From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: drug-free schools
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
    <1993Jan25.195821.4744@linus.mitre.org> <1993Jan26.141623.24409@crd.ge.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:43:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.141623.24409@crd.ge.com>, ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.195821.4744@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.163849.8740@crd.ge.com>, ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>>>		I can honestly say that I NEVER observed anyone selling,
>>>	or even using, alcohol on school property ! Tobacco was used
>>>	in designated "smoking areas", but was NEVER sold. It doesn't
>>>	require a rocket scientist to figure out why this was the case.
>>
>>I knew people in who used alcohol in high school, but as far as I know, they
>>didn't sell it.
>>
>>Students may not sell cigarettes, they just give them away.  To a parent,
>>mooching is just as bad as buying.
>
>So, let me get this straight. The reason that drugs shouldn't be
>legalized is that "some students bum cigarettes, therefore they will
>bum joints" ? You actually believe that drugs will be _more_ available
>in schools (particularly inner city schools) if they're legalized
>than they are now ?

On the contrary, I think they should be legalized.  But I don't think
legalization will get us "drug-free schools".  If you're talking about
legalization of cocaine, I think it would probably cut down on violence
in the inner city schools.  But that wasn't part of your argument.

You probably attended a nice suburban school.  There was no cocaine, no
violence, no young dealers getting rich.  Why no cocaine?  It wasn't legal
either.  There was only pot.  Why did the cocaine ban work but not the pot
ban?  I think you're oversimplifying the issue.

>First, I am a parent. Second, I was in high school during the "drug era"
>of the late 70's. For me, the main place that I _ever_ saw drugs bought
>and sold was the high school parking lot. This would not have been
>the case if drugs had been legal for purchase at stores by adults.
>This is a fact.

No, it's a conjecture.  But assuming it's correct, why does it matter where
the transactions take place?  I thought it was drug *use* in schools that
was the problem.  I don't want my tax dollars wasted trying to teach
impaired kids. 

>I stick with my original contention. Legalization, accompanied by
>alcohol-and-tobacco-like regulation and control, will _eliminate_
>drug dealing in America's schools. Teachers can then focus on
>teaching.

I too attended high school in the late 1970s.  I did not notice teachers
doing anything other than teaching, except when they were agitating for more
money.  I knew several people who were wasting their school time drunk,
stoned, or tripping though.  If they had been responsible, they would have
saved it for after school, regardless of where and when they bought it.

>Notice that I _didn't_ say "eliminate drug using high school students".

That would be a bit Darylian.  "...should be taken out and shot."  :^)  But
what you did say -- "drug-free schools" (in the Subject header) -- implies
students won't be on drugs in school.  I think it won't change anything. 

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med