Drug Abuse - True Problem or Media Hype?
Ray Frank
>
> The 9/15/86 *Time* had some revealing statistics.
> The one I found most interesting is " . . . more people (570)
> died from appendicitis last year than from cocaine abuse (563)." [p. 64]
>
I find it immposible to minimize the dangers of drug abuse from such com-
parisions. Appendicitis certainly does not contribute to the crime rate. Nor
does it lead to anti-social behaviour in any way. Those with appendicitis
also do not cause others to contract it such as is the case with those who
abuse drugs and encourage others to do the same. Unlike drug abuse,
illnesses do not ordinarily lead young people into chemical dependency such that
their lives are controlled in destructive manner by those chemicals. Mental
hospitals have a lot of victims in them from drug abuse rather than from
appendicitis. But enought, the concept of using silly comparisions to
maximize or minimize something is a ploy that has been used by either side
for years, usually unsucessfully.
ray
Joe Buck
>In article <7...@scc.UUCP>, ste...@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes:
>>
>> " . . . more people (570)
>> died from appendicitis last year than from cocaine abuse (563)." [p. 64]
>>
>I find it immposible to minimize the dangers of drug abuse from such com-
>parisions. Appendicitis certainly does not contribute to the crime rate. Nor
>does it lead to anti-social behaviour in any way.
You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but
harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol
(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain
to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco
use?
--
- Joe Buck {hplabs,fortune}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck, nsc!csi!epimass!jbuck
Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California
(pesnta has been dead for two weeks, please don't reply through pesnta)
Ray Frank
> You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but
> harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol
> (25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain
> to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco
> use?
>
can you advocate legalizing still more harmful drugs into our society?
Haven't we learned anything from this? I've been addicted to tobacco for
many years now. If other controlled drugs had been legal 20 years ago, I
could be addicted to those also. As I said, I'm addicted to tobacco, but I'm
not ignorant nor insensitive enough to advocate the use of this horrible killer.
I became addicted when I was too young to realize the consequences, just as
our young people today are doing drugs and not giving the consequences enough
thought. Tobacco in general takes much longer to become addicting than a lot
of todays' popularly abused drugs. By the time young kids realize the dangers
they could be addicted and then it is too late.
ray
Ray Frank
> "The Drug Crackdown is the McCarthyism of the 80's"!!
>
> I suggest people do all in their power, write letters to the editor,
> write their Congresspeople, and whatever possible to stop this new
> facism before it gets started.
> tim sevener whuxn!orb
Yes, I'll write letters, but not the kind you want. My letters will be to
opose drug abuse and fight the legalization of their use. The drug crack-
down is long overdue. I'm all for using the military in this war on drugs.
What better use of our soldiers than to protect the welfare of our young
people here at home.
Say no to drugs.
ray
Maurice E. Suhre
>You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but
>harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol
>(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain
>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco
>use?
on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't
have to?
But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have
to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol
users.
--
Maurice Suhre
{decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
Steve Dunn
>As I said, I'm addicted to tobacco, but I'm
>not ignorant nor insensitive enough to advocate the use of this horrible killer.
>I became addicted when I was too young to realize the consequences, just as
>our young people today are doing drugs and not giving the consequences enough
>thought. Tobacco in general takes much longer to become addicting than a lot
>of todays' popularly abused drugs. By the time young kids realize the dangers
>they could be addicted and then it is too late.
>
seem to have the slightest difficulty understanding this fact. You know I
don't make any claims to having been some sort of child prodigy either. I
think even a ten year old would have to be deaf and blind to not hear of the
bad consequences of tobacco.
I might also take this opportunity to point out that not all illegal drugs
are addictive. Pot, LSD, mushrooms, peyote are examples of non-addictive
drugs which are still illegal.
-Steve "Piss bottles for God and Country" Dunn
Susan Finkelman
> can you advocate legalizing still more harmful drugs into our society?
> Haven't we learned anything from this? I've been addicted to tobacco for
> many years now. If other controlled drugs had been legal 20 years ago, I
> could be addicted to those also. As I said, I'm addicted to tobacco, but I'm
> not ignorant nor insensitive enough to advocate the use of this horrible killer.
> I became addicted when I was too young to realize the consequences, just as
> our young people today are doing drugs and not giving the consequences enough
> thought. Tobacco in general takes much longer to become addicting than a lot
> of todays' popularly abused drugs. By the time young kids realize the dangers
> they could be addicted and then it is too late.
>
> ray
I too was "addicted" to tobacco when I was too young to know any better. I
decided to stop smoking and, therefore, I no longer smoke. Quitting wasn't
fun. However I didn't need military intervention, nor government mandate
nor police harrassment to make me quit. Do you really expect to get a
lot of respect from kids who see that their elders drugs of choice are
legal? Need I bring up the overwhelming success of Prohibition?
Susan Finkelman
{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
Andrew Koenig
> on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't
> have to?
>
> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have
> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol
> users.
And it would be similar for cocaine users as well if the government
didn't try to hard to keep the prices high.
Joe Buck
>In article <4...@epimass.UUCP> jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
>>You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but
>>harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol
>>(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain
>>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco
>>use?
> I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems
> on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't
> have to?
We already have the "third problem". Millions use illegal drugs.
Why are we prepared to trample the Constitution in our hysteria
about it?
> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have
> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol
> users.
That's because tobacco and alcohol are legal. Pharmaceutical (sp?)
cocaine is around a dollar a gram. The high price is entirely due to
the illegality.
Also, how many deaths are due to impurities or because the user is
getting a much stronger concentration than s/he is used to? Answer:
almost all of them, in the case of heroin. I have no idea for
cocaine.
Another point: when I was 14, no liquor store would sell me beer.
Yet anyone would sell me marijuana. To get drugs away from children,
legalize and regulate them. Making the penalties for selling
cigarettes to minors as severe as those for selling alcohol to minors
would help also (i.e. store loses license to sell tobacco).
Ed Falk
> Why are we prepared to trample the Constitution in our hysteria
> about it?
>
administration has cut funding for drug treatment by more than 46% since
they came into power. Reagan's 'war on drugs' will restore only
*part* of that funding. I don't think this administration is at all
concerned with helping people at all, it's just a power grab. This
business of assigning civilian police powers to the military really
gives me the heebie-jeebies.
--
-ed falk, sun microsystems
fa...@sun.com
sun!falk
Chris Lewis
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. When a drug is illegal:
a) the mystique of doing something forbidden tends to increase use.
b) demand for the drug, and the lack of legitimate channels
of supply force the prices way up.
c) Extremely high prices:
- force users to steal to support their habit
- attract organized crime to the market
- the high amounts of money involved result in
other crimes
d) People in trouble with the drug tend to try to avoid
treatment
How much crime would you expect to see resulting from a drug if the cost
for a day's worth of "tripping" was $1 instead of $1000? Not much.
If they legalized cocaine tomorrow I would suspect that usage would go
up somewhat (not all that much), and the crime rate would go down sharply
(excluding "possession" that is) and the health costs wouldn't change
much. I bet you won't find many "dealers" in favour of decriminalization!
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:
- would no longer be the "in" thing to do - fewer starting on drugs.
- people being able to seek treatment without fear of the law.
- pushers no longer having incentive to push.
And, Miami Vice would go off the air! (Yay! Worth it for that alone!)
--
Chris Lewis
UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis
Phone: (416)-474-1955
Ray Frank
> I too was "addicted" to tobacco when I was too young to know any better. I
> decided to stop smoking and, therefore, I no longer smoke. Quitting wasn't
> fun. However I didn't need military intervention, nor government mandate
> nor police harrassment to make me quit. Do you really expect to get a
> lot of respect from kids who see that their elders drugs of choice are
> legal? Need I bring up the overwhelming success of Prohibition?
>
addicted to crack or speed or whatever when you were young, number 1, you may
not have been able to kick the habit, and number too, if you did, your
brain might have been irreversibly damaged by the time you stopped.
Do you really expect to get a lot of respect from kids when they see their
elders breaking the law, such as doing harmful and illegal drugs?
Prohibition? Too bad it didn't work. Twenty five thousand people a year
every year would be alive to enjoy prohibition rather than a grave. Another
500,000 people per year would not be severly injured, trying to enjoy life
from a hospital room or wheel chair. These two drugs, alcohol and tobacco, have
wiped out more people then all the wars in our history, so why not introduce
more drugs into our society?
ray
Ray Frank
> Gee, when I was young I heard that tobacco was bad for your health. I didn't
> seem to have the slightest difficulty understanding this fact.
Gee, when were you young, when all the dangers were known about tobacco? You
don't deserve a feather in your cap for knowing something that everyone else
also knew. When I was young, they just began to suspect that tobacco might
be linked to this or that disease. Almost every smoked then, 65,000,000 to
be exact. Unfortunately, there are still over 30,000,000 smokers in spite of
all the dangers.
ray
Ray Frank
>
> cocaine is around a dollar a gram. The high price is entirely due to
> the illegality.
Again, there are over 35 million tobacco addicts and 20 million alcohol
addicts. This is because of the easy availability of said drugs. With
cocaine and many other drugs being so addictive, there most likely would
be more addicts than alcohol and tobacco addicts combined if drugs
were legalized.
>
> Also, how many deaths are due to impurities or because the user is
> getting a much stronger concentration than s/he is used to? Answer:
> almost all of them, in the case of heroin. I have no idea for
> cocaine.
This just furthers my point concerning the problems associated with
legalizing drugs. Drugs are so addicting, that even at great personal
risk, people still use them. If they are made legal, then how many more
people would become addicted?
> Another point: when I was 14, no liquor store would sell me beer.
> Yet anyone would sell me marijuana. To get drugs away from children,
> legalize and regulate them. Making the penalties for selling
> cigarettes to minors as severe as those for selling alcohol to minors
> would help also (i.e. store loses license to sell tobacco).
>
Good point, but not one in your favor. It just emphasizes the growing
drug problem: pushers getting kids hooked on drugs.
When I was 14, it was very easy to get alcohol. We just paid a little more
for a quart of beer. Some older person would get it for us. This is
exactly what will happen if drugs are legalized. Kids will still have very
easy access to them. They will be very cheap, so kids will be able to buy
drugs in very large quantities. Just as there is an underground market for
alcohol for under age kids, there will exist an underground market for
drugs. Remember, the highest cause of death of kids between the ages of
14 and 20 is alcohol related car accidents. It can thus be seen that
legalizing a dangerous substances does not minimize its' danger.
Wake up, reality is all around you ready to replace your fantasy land.
ray
Greg Busby
>>You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but
[note: this is in resonse to comparisons of # of cocaine deaths vs.
# of appendicitis deaths, etc.]
>>harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol
>>(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain
>>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco
>>use?
> I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems
> on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't
> have to?
>
The problem here is not that alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL, but that
they are so ACCEPTED. Because of the fact that they are taken for
granted in society, and their use is socially acceptable (if falling out
of fashion), we (as a society) assume that young people will be able to
make their own decisions about how to use them. BUT (and this is the
main point) WE DON'T EVER TEACH YOUNG PEOPLE WHAT THESE DRUGS CAN DO AND
LET THEM GAIN SOME [LIMITED] EXPERIENCE WITH THEM. THE AVERAGE PERSON
DOESN'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT LEGAL [OR ILLEGAL] DRUGS TO MAKE AN INFORMED
DECISION. This doesn't mean I think people should smoke or drink, but
that they should be free to make that decision on their own. Society's
place is to present them with information and help them out if they feel
that they can't handle it once thy've started.
> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have
> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol
> users.
And neither would drug users if the drugs weren't sold on the black
market, which always has high prices for its commodities (how expensive
was alcohol during prohibition?). If drugs were
legal, the competition in the market would drive prices down to the
point where stealing wouldn't be necessary. In addition, it would bring
the grower/producer and distributor under all the same regulations that
govern tobacco and alcohol and provide a measure of control against
young (<~15 or 16) people getting ahold of drus that are harmful.
[As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said
that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have
turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that
regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so
why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same
effect?
>Maurice Suhre
GKB
Craig S. Anderson
Doesn't the military have enough to do already? Wouldn't it be better
to spend some money on the DEA or the Coast Guard? After all, those
two organizations are responsible for keeping imported drugs out of
the U.S. It seems like the public wants a 'quick fix' to a problem
that doesn't have any easy answers. The only way to really fight
drug abuse is to persuade (there's an ambiguous word!) people not
to demand drugs. You do this through education, social pressure,
and information about the harmful effects of drugs. The proportion
of Americans who smoke is down significantly from 20 years ago because
smokers know that it damages their health, and a great many non-smokers
won't tolerate smoking in the workplace or in public places like restaurants.
The government arrests all of the smugglers and dealers it can find,
but it doesn't make much difference since there are always scummy people
waiting to make money on drugs. Get rid of the demand, and there won't
be a drug problem. I realize that this is a difficult task, but people's
attitudes can change. Just look how much the attitude towards racial
discrimination has changed in the past 100 years or so.
>
>ray
--
Craig Anderson
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(408) 749-3007
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!csanders
#include <disclaimer.h>
Jerry Natowitz
are legalized. I think that the DEA and others involved in stopping
the flow of drugs into this country have a vested interest in
keeping enough drugs coming through that their jobs are safe.
I also think that many drug dealers are solidly against legaization
for the same reason.
Remember the bit about moon-shiners reminding preachers to give a
hell-and-brimstone sermon against drinking the Sunday before a vote on
allowing alcohol sales in dry counties?
Politics make strange bedfellows.
--
Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division)
Bell Labs HR 2A-214
201-615-5178 (no CORNET)
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin
or ihnp4!opus!jin
Isn't it interesting how the beautiful little red flower in the forest
becomes so ugly when you discover it's a candy wrapper.
R. James Nusbaum
I hear the above argument used over and over again, 'Alcohol and tobacco
aren't as bad because they don't cause crime'. The reason they don't
cause crime is because they are not illegal! In the first place the
number of drug users who steal to support their habit is very small in
comparison to the total number of users. In the second place if the drugs
were legal they would be much much cheaper. The laws of economics
guarantee this. Many drug users smoke and drink too, but they don't
need to steal for these habits because they only cost a couple of dollars
a day. If heroin and cocaine were legal and cheap, these people would
not have to steal, their habits would no longer be illegal, and the only
detrimental effect they would be having would be on themselves and possibly
their children. In this case we take away their children, just like they
do now with alcoholics.
The intelligent thing to do is to stop wasting money on the enforcement
of unenforceable laws and spend it on educational programs. It has been
shown that education works (look at the drop in tobacco use) and I believe
that the US could substantially reduce its drug problem in only a couple
of years. This approach would stop making criminals of millions of casual
users who are hurting no one.
Jim Nusbaum
--
R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department,
Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110.
CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn
ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
Jerry Natowitz
> wiped out more people then all the wars in our history, so why not introduce
> more drugs into our society?
>
> ray
I think the drugs are quite introduced into our society. At this point
the question is what is the least damaging to society: legalizing drugs,
continuing on our current path, or an all out war.
Drugs (of one sort or another) have been a part of society
since the first time people ate fermented fruit, drank the liquid the
floats on sour dough, or munched on one of the myriad of psychogenic
plants or animals.
Cross-species data indicates that birds seek out and eat fermenting fruits
getting quite intoxicated in the process. I'm sure there are many other
examples, I'm just not up on ethology.
I think that overwhelming proportion of damage done to society "by drugs"
is a direct or indirect effect of the non legal status of the drugs.
Ray Frank
> [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said
> that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have
> turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that
> regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so
> why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same
> effect?
The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of
words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile.
You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were
raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs. Does some moral code
of ethics exist out there that would prevent someone from selling alcohol to
minors but would alow the selling of illegal drugs to minors? I think you've
been led astray by some of your siblings' high-school-age friends. Even if
this were true, what is your point, that we should alow kids to have alcohol
so that they will use less drugs?
Now my point. If drugs are made legal, kids will have even easier access to
them, just as they currently have easy access to alcohol. Just as they have
always had easy access to alcohol. But a more frightening point is that
these legal drugs will now be cheap. A kid could spend his lunch money on
some drugs and be wacked out for days. Can you imagine a 'pack of coke'
costing the equivelent of a pack of cigarettes with enough 'blast' to last
the day? The next time you are driving by a school play ground, please
observe all the kids in the area smoking. Also realize that it is against
the law for minors to purchase tobacco products, but there they are, smoking
away, with no one admonishing them for it. So here we have a regulated legal
substance with kids having absolutely no problem obtaining it. So much for
your theories on regulation and legalization.
ray
George Robbins
>> [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said
>> that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have
>> turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that
>> regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so
>> why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same
>> effect?
>
> The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of
>words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile.
>You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were
>raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs.
Well, perhpas you'd best check your sources! At the High School level, there's
always sombody around the school or hangout with some pot for sale or share.
Beer's not that hard to get, but it is harder to bring to market, bulky, hard
to hide or usually requires considerable aggravation to get someone with an
older brother or fake id to make a run.
Another trend takes place at the 18-20 year age group. In this case, these
people have to shift from social drinking in public places, where drugs are
apt to be discouraged to private partying, where controls are far more vague.
Face it, the issues are far more complicated than either side would like to
admit, and values are apt to change depending on age and family status...
--
George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!g...@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
Maurice E. Suhre
>In article <13...@trwrb.UUCP> su...@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>>In article <4...@epimass.UUCP> jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
>>>Can you explain
>>>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco
>>>use?
>> I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems
>> on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't
>> have to?
>>
>> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have
>> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol
>> users.
cost way more than they would if available legally.
>>
Try this one. The majority of people that drink "socially"
can enjoy the pleasures of alcohol without becoming addicted,
damaging their lives, etc. Do the majority of cocaine users
follow the same pattern? Or do almost all of them become
abusers? The principle that I advance is the addictive
power of the various substances under discussion.
Clayton Cramer
> > [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said
> > that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have
> > turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that
> > regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so
> > why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same
> > effect?
>
> The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of
> words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile.
> You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were
> raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs. Does some moral code
> of ethics exist out there that would prevent someone from selling alcohol to
> minors but would alow the selling of illegal drugs to minors? I think you've
Not a moral code. Liquor stores are afraid of losing their license. Drug
dealers are completely unconcerned because they already operate illegally.
> been led astray by some of your siblings' high-school-age friends. Even if
> this were true, what is your point, that we should alow kids to have alcohol
> so that they will use less drugs?
> Now my point. If drugs are made legal, kids will have even easier access to
> them, just as they currently have easy access to alcohol. Just as they have
> always had easy access to alcohol. But a more frightening point is that
> these legal drugs will now be cheap. A kid could spend his lunch money on
> some drugs and be wacked out for days. Can you imagine a 'pack of coke'
> costing the equivelent of a pack of cigarettes with enough 'blast' to last
> the day? The next time you are driving by a school play ground, please
> observe all the kids in the area smoking. Also realize that it is against
> the law for minors to purchase tobacco products, but there they are, smoking
> away, with no one admonishing them for it. So here we have a regulated legal
> substance with kids having absolutely no problem obtaining it. So much for
> your theories on regulation and legalization.
>
> ray
Fine. A bunch of scum wack themselves out from cheap drugs. The REST of
the population (which is the overwhelming majority) can get back to studying.
You also seem to overlook that the illegality of drugs results in not
only higher prices and profits for drug dealers, but the illegality of
advertising price and availability makes it likely that a doper will
go back to the same drug dealer that introduced them to the drug in
question. This creates incentives for a drug dealer to give away
free samples. If the profit is measured in the 1% range, and you have
assurance that your customers will come back to you in particular,
why give away drugs to get people hooked?
Clayton E. Cramer
Rex Ballard
>> [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said
>> that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have
>> turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that
>> regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so
>> why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same
>> effect?
>
> The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of
>words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile.
Thank you ray, I couldn't have said it better myself.
>You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were
>raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs.
>Does some moral code
>of ethics exist out there that would prevent someone from selling alcohol to
>minors but would alow the selling of illegal drugs to minors?
No, but there is much more profit selling drugs to minors than selling
alcohol. Besides, there is much more repeat business :-). Anyone can
sell them alcohol, but they have to trust their pusher.
>I think you've
>been led astray by some of your siblings' high-school-age friends. Even if
>this were true, what is your point, that we should alow kids to have alcohol
>so that they will use less drugs?
Actually ray, this is an accurate representation. The more illegal or
difficult to get a drug is, the more fashionable it is with the kids.
It used to be that pot was the "In Drug" or hashish. Today, coke is
it! :-). Probably due to the reduction in prosecution of marajuana
laws. It's like a traffic ticket in many states now.
> Now my point. If drugs are made legal, kids will have even easier access to
>them, just as they currently have easy access to alcohol. Just as they have
>always had easy access to alcohol.
This is true, but more than likely, they will want some new "in drug" like
heroin, morphine, or strikenine.
>But a more frightening point is that
>these legal drugs will now be cheap. A kid could spend his lunch money on
>some drugs and be wacked out for days.
A kid can do that right now. He can spend two bucks on a bottle of Ny-Quill
or some other "cold remedy" and be zonked for a week, depending on what he
used, and he wouldn't even need an I.D. Remember the days of "coke and
aspirin", and I'm not talking about cocaine. Remember around '65 when
smoking banana peels was "in". It does work (very strong stuff), but
never really caught on because there was no "margin".
>Can you imagine a 'pack of coke'
>costing the equivelent of a pack of cigarettes with enough 'blast' to last
>the day? The next time you are driving by a school play ground, please
>observe all the kids in the area smoking.
Take a good look at what they are smoking. Grass is now "kid stuff" for
elementary and Jr. High School kids.
>Also realize that it is against
>the law for minors to purchase tobacco products, but there they are, smoking
>away, with no one admonishing them for it.
Actually, smoking is sort of a "separator". This is when the rebels who
start smoking are separated from the "good kids" who put them down. Later,
the rebels are the ones selling the "good kids" drugs.
I knew some "nerds" who made their own cloroform, but couldn't give it
away until the "cool pusher" decided it might make a nice "side market".
>So here we have a regulated legal
>substance with kids having absolutely no problem obtaining it. So much for
>your theories on regulation and legalization.
>
>ray
If there is anything to my comments, you know what makes sense? Get
the DEA, organized crime, smugglers, and the media all hyped up about
the evils of "pla-see-bo" (use another name of course). Get daily newspaper
reports, heavy legislation, stiff criminal penalties, and get the rock
stars to write songs about it. In fact, have the DEA pose as "big time"
pushers and do the distribution. Just to add credibility, the DEA could
"bust" the pushers and simply transfer them to other cities.
Wanna bet the kids would be paying $20 a hit for sugar? :-).
At least when they outgrow the need, they would have a better chance of
quitting. They might also have a better chance of surviving.
Believe it or not, something very much like this was done with nitrous
oxide (laughing gas) and this was the "in drug" for almost two years.
Imagine, there were teenagers paying two bucks a pop for one good whiff
of laughing gas! When emil nitrate started filtering in, the "pushers"
would say that the emil was just "laughing gas" and they had the "real
thing". Unfortunately the scam was exposed and the new "in drug" was
cocaine.
rex
Craig S. Anderson
In article <15...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>> . . . . I'm all for using the military in this war on drugs.
>> >What better use of our soldiers than to protect the welfare of our young
>> >people here at home.
>>
>> Doesn't the military have enough to do already? Wouldn't it be better
>> to spend some money on the DEA or the Coast Guard? After all, those
>> two organizations are responsible for keeping imported drugs out of
>
>The coast guard is already involved. Trouble is, they've been shot at with
>anti-ship missiles and large-caliber machine guns in some cases, and they
>haven't got the radars that can get a small, light plane skimming the
>surface in the ``ground clutter''. The Navy *has* got these radars, and they
>are equipped to deal with Soviet (and other) missiles that can be purchased
>by smugglers with enough cash.
The Coast Guard can deal with ships that have machine guns (their frigates
have 5 in. guns). I have not heard of smugglers attacking the
Coast Guard with anti-ship missiles. Please give references. The
Navy and the Air Force already lend some support to the Coast Guard
and the DEA by giving them information about ship and aircraft traffic.
The House bill would give the military a more active role in hunting
down smugglers, and would allow the military to actually make arrests.
It is kind of strange that the President has declared a "War on Drugs",
but doesn't want to spend much more money on the problem?
1) He want to use the military to crack down on smugglers, since the
money is already allocated in the DoD budget.
2) His drive for drug-free schools and workplaces is laudable, but
it puts the burden for fighting drugs on employers and the schools.
3) I read in the newspaper that he has cut funds over the last few years
for drug rehabilitation.
>> Get rid of the demand, and there won't
>> be a drug problem. I realize that this is a difficult task, but people's
>> attitudes can change. Just look how much the attitude towards racial
>> discrimination has changed in the past 100 years or so.
>
>Great idea, but in the mean time, why not make the junk less available?
Good idea, but law enforcement hasn't had much luck stemming the tide
of drugs flowing in....
>How do you show someone what it's like to be so hard up for a fix that
>you'll kill your parents, steal, so bent out of shape that you don't care
>about anything but that next fix?
Well, you could have someone who's been there talk to people about it.
In high school I got the obligatory anti-drug lectures, but they
didn't seem to have much impact on me or anyone else. But when
our college dorm invited a former alcoholic and drug addict who
got kicked out of Cal largely because of his substance abuse, it really
hit close to home with some of the students there. Telling a
teen-ager "Don't do drugs" without showing him/her the consequences
of drug abuse is often futile because of the sometimes intense peer
pressure to take drugs.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Terry Grevstad
>> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have
>> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol
>> users.
>And neither would drug users if the drugs weren't sold on the black
>market, which always has high prices for its commodities (how expensive
>was alcohol during prohibition?). If drugs were
>legal, the competition in the market would drive prices down to the
>point where stealing wouldn't be necessary.
One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it
virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me,
therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some
stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able
to work. (In case you didn't notice, I'm not talking about the casual
user or the social user, but the hard-core, can't-live-without-it
addict.)
--
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
without a Terry Grevstad
ECNALG Network Research Corporation
ihnp4!nrcvax!terry
{sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Steiny
> smoking banana peels was "in". It does work (very strong stuff), but
> never really caught on because there was no "margin".
>
read that it did not work. Of course I was not as stupid as the
legislators who were conidering restricting the sale of bananas to
minors.
--
scc!steiny
Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software
109 Torrey Pine Terrace
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
(408) 425-0382
James Wilbur Lewis
actually quite an accurate depiction of my feelings on the issue! Let me
elaborate a bit:
zde...@heathcliff.columbia.edu.UUCP (Zdenek Radouch) writes:
>>[Jim Lewis]
>>I support legalized *possession* of all drugs;
>
>Right, after all everybody can synthesise (or grow) them at home by himself.
Correct....so keeping such drugs out of the hands of recreational drug users
will require massive invasions of privacy.
>
>> also legalized *sale* of all non-physiologically-addictive drugs
>
>Right, Screw yourself all you want as long as you don't become physiologically
>addicted (psychological addiction is fine).
Someone who knowingly uses addictive drugs is stupid. Someone who knowingly
*sells* addictive drugs is unethical. The latter person is the one we want
to bust!
>> to people who are well-enough informed of the possible consequences.
>
>All you have to do is to take and pass DRUGS 101 with at least C+.
YES! This really *is* what I'd like to see happen! Except with maybe a B as
the passing grade....
>>Dangerously addictive drugs should not be sold (except maybe by prescription).
>
>Safely addictive drugs in the selected supermarkets.
I've got news for you....I can walk down to the corner Safeway, and buy as
much alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as I can carry! All addictive substances,
and the first two aren't even all that safe. But this is as it should be...
it's my choice to risk using these substances.
I keep hearing references to a study that showed that nicotine is as addictive,
possibly even more so, than heroin. Can someone (Craig?) give me a pointer to
the study so I can verify this?
>>[Would you sell alcohol to a minor...] if you knew you'd do time...?
>
>I would have to be more careful and it would cost the kid a hell of a lot more
>money.
Exactly the idea! That comment was put there to appease Ray Frank, who was
concerned that lower prices for legalized drugs would lead to easy availability
for children. This can be nullified by upping the penalty for unauthorized
dealing.
>>
>>-- Jim Lewis
>> U.C. Berkeley
>
>Verbum sat sapienti est.
I don't speak Latin. What are you saying?
>Zdenek Radouch
Jim Lewis
Ray Frank
>
> 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.
>
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:
>
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.
Bob Piety
All this BS about escalating drug wars is ridiculous! We will gradually lose
our civil rights and freedoms from these "drug wars", yet the drug problem
will continue and, perhaps, escalate from all the attention!
As long as people WANT drugs, they will get them! Consider incarcerated
criminals-- they get drugs in prison!!!! They get them because they want them
and are willing to pay.
Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they
use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them?
NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking
them.
Drugs will no longer be a problem when enough people CHOOSE, ON THEIR OWN
FREE WILL, NOT TO USE DRUGS. They key to successful dealing with the drug
problem is EDUCATION! Plain old truth about the risks must be known-- not
"Reefer-Madness"-type hype. Credibilty must be established by the
authorities. Kids must be made to BELIEVE the risks, through credible
sources, so that they turn down drugs if they are offered them.
Lastly, ask yourselves why YOU don't use drugs. Why didn't YOU accept
undoubted offers of drugs when you were younger. Why don't YOU have a drug
problem? Now.... help pass the same insights to others so thet they make
their own choices. Don't get hysterical and promote laws that further
chip away at our declining liberties.
Bob
Bob Piety
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
Steve Dunn
depend on passing a drug test who are drug users have several actions. One
of those actions, of course, is to quit taking drugs. Probably a significant
number will do so.
There may be another option however. If some psycho-active drugs are either
not tested for or cannot be tested for, then the user of drugs that are
detected by the tests has the option of switching to drugs that are not
detected. My personal experience is that some people seem impelled to use
some sort of drug, if not one than another.
LSD is a fantastically potent drug. The average dose is about 125
micrograms. A microgram is a millionth of a gram. This is speculation,
but I doubt that with a dose this small, enough would show up in the urine
to make it detectable. If I am correct than people like air traffic
controllers who will get fired for (probably offduty) use of pot and coke may
switch to acid. If I'm wrong about acid not being detectable than my argument
will apply to the first drug they don't screen for. If this has worse effects
on job performance then the problem (If there really is one) will get worse
because of drug testing.
-Steve "Piss bottles for god and country" Dunn
Ray Frank
>
> 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.
>
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.
>
>
> 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:
>
Bill Tanenbaum
> One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it
> virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me,
> therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some
> stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able
> to work. (In case you didn't notice, I'm not talking about the casual
> user or the social user, but the hard-core, can't-live-without-it
> addict.)
I can't live without food (and chocolate -) ), however, I have yet
to steal to get either one. There may be some drugs which, by their
very nature, make it impossible for the heavy user to hold a job,
but heroin and cocaine are not among them. Legalization would
greatly reduce the stealings and muggings for drug money, and
the official corruption caused by drug money. Of course,
legalization has its price. The social costs of legal alcohol
and tobacco, due to their widespread use and lack of associated
social stigma, far exceed those of illegal drugs. Legalization
would solve one set of problems, and make worse another set of
problems.
--
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
Don Steiny
>
> One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it
> virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me,
> therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some
> stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able
> to work. (In case you didn't notice, I'm not talking about the casual
> user or the social user, but the hard-core, can't-live-without-it
> addict.)
>
to steal as much.
If the life of Dr. Steward Halsted, one of the founders
of the John Hopkins Hospital, is any indication, large doses of
morphine (and therefore heroin--di-acetyl morphine breaks down into morphine
in 20 minutes or so), is not incompatible with holding a job. Alcohol is
incompatible with holding most jobs, at least in excess. How much
crime in our society is a result of people stealing to support their
alcohol habit?
Ed Sachs
> virtually impossible for a person to hold a job.
A good example of such a drug is alcohol. Do alcoholics steal?
Probably yes, but less than other addicts, as they need less money
to support their habits.
--
Ed Sachs
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihuxe!essachs
R. James Nusbaum
Somehow my name was include in Maurice's posting although I couldn't find
any text from my posting in it. Anyway I will answer this one.
It is obvious that you do not know any drug users (notice I didn't say
abusers). There are literally millions of casual drug users in this
country. They use drugs in exactly the same way as people use alcohol.
I personally know at least 50 people who are regular cocaine users.
Most of them have been using cocaine for at least 10 years. They are
well educated (many have graduate degrees), employed in good jobs, and
in excellent physical shape. The reason you don't hear about these
kind of people in the media is because they are afraid to be open about
their use. Let me describe to you the way many people who use drugs in
this country have to live. First of all, never ever admit to someone
that you use drugs unless you know that person extremely well or you know
that they also use drugs. Second, you basically only socialize with 'safe'
people. Safe people are those who you are absolutely sure have liberal
attitudes about drugs. The reason you have to live this way is because
of the attitudes of people like you, Maurice. Too many people in this
country automatically assume that if you use cocaine (or even pot) that
you must be some kind of degenerate criminal. The media hype has only
made this worse.
I wish I could go into more detail about specific people and my personal
experiences, but I can't. The dangers of admitting drug use or identifying
someone as a drug user are too great. In my experience though, the majority
of illegal drug users do not go on to become abusers any more than the
majority of legal drug users go on to become abusers.
Note: I cannot speak for crack users. I have heard that this form of
coke is tremendously addictive. As it has not penetrated to many parts
of the country I do not have any personal experience with this drug.
Gabor Fencsik@ex2642
the drug issue is that the drug trade is, on the whole, an instance of the
type of economic activity that all good Reaganites should approve of. We have
cut income transfer payments from the middle class to the ghettos and from the
rich nations to the Third World on the assumption that private initiative is
going to deliver the goods, amply replacing the lost welfare and foreign aid.
And this is precisely what happened: the drug trade is transferring tens
of billions from the suburbs to the inner cities and from the North to the
barrios in South America. It's all private initiative, marketing savvy,
inventiveness and risk-taking -- so what's the problem? Since we made the
Thirld World into a net exporter of capital to the U.S. [their interest
payments to international banks are exceeding new loans by something like
30 billion per year] - all that money has got to come from somewhere, no?
-----
Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gabor
Chris Lewis
>One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it
>virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me,
>therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some
>stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able
>to work.
I can't see how it would be any much different from people so addicted
to alcohol that they can't work. You don't see much crime in support
of that habit (even here, where the price of liquor is priced ridiculously
high by the provincial Govt. (2 to 3 times that in the states)). Often
welfare is enough to keep them in booze. Besides, they've probably destroyed
themselves so thoroughly that they're unable to commit robberies of anybody
sober enough to have any money... The worst they usually do is clutter
up the parks/mess up the sidewalks... Even so, I'd chose that over prohibition
any day.
--
Chris Lewis
UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis
Phone: (416)-474-1955
Chris Lewis
>In article <1...@spectrix.UUCP>, cle...@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.
Joseph S. D. Yao
>>Verbum sat sapienti est.
>I don't speak Latin. What are you saying?
>>Zdenek Radouch
>Jim Lewis
Jim, I think he's trying for and almost saying, "A word to the wise
is sufficient." Looks like some of the modern abbreviation that
folks do to this kind of phrase.
--
Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
js...@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)
Maurice E. Suhre
...lots of previous stuff deleted...
>Alcohol is
>incompatible with holding most jobs, at least in excess.
lot of "functional" alcoholics walking around out there
gainfully employed.
>How much
>crime in our society is a result of people stealing to support their
>alcohol habit?
hard liquor a day (this is my estimate from listening to AA
stories), the cost is about $8-10. Contrast this with the
cost of supporting a cocaine or heroin habit. Assuming that
alcoholics and addicts are both stealing, who is stealing the
most?
Phil Stephens
respond. References to relevant studies welcome, especially if any exist
that would help predict effect of *marijuana* legalization/decriminalization).
< Kinda long, and more a statement than a reply >
In article <18...@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> r...@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes:
>In article <1...@spectrix.UUCP>, cle...@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.
Ray, please include sources for shocking statistics like this, as a matter
of etiquette. However, I have a figure from the Readers Digest Almanac for
alcohol related *fatalities* at 96 K, mostly their own from related illnesses,
accidents (20K per year traffic, and nearly as many in *other* accidents),
and suicides. 500 K/year *injured or* killed in alcohol related accidents
and incidents may or may not be a little high; where did you get the figure,
please?
>So much for your extremely strong case. In the paper this morning, a headline
...
>Again, so much for your extremely strong case. Try convincing that family
>about the safety of legalizing dangerous chemical substances.
Try convincing the families of people who died in the Mexicana jet crash that
planes are safe... dramatic, but more heat than light. See below.
>Legalizing drugs will make them part of our history just as tobacco and alcohol
...
>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.
Well, I don't agree with some of the things Chris said, but there's no need
to try to shock him or us with ad-absurdum arguements, ie taking your own
version of what he has said and inflating it into National Enquirer style
headlines.
My own suggestion would be to determine which currently illegal drugs, if any,
would help *replace* alcohol as our national recreational drug *without*
causing more problems than those solved by the reduced use (not prohibition)
of alcohol.
This may be naive on my part, to think that such drugs exist. But let's
think about it. We can start by eliminating some candidates from our
discussion. Crack apparently is much worse than alcohol. Heroin I'm not
so sure of, but I wouldn't encourage its use. Cocaine I don't really know
enough about, but I suspect it isn't a good candidate. Speed can't replace
alcohol, not the same appeal.
Ganja is the only major candidate I can see.
No, pot is *NOT* absolutely safe. *Heavy* use will cause many of the same
problems as habitual tobacco smoking. Use while driving or operating heavy
equipment *could* be as bad as alcohol *if* the intoxication is maximal.
But in practice, most people who use marijuana now do not get that "looped"
habitually, and I suspect that the patterns of usage would evolve in ways
that would not be causing tens of thousands of extra automobile fatalities
per year, and that the combined toll from alcohol and pot together would
actually decline significantly (*after* the first few years of adjustment).
Of course, this is mere speculation, I have no scientific studies to support
my proposal. And my view may be prejudiced by my experience with marijuana
which was much weaker than I hear is available now. But I am not just saying
this to weaken Ray's argument that "Alcohol is horrible, 'drugs' must be even
worse; it's too late to prohibit alcohol, but not too late to prohibit
'drugs'"; I think that argument is weak enough already.
I am concerned (but not hysterical) about alcohol abuse. I sincerely believe
that there is a very good chance that legal and widely available marijuana
(not so sure about any of the other drugs) would reduce alcohol abuse effects
more than it would add pot abuse effects, in terms of traffic deaths and
injuries, health effects (more cancer, but less cirrosis), loss of employment
(pot is *relatively* non addicting, but also remains in blood longer),
broken homes (pot makes you lazy, alcohol causes violence...oversimplified,
of course...). Particularly coupled with a public campain to *replace*
alcohol with pot, similar to present campains to quit smoking, or to not
drive while drunk.
I may be wrong about the tradeoffs, but it's worth looking into. Remember to
seperate the two questions I raise:
1) *if* the tradeoff is as I say, does it justify *some* ills getting worse in
order for larger ones to decrease? (philosophical, abstract question)
2) *would* the tradeoff be positive, or would we just have *even more*
intoxicated drivers, absenteeism at work, and various alleged side-effects
of pot such lowered scholarship, lowered sex drive, docility in the face
of insane right wing politicians....
I *don't* claim to know the correct answer to '2', but I think it probable
enough to be worth investigating.
('1' is not subject to proof, it is a value judgement. My choise obviously
is in favor of "the greater good", in this example; not in all concievable
"greater good" examples. I think a spate of hypothetical unrelated counter
examples would be highly redundant; everyone's already heard them, so just
state your stand if you disagree with '1'. '2' is more interesting, and
substantitive discussion is possible, if not likely).
And what if legalizing pot only puts a small (net) dent in the alcohol death-
toll, say 10%? That would be about 9 or 10 thousand lives per year. About
200 per state. About 4 per state per week, at the level of effect I have
arbitrarily chosen. Many of them teenage drivers, no doubt.
Perhaps some state should become a laboratory for this experiment. (I hear
Alaska has decriminalized pot, but I haven't heard of any social pressure
to *replace* alcohol with pot, so the experiment I'm talking about has not
been done yet).
Needless to say, special restrictions applicable to some professions, such
as pilots, bus drivers, truckers; may require some sort of drug test, much
as I dislike them for general population. Comparable to breath test for
alcohol (but I'm concerned about reports that current tests are sensitive
to pot smoked several days earlier, or secondary smoke from a concert. I
am not aware of any effort to determine an "acceptable" blood level, as for
alcohol; the effort has been on detecting *any* THC, as far as I know.)
Pardon me, folks, for going on so long. But alcohol abuse *is* killing even
more people than cars are (and half of the people in car crashes):
<<< About one every 5 or 6 minutes in the US, on average. >>>
(Pretty good chance some have died while you've been reading this article.
Chance of some crack deaths in same period about 1% as high)
This is about two orders of magnitude more serious than the current "epidemic"
of drug use, and I would guess at least a full order of magnitude greater than
would be created (in terms of deaths) if all the illegal recreational drugs were
indeed legalized as some others have been recomending. (Which is another
number we need to know, but don't).
>ray
- Phil p...@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
or: p...@oliveb.UUCP
c...@entropy.berkeley.edu
<The truly bizarre thing about the Reagan administration going berserk over
<the drug issue is that the drug trade is, on the whole, an instance of the
<type of economic activity that all good Reaganites should approve of.
The latest economic report shows that California's economy is in trouble...
I guess CAMP has nearly succeeded in eliminating our number one cash crop,
leaving nothing but defense spending to keep our state afloat. In spite of
all their libertarian rhetoric, I suspect that this is exactly what the
Reaganites had in mind all along.
Charlotte Allen
Ray Frank
> There may be some drugs which, by their
> very nature, make it impossible for the heavy user to hold a job,
> but heroin and cocaine are not among them.
Heroin and cocaine are among them, especially in heavy cocaine use causing
impaired mental capacities.
ray
Ray Frank
>
> Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they
> use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them?
> NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking
> them.
>
appear that MOST people in a certain age group do use or have tried drugs, and
the usage of certain drugs by this age group is increasing.
ray
Rex Ballard
>
>All this BS about escalating drug wars is ridiculous! We will gradually lose
>our civil rights and freedoms from these "drug wars", yet the drug problem
>will continue and, perhaps, escalate from all the attention!
This is a justified fear. Anybody remember the (Playboy, Penthouse,???)
article a few years back on DEA enforcement tactics? Anybody want to
go to Chile because they might know a dealer? (The article indicated
that it was common practice for the DEA to send people to Chile for
"questioning" at the prompting of cattle prods or other unconstitutional
pursuasions. Treat it as you wish).
>Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they
>use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them?
>NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking
>them.
Even more fundamental than that. Those who don't use drugs usually
don't because they have some other area in which they prefer to gain
self-esteem. Churches, athletic organizations, social environments of
all sorts build self-esteem in constructive ways, often discouraging
use of drugs. Of course, to be popular in these groups, you have to
have the resources and/or talent to dress, perform, compete, and live
according to the "in" lifestyles for that group. To be popular among
the drug community, you only need to have access to drugs.
>Drugs will no longer be a problem when enough people CHOOSE, ON THEIR OWN
>FREE WILL, NOT TO USE DRUGS. They key to successful dealing with the drug
>problem is EDUCATION!
Absolutely true. The problem is, what type of education? Education about
drugs, or education about mental, emotional, and spiritual health?
All the accurate information in the world will only encourage someone
who does not feel good about themselves.
>Plain old truth about the risks must be known-- not
>"Reefer-Madness"-type hype. Credibilty must be established by the
>authorities. Kids must be made to BELIEVE the risks, through credible
>sources, so that they turn down drugs if they are offered them.
Even when believable sources of information are available, the attraction
of a substance or activity which makes one feel better about oneself
and without which one has low self-esteem, can be too powerful when
offered by someone whose only requirement for acceptance is that you
"try it". This is especially true if the person offering is viewed as
popular, sexy, attractive, or "cool" to the person recieving the offer.
Certified teachers and "experts" impress parents and other adults, but
they carry little weight with many kids, especially those most likely
to use drugs. Some of the information I was most receptive to was
presented by a guy in a leather vest, leather pants, and a leather hat.
It didn't stop me from using, but it helped me to recognize my problem
much earlier.
>Lastly, ask yourselves why YOU don't use drugs.
Today, because I have found other ways to enjoy life, cope with emotional
pain, get pleasure, and get emotional support.
>Why didn't YOU accept
>undoubted offers of drugs when you were younger.
I started late. Until I was 15, and more interested in girls, sex,
and other people in general, my interests in high technology, ham
radio, airplanes, and music were sufficient. When I began to feel
bad about being "SuperNerd", I started using drugs and booze.
>Why don't YOU have a drug problem?
I don't have one today, because I am involved in a (free) recovery program.
This group provides positive reinforcement for not using, provides experience
strength and hope when problems arise, and encourages me to help others
when things are going well.
Also, I have a relationship with a "higher power", which I don't need to
fear. Just a power that helps me change myself, and make better choices.
One of my reasons for using was contempt for the "boogie man god"
fundamentalists. One in particular considered just about anything that
was fun (dancing, women, women in pants, miniskirts, music (other than
old hymns), kissing, holding hands, playing cards, erotic books and
magazines, and anything worse, to be a "one-way ticket to hell" even
after being saved, babtised, born-again, born-in-the-spirit, and
resurrected. If he was wrong about those other things, why not
smoking, drugs, and alcohol?
>Now.... help pass the same insights to others so thet they make
>their own choices.
To someone who has not tried drugs, I would reccomend finding ways
of sharing your feelings with others, getting into a group that
can provide support. I would also reccomend learning to be as
honest as possible with yourself and others about all of your
wants and needs, including sex, career, money, and security.
If any of those needs threaten your acceptance by the group,
find another group.
To those who enjoy drugs now, I would suggest you look at how
you feel, act, and react when intoxicated, when "coming down",
and when "not using". Are you really more handsome, beautiful,
sexy, strong, tough, or whatever you want to be when stoned?
If you could be those things without using, would you want those
things without the drugs?
When not using, do you feel as good about yourself as you used to?
Have you really been able to use without hurting anyone by thought
word or action? What about when coming down? What about when not
using for a period of time?
To those who aren't getting what they want out of drugs. I can
only suggest that you contact someone who can help you get help.
A.A., N.A., O.A., and others can work, but only if you really
want the "goodies", more than the substance you abuse. The same
is true of any other program. It is possible to make the first
step for the wrong reasons, but find better reasons as you go
along.
If you know someone who uses, do you attack his self-esteem? How
does he react? How do you react to his/her abuse?
For you as well, there are also "help groups" available.
>Don't get hysterical and promote laws that further
>chip away at our declining liberties.
Such laws are counterproductive anyway. Adding the "criminal" lable
to the "addict" lable only worsens the problem. For those who are
proud of their abuse, it can even reinforce their own justifications
as a "persecuted victim".
If I were to suggest any law, it would be an amnesty program. Those
who wish to quit should be encouraged in every way possible to do so.
This should include dealers, and pushers, if they are also users.
For those who don't wish to quit yet, Al-Anon reccommends a "tough love"
approach. The addict cannot be stopped by external forces, however
rescuing him/her from the consequences of his abuse through financial
aid, housing, or bribery will prolong his desire to use. Are welfare,
housing aid, student aid, even public education, and other "entitlements"
programs a form of "rescue"?
>Bob
Phil Stephens
>In article <37...@hplabsb.UUCP> pi...@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) writes:
>>Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they
>>use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them?
>>NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking
>>them.
>
>Even more fundamental than that. Those who don't use drugs usually
>don't because they have some other area in which they prefer to gain
>self-esteem.
Yes. Scare stories don't help, criminalization doesn't help much and has
bad side effects, and crackdowns on one drug lead to users doing worse
things or just trying even harder. For real prevention, self esteem works.
Not an easy thing to actually implement, you can't force a teenager to have
it, you can't give it to yourself overnight, and it is not a handle for
criminal politicians to incite/distract the public. Not politically
expedient for Runold Raygun. But most other approaches are either "slapping
a bandaid on gangrene" or "bleeding an anemic".
One of my social activities happens to have several AA members, and I have
come to deeply respect their "process" and their values. You mention being
in a program with similar values, and I am glad that it is getting mentioned
here. Most of the verbage on this subject, including my own, is peripheral;
you have cut right to the heart of the matter: physical addiction is real,
but secondary; emotional predisposition is the real problem. And the heart
of that, in turn, is self-esteem. Thank you for cutting through the (our)
bullshit.
(I'm still very concerned about abusive drug-testing of employees, but I
want to emphasize that the heart of the matter is still what should be
done *instead* of RR's drug war).
I trust no-one takes this as putting words in Rex's mouth. Just dashing
this off during lunch, no time to be eloquent or even spell-check!
Rex Ballard
>In article <13...@trwrb.UUCP> su...@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>>
>> Try this one. The majority of people that drink "socially"
>> can enjoy the pleasures of alcohol without becoming addicted,
>> damaging their lives, etc. Do the majority of cocaine users
>> follow the same pattern?
>>
>It is obvious that you do not know any drug users (notice I didn't say
>abusers). There are literally millions of casual drug users in this
>country. They use drugs in exactly the same way as people use alcohol.
Now for some interesting figures:
For alcohol, approximately 9 of 10 alcoholics end up in jails, institutions
or grave-yards without knowing they have the disease. Only 1 in 10 will
stay sober for more than two years (these figures are improving, but slowly).
They will adversely effect the lives of at least 4 other people, including
parents, children, spouses, and/or employers.
Among regular users of alcohol, nearly 50% will become alcoholics at some
point in their lives. In other words, they will not be able to predict
the consequences of their drinking.
For whatever reasons, illegal drug abusers are more likely to get help at
some point, than alcoholics.
Abuse of marajuana, cocaine, amphetemines, and barbituates, is about the
same in terms of overall survival rates. Again, this is because even though
some of these subtances are more addictive than others, users of the more
addictive subtances are more likely to get help.
Legal abuse of drugs administered by a physician is more common than alcohol
abuse.
Abuse of "over the counter remedies", is more common than cocaine use.
Unnecessary use of over the counter remedies is the single most common
form of intoxication, affecting the widest demographic group (children
as young as 2 to adults in their 80's).
Caffine is the most commonly used addictive single drug.
A drug, is a drug, is a drug. Legal or not, acceptable or not, the
abuser/addict will experience the same general effects, and eventually,
the same consequences, reguardless of substance.
The fundamental issue is to determine which goal applies:
Find the addict who is adversely affected, for the purpose of providing
treatment.
or
Find all drug users, for the purpose of criminal prosecution, economic
punishment, hiring selection, and/or discrimination.
Measures which seek to satisfy the first goal are productive, and are
beneficial to addict and employer/government/general welfare.
Measures which seek to satisfy the second goal are at minimum, extremely
dangerous. Witch hunts, sabatoge, paranoia, and selective administration
open the doors to all sorts of abuse.
Both, to an addict, sound similar. An addict may not realise he/she
is an addict, even when confronted. Just as an alcoholic's definition
of an alcoholic gradually changes as his own patterns progress, the
addict's definition of an addict changes in a similar manner.
Not all alcoholics get Drunk Driving tickets, drink out of a paper bag,
wear funny overcoats, lose jobs, sleep under bridges, or become "skid
row bums". In fact, the majority of alcoholics are relatively sucessful,
very intelligent (which is part of the problem), and often influential.
The same is true of addicts. Only a small percentage of addicts commit
serious crimes to support their habit.
The simplest, and most accurate definition of an abuser, is one who
experiences adverse, or unpredictable effects or consequences between
the first abuse, and the end of the detoxification period.
Quite often, addicts/alcoholics are not recognized as such. More often,
people notice a "bad attitude", depression, big ego, or a number of other
personality problems, without relating it to alcohol or drugs. In fact,
an abuser's natural tendency to want to control people, places, and things
around him are likely to put him in a middle or upper management situation.
The abuser is the last to experience direct adverse effects. Before then,
his anxiety, ability to carry grudges, and ego will have effected everyone
else, starting with those least able to protect themselves.
Drug testing could be a good thing, but only if the goal is to treat, rather
than punish the abuser.
Chris Lewis
>In article <18...@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> r...@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes:
>>In article <1...@spectrix.UUCP>, cle...@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes:
Thanks for coming up with some more recent statistics plus your other
comments, even though,
>Well, I don't agree with some of the things Chris said, but there's no need
>to try to shock him or us with ad-absurdum arguements, ie taking your own
>version of what he has said and inflating it into National Enquirer style
>headlines.
(which "some" by the way? We sound generally in agreement - I wouldn't
really want to see *all* drugs made legal).
Question though, since you do seem to have some recent statistics handy,
do they give any indication of the number of deaths due to *use* of drugs and
the number of deaths due to the *traffic* (eg: drug industry crime) in drugs?
It would really be interesting to see a comparison between:
1) the dollar cost of treating drug addiction/drug use illness versus
enforcement costs, addiction-originated property theft, and
other because-it's-illegal costs (eg: digging bullets out of
pushers).
2) the number of deaths due to the use of drugs versus the number
of deaths due to the drug *trade*.
3) the number of people injured due to the use of drugs versus
injuries due to the drug *trade*.
Heck, I betcha there're more people killed annually on Miami Vice than die
annually due to the use of drugs! ;-)
Bill Tanenbaum
> > There may be some drugs which, by their
> > very nature, make it impossible for the heavy user to hold a job,
> Heroin and cocaine are among them, especially in heavy cocaine use causing
> impaired mental capacities.
--
Oh, come on, Ray. No doubt some percentage of heavy heroin and
cocaine users cannot hold jobs, but many do. Ray, you are saying
that NO heavy users hold jobs. Ha. Ha.
I'm sure that, given your sense of values, you are not a
heavy cocaine user. Your impairment must come from something else.
I don't know why I got involved in this debate, anyway,
since I am not even sure which side I am on. The benefits of
the decriminalization of drug use are obvious to anybody who
has given the matter any thought - an enormous reduction in
violent crime and official corruption, and some sort of quality
control on the product. The costs of decriminalization are
simply that when drugs are cheap and legal (i.e. alcohol and
tobacco), more people will tend to use them. I'm aware that
the heavy use of alcohol and tobacco is historically ingrained
and not merely a result of their legality. However, the social
costs of having still more drugs so deeply ingrained would be
enormous. I don't give the "replacement" argument much credence.
Marijuana will not replace alcohol. In general, people who use
drug X are more likely to use drug Y than those who do not use
drug X, for almost any X and Y.
I think that the fact that the legal drugs are
so much more costly to society than the illegal ones is a strong
argument for keeping most illegal drugs illegal. The only fear
that I have about this is that in the periodic bouts of anti-drug
hysteria (such as the present one) we will lose permanently
some of our precious freedoms. I would rather have drugs sold
openly in candy stores than have that happen.
Ray Frank
> >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.
>
> Ray, please include sources for shocking statistics like this, as a matter
> of etiquette. However, I have a figure from the Readers Digest Almanac for
> alcohol related *fatalities* at 96 K, mostly their own from related illnesses,
> accidents (20K per year traffic, and nearly as many in *other* accidents),
> and suicides. 500 K/year *injured or* killed in alcohol related accidents
> and incidents may or may not be a little high; where did you get the figure,
> please?
>
The figures I've seen quoted quite consistently for DWI incidences are:
25,000 killed yearly, with another 500,000 seriously injured. I've
seen some reports that put the injury figure at 900,000.
Why didn't the article from Readers Digest also in addition to the fatality
figure also quote the injury figure in DWI incidences?
Anyone I've ever known who was involved with pot ALWAYS used alcohol to 'top'
off their high. You argue that the legalization of pot may reduce the use
of alcohol, but first hand experience shows this to be a most unlikely oc-
curance.
ray
Jerry Natowitz
> of alcohol, but first hand experience shows this to be a most unlikely oc-
> curance.
>
> ray
QUICK, CALL THE NARCS! Ray uses drugs and alcohol (why else would he
want to parade around in his jock strap).
--
Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division)
Bell Labs
HR 2A-214
201-615-5178 (no CORNET yet)
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin (official)
ihnp4!opus!jin (better)
Be hair or be square.
Chris Lewis
>>In article <13...@trwrb.UUCP> su...@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>>>
>>> Try this one. The majority of people that drink "socially"
>>> can enjoy the pleasures of alcohol without becoming addicted,
>>> damaging their lives, etc. Do the majority of cocaine users
>>> follow the same pattern?
Interesting, but useless without some definitions:
- What's an alcoholic? Some of the surveys being bandied about
consider an alcoholic to be anybody who has consumed the equivalent
of 3 beers or more in a week.
- What's a regular user of alcohol?
If you used the definitions I would use, (say: %40 of adults are "regular
users" (eg: wine with meals, a beer or two with the guys, etc.)), then
you'd have something like 18% of all adults ending up in institutions,
jail or dead. And, something like 5-10% as alcoholics at any given time.
Seems awful high! Especially in other cultures (eg: France where
wine is consumed at every meal by almost everybody)
Bill Tanenbaum
> It would really be interesting to see a comparison between:
> 1) the dollar cost of treating drug addiction/drug use illness versus
> enforcement costs, addiction-originated property theft, and
> other because-it's-illegal costs (eg: digging bullets out of
> pushers).
> 2) the number of deaths due to the use of drugs versus the number
> of deaths due to the drug *trade*.
> 3) the number of people injured due to the use of drugs versus
> injuries due to the drug *trade*.
Such comparisons may be interesting and informative, but they are the
wrong comparisons to make if the issue to be decided is the legal status
of a drug. The correct comparisons are:
1) the dollar cost of treating illegal drug addiction/drug use illness
PLUS enforcement costs, addiction-originated property theft, and
other because-it's-illegal costs (eg: digging bullets out of
widespread) drug addiction/drug use illness if the same drugs were
legal.
2) the number of casualties due to the use of illegal drugs
PLUS the number of casualties due to the drug *trade* VERSUS
the number of casualties due to the (presumably more widespread)
use of the same drugs if made legal.
In short, even if the "drug *trade* problem" is more costly than the
"drug problem", it is by no means obvious that legalization would lower the
total cost. One only has to observe that the most costly drugs to society
are the legal ones.
How much would the usage of heroin, cocaine, etc. increase if they
were legal and cheap? Without an answer to this question, we are nowhere.
Barry Shein
> - What's an alcoholic? Some of the surveys being bandied about
> consider an alcoholic to be anybody who has consumed the equivalent
> of 3 beers or more in a week.
This is amusing. I was once recruited to participate in a beer study.
I had to fill out a questionairre about my drinking habits.
The multiple choice questions STARTED at something like 2 beers per day.
I was rejected as a participant because I drink something like 2 beers
a decade (boy, did they pick the wrong guy, but I don't hate beer or
anything, I just don't drink much.)
The impression I got from the market researcher was that it was very
unusual to find such a light drinker that didn't abstain for some
reason (they asked about other alcoholic beverages, it would have been
ok if I drank wine, whiskey or most any household solvent with some
frequency so it wasn't weighted ridiculously to beer), that their
intervals produced lots of subjects. I told her I wasn't surprised.
Now what does this say about most of us?
-Barry Shein, Boston University