Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl
From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Drug addiction. (was: Re: Crime notes ...)
Message-ID: <21450@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 04:12:20 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.21450
Posted: Mon Oct 26 04:12:20 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Oct-87 00:44:08 EST
References: <21300@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3144@bellcore.bellcore.com> <21354@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <14836@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 50

In article <14836@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bucsb.bu.edu writes:
-In article <21354@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes:
-> Heroin and cocaine would be cheap
->if they were legal, and addicts wouldn't need to steal to support their
->habits.
-
-Cocaine?  Heroin?  Imagine if they were cheap.  Just imagine it for a
-minute.  For my example, I'm going to use cocaine because I happen to
-know a lot more about that than I do about heroin.  Now my little
-brother walks down to the local drugstore and buys himself a hit
-instead of a candy bar, goes home, and is blissfully happy for awhile.

N.B.: I have never advocated allowing addictive drugs to be sold to
minors.  In previous postings I have discussed the requirement for
"informed consent"...drug education and potentially requiring evidence
that a person is knowledgeable about the drug he is buying.  Your
kid brother wouldn't be able to legally obtain cocaine.

-Next week he does the same.  Next week the same.  As with cigarettes,
-he craves a little more, then a little more, etc.  [...] Ok,
-now my brother is spending a pretty sizeable chunk on cocaine but not
-everything he earns.  What's happening to him?

He's addicted. Tough shit.  Sorry, but if he's stupid enough to take
an addictive drug, knowing the consequences of long-term heavy use,
it's not the government's business to try to stop him.  Next thing
you'll be advocating mandatory bath mats!  Paternalism: just say NO!

-Can you really believe that cheap, legal cocaine would sove problems?

Yes, I do!  It would ELIMINATE crime committed by addicts to support
their habits.  It would ELIMINATE violence between rival drug dealers.
It would take billions of dollars out of the underground economy and
put millions of dollars worth of drug enforcement money back into
the pockets of taxpayers.  The prisons and courts would be flushed of
drug offenders, and more attention could be devoted to violent criminals.
The price?  It is likely that more people will become drug users, but I doubt 
there will be an overwhelming increase, simply because a large fraction of 
the population disregards the current drug laws and indulges anyway. Not 
every drug user becomes a drug addict.  Not every drug has the undesirable
side effects of cocaine.  If you could show a 100% - epsilon causal 
relationship between drug use and harm to non-users, you might have a basis for
banning that particular drug.  Any other motivation must be based on either
paternalism or pure moralizing, neither of which is a valid function of
government.

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley

P.S. How did your address get into the Newsgroups: line?