From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: War on Drugs
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:27:13 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <pm9krbo@fido.asd.sgi.com>
 by dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber):

: It is interesting to note that with the upcoming 
: election, the war on drugs rhetoric seems to be going
: strong.  No one has pointed out that the "war" is not
: working.

Au contraire.  The "war" IS working, according to official pundits who
are pointing out estimates of 23 million drug users this year, vs. 25 
million last year.  I've heard this on the radio just yesterday (9/10).

Whoo-oo-oo-oopie.

Is this guestimated reduction thanks to the "war?"  The official pundits 
think so.

: In addition, there is still the lingering question of whether
: or not the war should be fought at all.  Should the government
: be allowed to tell people that they cannot get high?  Have they
: looked at the reports which seem to indicate that banning of a
: drug does not have any effect on the number of people who use
: it? 

The official pundits actually do consider these questions.  I've
actually heard the subject brought up on national TV.  Very seriously,
with straight faces, they will consider the option of legalization.
Then, after a lengthy 3 minute debate, they'll continue with their
normal agenda on _how_ to "fight" the "war" and _whose_ plan is best.

It's like attending a meeting of the KKK and expecting a discussion of
whether blacks and whites maybe, just _maybe_ now, really ought to learn 
to live together.

: It seems as if legalization and taxation of controlled substances
: could be an economic boon. A 100% tax on marijuana could not be
: protested by the marijuana industry or the users, since there is no
: price to base this on.

Well, the industry would probably protest (altho, perhaps not openly).
There are small farms which make 90% of their income from the sale of 
MJ, and legalization would decimate those profits.  They know this.

: So, with all this stated, I saw an article this morning in the LA Times
: which had the words "Al Gore" and "War on Drugs" in the headline.  I
: thought to myself, "perhaps he will say something useful".  Instead, it
: seems he is railing on Bush's choice for drug czar.  So much for
: intellegent discourse on the topic...

I gave up on that hope a long time ago.  The demopublicans don't care that
our rights, freedoms, and prosperity are being whittled away; only who's 
in charge of the knife.

: 2.  Is it fiscally responsible for the government to continue
: a massive war on drugs which has had dubious successes?

I don't think they really care.  They're into power games.  The War on
Drugs gives excuses to transfer power to the govt.  Once they have the
power in place, their only (relatively simple) problem is to decide who
will pick up the reins.

I know this sounds paranoic and perhaps it is, but I don't know any 
other explanation that can be stated in 25 words or less.

: Jeff

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
If you live in a country run by committee, be on the committee.
    -- Graham Summer