From: pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares)
Subject: Re: War on Drugs
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:11:07 GMT

Homer writes:
[...]
>     Don't get me wrong, I am not pro war on drugs.  However...
>someone's got to put forward the hard ass line lest we are unprepared
>for it when the courts do.

	If this is the "hard line", we're doing just fine ;) ...

>     In this society it is almost impossible to hurt yourself without
>hurting someone else in the bargain.
[...]
>     You may have a right to hurt yourself, but I as a tax payer
>am often forced to pay for your rescue in the emergency ward, no?
>
>     Since I have to pay the burden of getting you out of your mess,
>don't I have a right to ban you from hurting yourself?  Especially if
>some form of national medical insurance is passed through.

	You end up paying a few orders of magnitude more for people who
like to eat fatty foods, smoke cigarrettes, and sit on the couch all day
than you do for drug users. Should hamburgers be illegal? Your statement
just cannot be applied consistently without outlawing everything from
hangliding to ingesting cholesterol.

>     Now perhaps some drugs can be used responsibly by the majority
>of users, and some other drugs can be used responsibly by a minority of users
>but when you have got a drug that clearly drives most of its users
>to distraction, isn't it time to do something about it?

	Again, if you stop and think about what you said for a minute,
you'd have to outlaw television sitcoms to be consistent; far more people
are "driven to distraction" by The Cosby Show or LA Law than by drugs.

	You have yet to articulate why it is reasonable for the government
to outlaw drugs...

[...]
>     At least to somehow disconnect ourselves from having to foot
>the bill or have our children killed by the users of such drugs?

	Geez -- if someone kills, _whether on drugs or not_, put them away
for killing. Likewise, if someone robs, punish them for robbing. Don't
criminalize whatever you suppose the "cause" of their actions to be--
criminalize the harm. There is no crime that cannot be dealt with in this
manner. It draws a perfect distiction between the responsible and the
irresponsible user. No one who uses drugs for pleasure and harms no one
is harassed, and _everyone_ who uses drugs and harms someone can be
punished.

>     Given that something SHOULD be done about some drugs, AND I AM
>NOT TAKING THAT STAND, is it possible to do so without starting an
>ever expanding drug war which will suck in and absorb all our rights
>in the process.

	No.

[...]
>     The experiments with cocaine and rats are damning.
>
>     They do cocaine until they cant reach the lever anymore,
>then they rest half dead, until they can get up again, and then they
>do more cocaine until they can't reach the lever anymore.
> 
>     This is biochemical isanity!

	This is flawed reasoning.

	I'm not going to rehash what many others have said better, but
suffice to say that anyone locked in a cage with cocaine and little else
will use it heavily, even to the point of death.

[...]
>     Further once a drug has been legalized, people will demand some
>assurance that they are not being given some poorly made drugs made by some
>joker in a basement.  Thus, at least for the more chemically involved
>drugs, the FDA is going to step in and at least liscence and approve
>its manufacture and distribution.  

	The FDA should do a lot -- it should strictly test all drugs for
purity, safety, and accurate labelling. It should leave the final decsion
up to the individual, however. In other words, it should serve as an
advisory organization and not as a prohibitor. Give people all the accurate
information you can, then leave the decision up to them.

>     You can not expect the world to accept a drug free for all, if
>they are not willing to accept a food free for all.

	Huh?

On that illuminating note, adios...

-Peter

pfcouvar@amhux3.amherst.edu