From: pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald)
Subject: re-legalize drugs? (was Re: BUSH IS A NEO_NAZI! AND A LIAR)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:38:18 GMT

>>> = larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
>>  = pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald)
>   = larry

>>>I meant that we should get them any way it takes, Tax evasions,
>>>Unrelated charges -- Speeding, failure to use proper turn signals,
>>>or if all else fails blow them off the face of the earth...
>>
>> Now you are ranting, and probably foaming at the mouth as well.
>
>Not to say that I don't foam at the mouth accasionally, but I deliberately
>overstated this to make a point.

Yes, you made a point, but hardly one that helps your argument.


>[...] if you legalize one thing, they will move on to
>something else which is still profitable.

Name something else that is nearly as profitable as today's drug trade.

No one said that "all the criminals would magically go away".  Utopia is
not an option.  However, as profits go down, and risk stays the same,
_some_ of them certainly will decide that it is not worth the risk.


>I cannot see the people who are now used to making 1 million a month/week
>whatever the profits are from illegal drugs (for major dealers), sitting
>in a small store, making 30 to 40 thousand a year.

How many of these major dealers do you think there are?  Not to mention
that many of them are not in the U.S. (but we can nuke any country that
exports drugs to the U.S. {if all else fails, of course}).

If you eliminate some major dealers, drugs will still be just as
profitable.  The problem will not just fade away.


>Time for a mental picture:
>    The Godfather of one of the mafia's and his henchmen siting in a store.
>The henchman behind the cash register (while scratching his chin with the
>back of his fingers) says in a deep voice "The Godfather says you owe him
>three dollars for that pack of Columbian Gold.  (He scratches again) 
>"Youall come back now, ya hear."  "Well, Godfather We have made 50 dollars
>today. Good day, huh?"

Your "mental picture" has severe brain damage, but it reminds me of the
puchline of a joke:

Bartender:	We don't get many giraffes around here.
Giraffe:	At these prices you won't get many more.


>[...] if they wanted to go into legal business, they would already do
>so, they have the money to start any kind of business they want.

Nonsense.  The drug business is much more lucrative.


>[...]
>how many times are they proven guilty (caught with their hands in the
>cookie jar -er dope bag) and go free because of some technicallity, "the
>police officer spit on the ground while arresting them, and some of it hit
>on their shoes, your honor, therefore I request dismissal of all charges
>since it is clearly a case of physical abuse.
>
>This is the legal counsel that I don't want them having.

Ignoring your ludicrous "spitting" example, it seems that your problem is
with the law, not with the quality of legal cousel.  Or do you want a law
that says "people accused of drug violations may only hire crappy lawyers?"

Changing the law to eliminate the "technicalities" results in more
convictions of drug dealers.  It also results in more convictions of
innocent people.  Witness the result of the drug confiscation laws, when
they eliminated several inconvenient "technicalities".

"It is of more importance to the community that innocence should be
protected than it is that guilt should be punished, for guilt and crimes
are so frequent in the world that all of them cannot be punished, and many
times they happen in such a manner that it is not of much consequence to
the public whether they are punished or not.  But when innocence itself is
brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will
exclaim, 'It is immaterial to me whether I do well or ill, for virtue is no
security.'.  And if such sentiment as this should take place in the mind of
the subject there would be an end to all security whatsoever."
	- John Adams


>> I guess since they're scumbag drug dealers, 
>
>Yes.

Somehow, Larry has divine guidance that tells him when someone is guilty,
even before a trial.  Perhaps he has found his calling:

Bailiff:	Next!
Larry:		He's a scumbag drug dealer.  Guilty!  Take away his money,
		and throw him in jail.

Bailiff:	Next!
Larry:		He's a major scumbag drug dealer.  Guilty!  Blow him off
		the face of the earth!

Bailiff:	Next!
Larry:		She's a witch!  Guilty!  Burn her!

(now I am ranting and foaming at the mouth!)


>>>[...] how many more alcoholics do we have today than we had then?
>> 
>> I don't know.  Does the legality or illegality have much to do with it?
>
>I think so, more availability to more people.  A lot of people did not
>drink during probitition because they didn't know where to get it or were
>afraid to, the law, you know.

If that is true, then when prohibition was repealed, the number of
alcoholics would have soared.  Did it?


>> Your own experience with drugs shows that laws against drugs didn't stop
>> you.  In fact, the laws actually hurt you (by encouraging tainted drugs),
>> and nearly killed you (because you feared reprisals if you saw a doctor).
>
>I was in the military and anyone who was in the military can tell you, you
>NEVER let it be known in the military.  If it is the last time you ever do
>it, your record is still tainted for the rest of your enlistment, and
>thoughts of a career in the military is nonexistant.

Which shows that the laws (Navy rules) against drugs stop people from
getting help when they need it.


>> Deaths by substance, [...]
>> Deaths by substance, per user, [...]
>
>since legal ones cause the most deaths legalizing news ones should help them
>catch up with the leaders.

What a wonderful leap of logic: legal substances have higher death rates,
therefore legality causes the higher death rates?  Sorry, you'll have to
better than that.

Someone will have to back me up on this one, because I don't have any
references, but didn't England recently re-legalize heroin?  At first the
number of reported addicts went up slightly (probably due in part to the
removal of the threat of prosecution), but then the number dropped.


>> "Cigarettes are among the most addictive substances of abuse and by far the
>> most deadly."  Nonetheless, a massive decrease in use of this drug has
>> occurred over 3 decades with "virtually no regulation of smoking by any
>> level of government."
>
>No, due to government insistance of warning labels and funding of education
>programs against smoking. (in the schools and TV advertisements, Public
>Service Announcements).

You've hit upon something, Larry.  The government doesn't forbid smoking
(except when it affects others, and in certain situations).  The government
doesn't throw major tobacco dealers in jail (in fact, it subsidizes the
tobacco industry).  The government does not throw tobacco users in jail.

Yet cigarette use has fallen.

But as you mention, the government does perform "education" services to
promote politically correct views toward smoking.  These services do
not force anyone to stop smoking (even if they force you and I to cough up
{pun intended} the cash to pay for the services).  On a related note,
another "education" service, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, gets
a large part of its funding from the legal drug companies (alcohol,
tobacco, and pharmaceutical).

Has the indoctrination technique work?  Probably.

Does prohibition work with other drugs?  Obviously not.


>> Observation:  [...]
>
>I didn't say that so people would think me an expert, [...]

I wasn't trying to imply anything about you, just mentioning something that
I thought was amusing.
--
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| Mailstop GD3002
  / ___  )  |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com  |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
 / __)/ /__ |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| VOICE: (205) 730-3741
(_/it(_____)|o| Intergraph Corporation |o| FAX:   (205) 730-3300

Prohibition ... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things
that are not crimes ....  A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded.
	- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: hsv.general