From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 19:34:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa



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.

	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.

	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.

	If drugs are legalized the profit incentive disappears instantly. As
a result, our prisons will no longer be overcrowded and we can devote our
law enforcement resources to protecting members of society from each other
instead of from themselves!

	The most dangerous drugs known, alcohol and tobacco, are already
legal and accessible. To claim some sort of moral justification in keeping
other drugs illegal while advertising beer on TV is pure hypocricy.

>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.

	Alcohol is the single greatest cause by so great a margin that other
drugs don't even enter the picture. And, based on every study conducted, it
would remain so legalization or no legalization.

	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? 

	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.
 
	Personally, I prefer freedom.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4744 alt.politics.bush:4609