Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!XEROX.COM!hibbert.pa
From: hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: re: a 'bad batch' of cigarettes
Message-ID: <12233233142.16.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 21:56:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12233233142.16.MCGREW
Posted: Sat Aug 23 21:56:40 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Aug-86 03:01:59 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: hibbert.pa@xerox.com
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 46
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


        [[Having drugs regulated ... doesn't stop illegal activities
        (e.g.  cigarettes, in which there is a multi-million dollar 
        activity to illegally move cigarettes without paying taxes  
        on them ...)]]

And having banks regulated doesn't stop illegal activities there
either.  :-) What I object to is the government declaring particular
actions which don't infringe the rights of non-consentors to be
illegal.  It's okay with me (when I'm willing to concede that
government is okay for some things) if agressive acts are made
illegal.

        [[Amphetimines and depressants, which are regulated by
        doctors (the government allows them to give the stuff 
        out pretty much as they please) are a megabuck illegal 
        business.]] 

I think a better characterization is that the government allows the
doctors to regulate those drugs.  There is still a lot of government
control in this area; doctors aren't allowed individually to give it
out as they please, they are allowed to give it out pretty much as the
AMA pleases.


        [[Clearly, making such drugs legalized would lower the 
        prices and raise quality, but would the increased 
        availability (I think it likely that if prices go down, 
        people will simply buy more of it) damage us as a society 
        more than the value of the removal of the criminal 
        element? Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers 
        for that.  - CWM]]

I think the evidence is at least equivocal about the effects of
increased availability.  The experience of Britain and the
Scandinavian countries shows that legal use of drugs can be much more
benign than (this country's experience of) illegal use.  I can look
for references if you like.

I will also argue that much more important than the undefined and
unknown "benefit to society" of the change is letting people use their
bodies as they see fit.  The argument is similar to that in "a free
press isn't worth anything if it only protects _popular_ speech".

Chris
-------