On you argument of "less new smokers than before": I recall statistics showing a rise in women smokers (these statistics could be out of date by now, but I've heard no new ones). In any event, "less than before" doesn't really mean a lot. There are still millions, and there will be millions of new ones. Your statistics on weed usage in the 1960's is incorrect: a much larger number of people smoke mj now than did then. Your argument of "employers and schools will still test for it": I can see a lawsuit coming - how could an employer fire an employee for using a drug that is legal and stigma-free - perhaps there will be 'snorting' and 'no-snorting' zones in office buildings and cafeterias? If you think people quit a drug (including tobacco, which you have reviled as the lowest of the low) because its "dangerous", why don't all the smokers in the world quit? Because they like it! They (beleive it not) enjoy it. The 'enjoy' factor of heroin, or cocaine is tremendously higher than for cigarettes - if its legal, there's going to be a dramatic rise in addicts. Every addict in the world has at least some point said to him/herself, "I can handle it, I can quit any time I want", usually early on in their addiction (and continuing for some - other wise up). I doubt this pattern will change. If harder drugs are cheap and legal, the number and severity of addicts will rise. If you think that legalized gambling will make the mob go away, go look at who OWNS the casinos in Atlantic City. Look who takes protection money from the prostitution houses in Nevada, look who owns the big loan sharks. They won't go away; they're making too damn much money to stop. You underestimate the mob: they're smart and mean. - CWM] -------