Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117200234@inmet>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 20:04:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200234
Posted: Thu Oct  9 20:04:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 06:31:28 EDT
References: <21165@rochester.ARPA>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:rochester.ARPA:-2116500:inmet:117200234:000:2296
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Oct  9 20:04:00 1986


>/* Written  9:29 am  Sep 29, 1986 by ray@rochester.ARPA in inmet:talk.pol.misc */
>/* ---------- "Re: Drug Abuse - True Problem or Me" ---------- */

Oh goodness!  

>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 don't know how many people were killed annually in prohibition, but 
DRINKING went up.  Since the society of the '20's is not otherwise
comparable to our own (different technology, different bunch of people
with automobiles) the two situations are not comparable on the basis
of raw deaths (you may as well compare them on the basis of "damage in
dollars" without using constant dollars).  I suggest you ASK some of the
people who lived through that time: I predict you'll find that drinking
DROPPED in popularity after prohibition ended.  Not overnight, but
slowly, as the glitz wore off.

>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.  

Again, Ray, you miss the point: the same incident could have happened in 
a society where drinking was illegal.  

>...
>ray
>
>Legalizing dangerous chemical substances does not render them less dangerous.
>/* End of text from inmet:talk.pol.misc */
>

Au contraire!  If they're legal, you can buy them from safe,
non-criminal producers, and employ clean needles.  And the government
can't fool around with paraquat.