Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ray From: ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.med Subject: Re: Drug Abuse - True Problem or Media Hype? Message-ID: <21165@rochester.ARPA> Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 09:29:04 EDT Article-I.D.: rocheste.21165 Posted: Mon Sep 29 09:29:04 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 21:38:27 EDT References: <720@scc.UUCP> <20756@rochester.ARPA> <463@epimass.UUCP> <135@spectrix.UUCP> Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept., Rochester, NY Lines: 44 Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:436 net.med:4767 In article <135@spectrix.UUCP>, clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > > You walked right into this one - they did murder and steal for alcohol > during prohibition. An extremely strong case can be made that the > damage to society (crime, health costs etc) of a drug of any sort > is *higher* when the drug is illegal. > We all know the damage that alcohol currently does to our society. I doubt 500,000 people annualy were killed or seriously wounded during prohibition. So much for your extremely strong case. In the paper this morning, a headline read 'Four young girls, ages 4 to 14 were killed by a drunken driver as they sat in their car IN THEIR DRIVEWAY waiting for their mother to come out of the house to drive them somewhere. The driver of the pickup truck crossed through their yard, into the driveway, rammed the car, crossed the yard, back out into the street, hit three other cars and came to a stop.' The driver wasn't hurt. Again, so much for your extremely strong case. Try convincing that family about the safety of legalizing dangerous chemical substances. > > > Of *course* alcohol and tobacco are "dangerous" drugs. And, of *course* > more people die from either one of them than from all the other drugs > combined. But, a lot more of alcohol or tobacco is consumed > than coke or whatever. And the high rates of consumption are *not* because > they're legal/illegal *now*, but because of the history of our culture. > The other drugs are not part of the majority's history. And, they're far > more dangerous (with the notable exception perhaps of pot) on a > per-individual basis. If they legalized these drugs tomorrow the mystique > would be gone, the criminal involvement the day after, and many of the addicts > a few years from now: > Legalizing drugs will make them part of our history just as tobacco and alcohol are now. The drugs could be so interwoven into our society that no matter how much damage they caused, there would never be any chance of getting rid of them, just as there is no chance of getting rid of tobacco and alcohol. These are vices that society will be forever burdened with. You believe that drug usage will go down if they are legalized. On what evidence do you base this assupmtion? What if you are wrong? Imagine a pack of crack costing less than a pack of cigarettes such that every curious kid in the nation can easily satisfy their curiosity, and get hooked in doing so. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, quite a few drugs will get you hooked in days rather than years. ray Legalizing dangerous chemical substances does not render them less dangerous.