Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsb!piety
From: piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.med
Subject: Re: Drug Abuse - True Problem or Media Hype?
Message-ID: <3709@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 12:33:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.3709
Posted: Mon Sep 29 12:33:29 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Oct-86 03:28:12 EDT
References: <720@scc.UUCP> <20756@rochester.ARPA> <463@epimass.UUCP> <135@spectrix.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:427 net.med:4984
Summary: Responibility for one's actions

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment:

If you noticed someone driving a car erratically, posing an obvious threat to
the safety of other motorists, yet knew the person hadn't taken any drugs,
and you also knew that many other drivers were under the influence of ABCD
(choose your drug), yet were driving safely, WOULD YOU ARREST THE DRUG USERS
AND LET THE ERRATIC DRIVER CONTINUE???

The point I am trying to make is that peoples' ACTIONS should be the bottom
line.  If all drugs were legal, I wouldn't care what YOU used, as long as it
didn't pose any threat to me.  If I were an employer, why shouldn't I judge
my employees by what they do?  Why should an unreliable, poor-working
employee, for example, who doesn't use drugs, get better treatment than a 
top-notch, reliable employee who does?  Shouldn't both be considered upon
their performance; their merits??

I suspect some readers will want to say "But, the drug user might have an
excessive absenteeism rate or pose a threat to other employees.".  If I had
an employee who was excessively absent or threatened other employees, I
wouldn't care much whether or not he were drug-free, but I'd be concerned 
about his actions.

Its too easy to outlaw a substance, then arrest someone in possession of it;
you can immediately see the "problem" being solved.  Educating people, not
only is difficult, but the effects take years to be noticed-- just look at
tobacco usage, though people have been warned for quite some time.  The
pulicity of drug busts can get a lot of attention between elections, and 
is therefore more popular than combatting the root of the problem.

Endangering others should be against the law.  Just because someone commits
a crime while "under the influence" is no excuse.  They took a drug and it
made them lose their ability to control themselves, therefore they should
be punished.  THEY MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!!!!  Anyone making
a choice to use a drug that might cause them to lose control must be aware
of the sever penalties if they harm others.  This is exactly how the laws
regarding alcohol use are.  Consuming alcohol is legal-- driving under the
influence, or getting rowdy in public is grounds for arrest, as it should be.
Perhaps those laws are too lenient.  However, if someone wants to drink 
themselves to unconsciousness, in the privacy of their homes, who has the
right to deny them of that??

Again, the point is not the drugs themselves, but the individual's ACTIONS
AGAINST OTHERS that are the concern.  Let us not lose sight of that.  Don't
forget the ineffectiveness of prohibition and the associated crimes it
brought.  Direct attention to the ROOT of the problem, not the symptoms.
Redirect the drug war toward educating people ACCURATELY regarding the
effects of drugs, then hope they have the desire to avoid drug use.


Bob