From: mike@PENGUIN.GATECH.EDU (Mike Gourlay)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: marijuana, alcohol and driving (a solution)
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:30:39 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Physics

In article <ktpepsINN63a@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> you write:
[conversation deleted]
}If auto accidents are the main concern in the legalization issue,
}why bother those who smoke (or drink, or snort, or shoot up, or
}whatever) in the privacy of their own home and never go out on
}the road while intoxicated? He said, "Sure, it sounds good. But
}how would you enforce dui laws? How would a cop know when someone
}was stoned?" How would you folks respond to this?

DUI laws should be more intense by several orders of manitude.
In German, (so I've heard) the DUI laws are something like this:

1st offense: loose your liscence for 7 years, pay a big fine, maybe
go to jail.

2nd offense: loose your liscence forever, pay a big fine, maybe jail.

{Offense -- Driving under the influence.  This is unlike the
smoke-a-joint,-loose-your-liscence laws congress would like to pass in the USA.
In Germany you have to actually do something wrong to get in trouble.}

These laws sound about right.  I figure DUI could be stopped tomorrow
if Congree passed laws like this.  This would work for all intoxicants,
alcohol, marijuana, LSD, cocaine, etc. regardless of whether each these drugs
impare or enhance driving ability.  (I add that because I don't know
if driving actually is more or less dangerous under the influence
of an illegal stimulant like cocaine.)

}It seems to me that this is the one argument we will have the hardest
}time winning. Most people believe that legalizing drugs will increase, 
}probably dramatically, the number of deaths due to auto accidents 
}involving intoxicated drivers. Does anyone have any ideas about how 
}to argue effectively against this theory?

Legalize drugs, make DUI laws tougher.  See above.  Also, supposedly
the highest accident age category for DUI is like the 16-21 year old
range.  I wonder if that statistic improved or worsened when the drinking
age went from 18 to 21.  I think that it probably got worse because kids
under 21 would be less likely to admit that they were drunk because of
the trouble they'd get into, so instead of being safe and taking a cab
or sleeping at the party site, they drive home drunk.  Stupid.
The only remedy for this is a cultural change, not a legal change.
Our American culture needs to have a non-Puritanical view about alcohol.
Again, I'd like to refer to Germany, where there is no drinking age,
and where teenage alcohol problems are not as prevalent.  Since the
young are allowed to be exposed to alcohol from an earlier age, they
learn earlier how to responsibly treat the drug.  I'm not saying that
lowering the drinking age is the solution.  Rather, I believe
that there should BE NO DRINKING AGE.  (For those cynics out there
who think I'm saying this because I want access, I'm quite old enough
to legally drink.)  The Americans that I knew in high school
and Jr. High whose parents allowed them to drink were the generally more
responsible about driving while drunk.  That is, they found a safer way
to get home, or their parents were open-minded enough to let them
stay over-night.  Why is that such a big deal here?  Parents are always
suspicious of their childred.  Why?  Just accept the fact that kids
are going to drink, smoke, etc.  There's nothing wrong with it.
The parents did it, and they didn't die or go insane or anything.

}I used to be staunchly opposed to all drug use and thought that 
}the laws were quite reasonable. Obviously, my opinion has changed.
}But what was it that changed my opinion? I'm not sure. Of those
}of you who were formerly drug warriors, what changed your opinion?

Your opinion changed when you found out that the lies people told
you in school are lies.  Some people stick to those lies, and have
this absurd dogma about drugs.  The anti-drug stance is a cult,
a religion, founded on blind faith, not reason.  You must be reasonable.
Nothing mysterious about the fact that you are not against drugs.
The mystery is why quasi-intelligent people can be so damned
dogmatic about their anti-drug stance.  Again, it's culture.  They
believe that drug induced pleasure is satanic or evil.  It's a damn
shame that this nation was founded by Puritans.  These are the people
who _invented_ the witch hunt.  Keep that in mind.  Scape goats
are their line of work.  They would like to blame all crime on
drug abusers trying to get money.  Look at the Cop movies and TV shows.
The most evil bad guys are the drug dealers.  The mafia and heist movies
even make heros out of theives for their ingenuity, pride, etc., but
the real scum of the earth are those who smoke a plant.  That makes sense.

-Mike

DISCLAIMER:  I'm not trying to say Germany is utopia, or even that my facts
are perfect.  (I do not officially advocate the use of illegal drugs. blah blah)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs