Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site spectrix.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!spectrix!clewis From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.med Subject: Re: Drug Abuse - True Problem or Media Hype? Message-ID: <163@spectrix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 22:26:17 EDT Article-I.D.: spectrix.163 Posted: Wed Oct 1 22:26:17 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 21:12:38 EDT References: <720@scc.UUCP> <20756@rochester.ARPA> <463@epimass.UUCP> <135@spectrix.UUCP> <21165@rochester.ARPA> Reply-To: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 70 Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:397 net.med:3608 In article <21165@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >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. I assume you're primarily talking about DWI. 500,000 are *not* being killed or seriously injured annually by alchol. You're off by at least an order of magnitude - the numbers are more like 50,000 - which I believe is actually the current *total* US highway carnage rather than just DWI. (It's about 5,000 in Canada) Further, there is some pretty strong indication (eg: the Texaco driver ed. program) that DWI accidents don't happen strictly because the driver is drunk, but that usually the driver was a really bad driver to begin with and alcohol was usually only a minor factor. I believe that some studies in Alberta and the US showed this interesting result. Further, illness attributable to alcohol is somewhat less. However, even disregarding the previous paragraph (except for the corrected fatality figure), take into account: 1) population increase 2) demographic differences 3) social differences (people are more likely to try different things now) that the numbers wouldn't be all that different. >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. No chance? What's happening now? The incidence of DWI is dropping pretty fast here, what with the high legal penalties for DWI offences plus other non-governmental programs. Most people are becoming far more aware (and perhaps mature) about what alcohol does *without* having to ban it from the vast majority who already are "handling it safely". Even more so with tobacco - unless I miss my guess completely, I strongly suspect that smoking will be virtually extinct in 10 years. Again, without banning it. Because: (a) virtually everybody knows it's dangerous, and (b) because the rest of society makes you feel pretty damn stupid about doing it. If the more dangerous drugs were made legal: 1) the mystique would be lost, and people would be more willing to believe the warnings about them. Especially since they're *far* more dangerous and the results a lot more direct. 2) You could get treated for drug addiction with less loss of self-esteem than for alcohol (the latter is considered to be more a "voluntary" addiction) 3) You could get treated for addiction without being arrested. 4) The people who make enormously large profits by pushing the crap at others will go elsewhere. >Legalizing dangerous chemical substances does not render them less dangerous. On an individual basis no. But society wide, perhaps. -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955