From: chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington)
Subject: Re: Travelling armed
Keywords: Guns laws crime murder waiting periods
Organization: Apex Computer Company
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:06:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.191513.11376@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>     The only drugs that seem to be a major source of revenue for a major
>crime network is the recreatianal drugs.  Amphetamines, Marijuana, Cocaine,
>Opiates, and hallucinogenics.  As for safety, production and liability that
>should be handled the same as it is for alcohol.  The benifit for the user
>is the safety of a pure product.  During prohibition, impure alcohol not
>uncommonly made a person blind or dead.  (Though yes people also end up
>dead with 'clean' alcohol)

Thats a pretty long list.  Have studies been run on the long term
safety of using them, in particular the hallucinogens.
Should they all be tested for side effects, the whole gamut that legal
drugs run?  If not, on what basis?  If recreation drugs will not be
tested, why bother testing any drugs?  Should the entire FDA apparatus
be dismantled?  Perhaps it should.

Your list of drugs does seem to cover the major illegal stream.
I maintain that legalizing this list may create a market for new
illegals.  Once the dam is broken, all regulation will go.
This may or may not be a problem.

>>Don't we already have enough trouble with Alcohol without adding more
>>choices?
>
>   Yes.  But the point is that drug usage hasn't gone away by making it
>illegal.  By taking away the large profits from an illegal drug trade you
>eliminate pushers.  Without the huge economic incentives the pressures placed
>on people who come in contact with the drug market to use them are gone.
>If anything, drug usage as a whole will go down if drugs are legal.  Also, if
>people can seek treatment for drug usage without fear of being fired from
>their jobs or arrested (as they can with alcohol) they will be more
>likely to do so.  By taking away drug profits, pushers are no longer a
>role model for kids growing up in impoverished neighborhoods.  (And
>aspiring to become a dealer is one reason why many people end up as
>users)  By taking away the profits and the criminality of the drug
>trade, you no longer get major dealers and crime organizations being
>able to finance armies and buy up large quantities of guns including
>automatic weapons.  Gang membership and gang violence is mostly
>supported these days by illegal drug profits.  Drive by shootings are a
>byproduct of the illegal drug trade (and were just as much of a problem
>during prohibition).  Burlaries go down without the high prices and
>pressure to use drugs that the illegal trade produces.
>     By making drugs legal we save millions of taxpayer dollars
>currently being spent on fighting drugs.  We also gain millions of
>dollars in tax revenue which can be spend on law enforcement, drug
>education, and drug treatment.
>    Drug legalization will not eliminate people who use drugs
>irresponsibly.  Those people are around even though drugs are illegal,
>so legalization WILL NOT compound that problem.  There will always be
>people who abuse drugs (including alcohol).  But if drugs are legal it
>is easier to identify and treat those people.  And with legalization we
>eliminate all the associated problems of crime, violence, role models,
>gangs, and pushers that only exist because drugs are illegal.

And we create a new huge organization to tax and regulate the
new legal drugs.  Or they are unregulated and untaxed.  And no money
would be available to treat the new and old addicts.

What information is available concerning the results of
drug legalization in Europe?
Newsgroups: seattle.general