From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:51:40 GMT

jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

>In article <Bu37L3.Jtx@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu 
>(Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>
>              [...stuff deleted for brevity...]
>>
>>	Case in point.  Where in the US Constitution is the Federal 
>>   government delegated the power to ban psychoactive substances?  
>>   When the Feds banned alcohol, they needed a Constitutional amendment 
>>   because of that annoying little thing known as the Tenth amendment.  
>>   When was it (the 10th) repealed?  Or is the WoD unconstitutional???  
>>
>I bet they put that baby right under "promoting the general welfare"....
>Seeing as how drugs seem to be self-destructive in that they can totally
>alter the way one thinks about free enterprise; seeing as how withholding 
>them prompts people to kill, to rob, to commit crimes they otherwise would 
>not have committed, and basically screw up a lot of people's lives, I'm
>not sure I disagree.

withholding drugs does not prompt people to commit crimes.  lucrative 
monetary rewards reaped within the inflated black market, when often the 
only alternative is a menial and minimum-wage job, does.  you have a lot
to learn about how drugs work.  

>Now look at this.  Say drugs were legal. Less violence, lower prices.  Say 
>then that there a shortage, or somebody couldn't buy it when they wanted--
>just for the sake of argument, soemone somewhere is deprived of their new
>"right".  Well hell, Johnny can just go down the street and "borrow" some 
>from Susie, right? But then susie pulls out a knife and says, "get the hell 
>off my land," Johnny whips out his 9mm and makes her rethink things with a 
>pop in the head; now he's got his drugs.   

this scenario is ludicrous.  does this happen where alcohol is invoved?
caffeine?  tobacco?  FOOD, for goodness sake?  get real.

>Non-addictive consumer products or things that are not psychoactive drugs 
>_usually_ don't do this to a person.  It is my belief that, legal or no, 
>drugs would do this regularly.  

on what information do you base this belief?  that belief, and the way you 
lump everything together under the generic term "drugs" makes me think you 
really don't have even a basic understanding of how the various substances
affect humans in different ways.

>That's not my picture of ideal America.

the injustice and opression existing in in this country right now certainly 
aren't part of mine.

>Banning items which have *that* strong a grip on someone seems pretty
>constitutionally reasonable to me.	

there is an "item" that tends to have a pretty strong grip on me.  i need to
ingest this "item" practically every day, or else i feel listless and weak.
you could say i am addicted to this "item".  in spite of this, i have never 
found myself killing someone or otherwise committing a crime to obtain this 
"item".  this "item" is better known as FOOD.

you seem to have a very warped and limited view of how drugs affect people.
thus you fail to see the connection between the criminal status of certain 
drugs and the resultant criminal activity.  check out Richard Miller's
book "The Case For Legalizing Drugs" for a mind-opening argument against
prohibition.

>Jude Federspiel
>jfed@athena.mit.edu

						-- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -