From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:57:35 GMT


In article <1992Sep14.005113.16938@cs.uoregon.edu>, weyand@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand) writes:
>> 
>>    [...]
>> 
>>    A better plan would legalize drug distribution at rates high enough to
>>    deter some of the curious but affordable enough to kill drug related
>>    crime.  Furthermore, narcotics would be distributed by employees of the 
>>    Department of Health (or whatever it is you call it down there) to
>>    licensed addicts.  Rehab services could also be offered at the same
>>    distribution sites, though enrolment in such programmes would remain
>>    the choice of the addict.  First time users could receive licenses to
>>    acquire narcotics after completing a one-week information session on
>>    the effects of these substances on the body, most particularly the 
>>    nervous system.  To control drugs, steps need to be taken to eliminate
>>    the criminal element, restrict their spread and limit the amount of
>>    money leaving the country.  It has to be harsher than the Dutch system
>>    (which is a bold attempt but pretty stupid anyway) yet more leniant
>>    than a total limit on personal choice.
>> 
>> I'm beginning to hear this line more and more from liberal pro-legalizers and
>> it saddens me.  Legalizing drugs and then giving the gov't complete control is
>> a perverted idea in my mind.  The government has no business being in the
>> business of selling drugs.  

Ok. So let's do away with the FDA.  

>> It seems to me that conservatives and liberals really offer the same choice,
>> that is no choice, in different disguises.  The conservative prohibitionists
>> say "drugs are evil and we must save the ignorant masses by banning them and
>> making their use a criminal offense" the liberal pro-legalizers say "drugs are
>> evil and we must save the ignorant masses by controlling their drug intake,
>> absolving them of responsibility for their actions by telling them their
>> addiction is a disease, and then coerceing them into drug rehab"
>> Both options are equally repugnant.  The only option I can accept is absolute
>> freedom of self-medication with no governmental control over the drug market.

Medication is curative whereas narcotics offer no such purpose (except in 
rare cases).  Such self-mdeication is costing the US untold amounts of wealth
and productivity.  It's pretty hard to concentrate on building a car when 
you see fifteen wheels.
  
>> 
>>    I know that such a system could work.  I think the only reason
>>    American governments have not done anything substantial on drugs and
>>    AIDS is because they don't want to.  Both are excellent means of
>>    destroying the lower class, which means less unemployment.  Maybe 
>>    that's not such a bad idea in itself.
>> 
>> What do you mean by work?  If you mean it would continue to violate a person's
>> right to self-determination, self-medication, and control of one's body, then
>> yes, you're absolutely correct. 
>> 
>>    C. Armour-Kidson
>> 
>> Chris Weyand

No man is an island.  Self-determination, like any right, involves a set of
responsabilities.  These can be dictated by public policy, though the rights
themselves would remain inalienable.  As such, the right to self-determination
would be constrained to work within the public's best interest.  This means
no drugs and no crime.

Self-medication is not a right.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4231 alt.politics.homosexuality:5724