From: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:54:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <7ytnd5b.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>
>
>Thus spake jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence): 
>
>>Apparently you are not a current drug user nor have you ever used drugs
>>addictivly. Correct? Of course drug use is associated with crime, when
>>you look at the prisons in America and see that over 90% of the guests
>>are there for crimes involving drugs and alcohol (not just mere possession).
>>They were using drugs and alcohol when the crimes were committed. 
>>
>	Your argument more clearly defines the reasons for legalization than
>do those of your opposition. You are quite correct in stating that 90% of
>the inmates in correctional facilities are there because of drug related
>offenses.
>
>	Let's look at those offenses.
>
>	Primary among drug related offenses (apart from simple possession of
>small quantities of illegal substances) are those related to the sales of
>drugs - which includes possession with intent (i.e., possession of a larger
>quantity than the state deems reasonable for personal use, i.e., more than
>one ounce of marijuana or one gram of cocaine in must jurisdictions). NONE
>of these individuals would be incarcerated if drugs were legal.
   
	Bunk. Simple possession does not send anyone to prison. That's what
probation is for. Anyone in prison for simple possession would represent an
extremly small portion of the prison population. Burglary, homicide with
automobiles, trafficing in stolen goods, possession of large quantites of
drugs, and murder have roots in drugs. These people are not "Goodfellows"
and they do not commit these crimes because they are hungry. 
>
>	The next largest group are property offenders who have committed
>their offenses either under the influence of drugs or to support their
>habits. Given the radical decrease in the price of drugs which would result
>from legalization, the latter group would be reduced to a vastly smaller
>number (how many people are now in jail for stealing to support their
>alcoholism? SOME are - mostly for shoplifting - but very few.). The former
>group (those who commited their crimes while on drugs) are a fraction of the
>number of offenders who commited their crimes on alcohol!
>
>	The final group, the violent offenders, fall into two sub-groups,
>one consisting of those who commited violent acts connected with the illegal
>drug industry and those who commited their crimes to obtain drugs (the
>number of individuals who committed violent crimes not connected with the
>sales or purchase of drugs while ON drugs is miniscule compared to those who
>did so on alcohol). BOTH these groups would be eliminated if drugs were
>legal.

If what you say is true, then if we reduce the cost of alcohol we would
eliminate drunk drivers and the havoc they bring.
>
>	Drugs, in themselves, do not lead to crimes. Drugs coupled with a
>very great profit margin and a fear of arrest (in many states the penalty
>for possession of a large quantity of drugs or for their sales is the same
>as the one for killing a cop - which results in a real incentive not to
>"surrender peacefully") DO lead to crimes. Take a look at the record of
>prohibition in this country if you want an absolute demonstration of that
>link.
>
That's right, and guns don't kill people.

>
[stuff deleted]
>>The real problems for society do not involve the cost of the drug but the
>>effect on society. Drugs and alcohol are the primary causes of dysfunction
>>in families. Divorce, mate abuse, child abuse, loss of job and income are
>>the real crimes to society. In a real sense, we are losing people to
>>addiction. Healthy, productive people that support families and households
>>are being lost every day. The cost of this is much greater that of stolen
>>goods.
>>
>	Bunk.
>
>	The argument that the drug laws exist to protect families is absurd.
>How protected are the families of individuals who are arrested, drug through
>the criminal justice system, jailed or fined, and end up fired from their
>jobs and rejected by their community for choosing to smoke a joint instead
>of having a drink in the pricacy of their home? How much good does it do a
>family when one of its members is sent to prison for possession of a drug,
>while the alcoholic next door is free to buy a case of whiskey whenever
>desired? 
 
 I have a hard time buying this argument that we are harassing users of
a single joint.

>
>	Aren't you just a bit tired of this type of double standard? I am.
>
>	Either the role of the state is to protect us from ourselves, or it
>is not. If it is, then alcohol and tobacco should be added to the list of
>schedule one drugs and prosecuted as major felonies. If not, than it's time
>to legalize ALL drugs and spend our money on education and treatment instead
>of prisons and enforcement.
> 
A tremendous amount of time and money goes to the education and treatment
inside jails and prisons, but if a person does not wish recovery, how do
you reach them? If they could be reached before they kill, steal, or
rob then society will be much better. Alcohol has a very long history and
both alcohol and tobacco are tied to jobs in farming, etc,( you know the
politics just as well as I do here) so trying to change this is next
to impossible. 

-- 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org                                (214) 235-7161 x4100
John E. Spence                                                  CompuTrac, Inc.
"I don't speak for CompuTrac, and CompuTrac doesn't speak for me!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4887 tx.politics:5091