From: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:28:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <BuD94L.L0p@apollo.hp.com> heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com (God of Thunder) writes:
>
>> 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. 
>
>Wrong.  I use alcohol regularly, and can probably be considered to be
>addicted to
>both nicotine and caffeine.
>
I asked if you ever used drugs addictivly and I apoligize if you thought
that I meant nicotine or caffeine. I define addiction and the lying about
the use of that drug. As in: "How much do you drink? I only have one or
two drinks." The lie in this response would be the fact that the user 
drinks far more than one or two drinks. This in recovery terms is the denial.
One accepted statistic is that the average American gets drunk 2 or 3 times
a year. An alcoholic gets drunk 5 to 10 times a week (yes, you can get 
drunk more that once a day). 

>Yes of course drug use is associated with crime - use of certain drugs has been
>defined as a crime.  Nice statistic, but it does nothing at all to refute my 
>assertion that a large part of the crime problem associated with drugs
>has mainly
>to do with the fact that drugs are illegal, turning simple consumers of
>a substance
>into criminals, and making those substances problematically expensive.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>I agree with you that these are all serious problems within our society, and we
>must try our best to find a solution.  However, I don't believe that
>drugs (including
>alcohol) are the root _cause_ of these problems.  Do you have statistics
>or reasoning
>that supports your assertion that "drugs are the primary causes of dysfunction
>in families" ?  It's very difficult for me to believe that, since I
>would probably
>say that emotional and psychological problems in parents and in the way family
>members interact with each other are more likely to be primary causes.
>
"Primary" is probably too stong a word, but how can I rank drug and alcohol
use in American. The statistic is a moving target. Dysfunction in families
is not only caused by alcohol and drugs, but other addictions that are just
as bad. Gambling, sex, religion and others are there, but not a noticable
and deadly as drugs. 
I agree with you when you say that "emotional and psychological" problems
are more likely to be the problem and this is just how drugs act in the
family unit. Alcoholism and drug abuse is a family problem not just an
individual problem. The drunk parent affects their children, siblings and
parents dramatically. 
>Your next to last sentence is interesting, too.  Is this based on some
>facts, or
>does it come from the propaganda that the War on (Some) Drugs has been
>spewing ?
>I agree that there are people that develop problems with drugs, but I
>believe that
>providing people with the true facts about these drugs would help the
>problem more
>than banning them.  Along with removing the illegal stigma attached to
>them, so that
>counseling will become more of a viable option for otherwise law-abiding
>citizens.
>
I apologize for not having statistics and their sources. The prison 
populations was derived from people who spend their time working with
abusers in the prison system. I promise to get the numbers and citations.
>
>Jeff Oesterle
>
>================
>"No, I don't know that atheists should be consedered as citizens, 
>nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
>                                         - George Bush
This .sig is frighting. I wonder what would happen is we replaced the
word "atheists" with the word "Jews". Hmmmmmm. Naaa, no one would say
anything like that.

-- 
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!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics