From: tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller)
Subject: Re: A distinction between Soft and Hard drugs
Organization: University of Nijmegen
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:26:17 GMT

brrian04@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>> examine the facts.  I don't know how much you realize it but there is 
>> a possibility that if LSD were legal someone could put some in your
>> drink without you knowing it.  In fact this has happened to me twice in

>Exactly how does LSD being illegal prevent this from happening?

I never said it did!  All I said was that people can get dosed with LSD,
and that it happens.  You people (perhaps this poster not included) are 
the ones who personalized this to try and blame me for the laws.  I said 
I was dosed without my knowledge, not without my consent.  All I have 
asserted so far is that the laws were written to protect people.  Whether 
you or I agree with that premise or not is a matter for discussion, not
an occasion for ridicule (Again I exclude the current poster from this
remark).

The fact is that the law only prevents it from happening by threatening people
with jail time.  You want the truth, I'm telling you.  Although I don't
know why I bother because most of the poeple in this group just want to
rant and rave about people who support the laws they don't like rather than
coming up with alternatives.  One other poster proposed some useful alternatives
which I hope will happen some day.

>> my lifetime that I'm aware of (after the fact of course) while it has been
>> illegal.  True, someone can poison you too, but LSD has quite a different
>> result.  You must see that the controlled substances acts are there to 
>> protect you from other people, and not necessarily to protect you from
>> yourself.  And not only that alone, they are also there to protect other

>Laws exist for this already!  The prohibition laws are there because some
>people believe certain chemicals are evil and therefore it is their duty to
>stop you from taking them.

Well I'm talking about the laws that exist already.  I think the argument
that certain chemicals are evil is certainly a simplification of a much
deeper argument concerning man-made or refined drugs.  I'm getting to that
with the distinction between hard and soft drugs.

>> people from you.  You might think a little acid trip is no big deal but
>> others might (and apparently do) think that it is quite a big deal.
>> How would you remedy such an occurance (someone drugging someone else without
>> their knowledge or approval) if all drugs were legal?
>> 
>> At the same time I agree with you your opinion in that we as human
>> beings have natural rights, not bestowed on us by the government, to
>> the wonders of nature.  But in a practical sense aren't the current laws
>> the best way leave that decision in the hands of each individual by
>> requiring a substantial body of knowledge be accumulated in order to
>> acquire these substances?  Why should anyone be able to purchase all

>No matter how much knowledge I aquire I would still be unable to purchase LSD!

>> the drugs they want without going through a reasonable amount of study
>> concerning the substance in question?  

>To get a drug on prescription does not require any knowledge of the drug in
>question - most people just take what the doctor gives them without knowing
>anything about what they are taking (in fact doctors often seem reluctant to
>give out detailed information).

I would say that is not a true statement.  When people go to the doctor
they know what is wrong with them and the doctor gives them something and
tells them what it will do concerning the symptoms they know very much
about.

>As stated above, I can study as much as I want, but certain drugs remain
>illegal!  I cannot buy them even if I am an expert on the subject!!

I'm in the same situation.  In fact the point is that you can't even get
soft drugs which I would propose are natural, unrefined substances which
we call drugs instead.  Things like marijuana, peyote, and mushrooms I 
think should be considered soft drugs too.  The hard drugs are 
basically synthetics with LSD being deemed about the "hardest" drug 
by society.  In the USA society has invested a lot of time and effort to 
see that drugs are despensed for specific reasons through doctors 
(our modern time medicine men).  We are not talking about something 
where you can say "there are no hard and soft rights" and expect people 
to buy that as a solution.  The problem and the attempted solutions have
already gotten far more involved than that.  If all drugs were legal for 
everyone to purchase how would you know that the medicine you used two 
years ago has been found to cause cancer and there is a replacement now?
You would not know it and you would demand the cancer causing cure 
because of your own gross ignorance.  Sure, everyone is an expert, but 
which penicillin are we using now because of penicillin resistant strains 
of bacteria?  Someone has to inform people about the drugs they use simply
because of the medical consequences to society. 

>>Do you deny that "hard" drugs
>> do require some sort of preparation before injestion or do you suggest
>> that someone just drop those tabs of acid and see what happens?

>Define 'Hard' drugs?  What is the test which I apply to a chemical substance to
>determine whether it is a 'Hard' or a 'Soft' drug?  There is either a definite,
>objective way to determine this or there are no such categories!

Hard drugs are synthetic drugs, they are refined substances created by man.
And they are also drugs in the classical sense that they effect the body or
mind.

So soft drugs come directly from nature, i.e. marijuana should be sold
at a health-food store.  Hard drugs require refinement or synthesis.  In
order to obtain soft drugs I need only find the plant, in order to obtain
hard drugs I need more human knowledge and its application.

Now, please note that I never said hard drugs should be illegal.  And that
I do not consider the dosing in my case to be grounds for support of the
prohibition on LSD although I do reserve that right for others who may
feel that way based on their own experiences.  But I am saying that
soft drugs should not be prohibited and that their are valid arguments for
soft drugs which avoid some of the tougher issues concerning hard drugs.

Even the US drug laws do not treat all drugs the same.  The uncompromising
positions which have absolutely no legal precedent (such as "the right to
trip") assumed by some of the posters in this group seem to me to have 
had very little effect on the laws themselves, if not a detremental one (when
you hear of the penalties that are being dished out these days).
While I support your right to avail yourselves of all mankind has to offer
I condem your assertions that I am denying you any right to do so.  The US
government represents all Americans and at the same time represents 
practically none of us, so you are just as much to blame as I am that 
these laws exist. 

I am ready to take on this "evil chemical" argument for marijuana - it is
baseless.  According to Sula Benet (Cannabis and Culture, Rubin, Vera ed.,
ISBN 90-279-7669-4, Morton & Co. pgs 40-43) kaneh, keneh, kaneh bosm, 
keneh bosm, cana (Sanskirt), qunnabu (Assyrian), kenab (Persian), 
kannab (Arabic) and kanbum (Chaldean) are actually refrenences
to cannabis which are translated erroniously as "calamus" or "sweet 
calamus" in five different places in the Old Testament. It is mostly 
referred to in preparations for religous use.  Those places are 
Exodus 30:23, Isiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, Ezekiel 27:19, and Song of 
Songs 4:14.  And these uses are generally interpreted from passages 
given by God as instructions to the prophets or kings.  So to say that 
marijuana is evil from the word go, that it appeared as a scurge from 
nowhere, that its use is a phenomena of the 20th century is quite wrong.
I would think that would take care of the religous side of the 
anti-marijuana movement, although I haven't had a chance to read those
actual passages yet.  I should mention that this assumption is based on
the speculation that the Semitic word kanbosm and the Scythian word
cannabis mean the same thing as Benet asserts.  Too bad William Bennet
(former drug czar and educator) was not as astute in his studies.  


						Yours,

						Todd M. Miller

--