From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: drug wars (was re: VP debates)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:26:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.113548.59731@cc.usu.edu> fajack@cc.usu.edu writes:
> (Dave Sill) writes:

>>Guess what?  We already *have* legal drugs (alcohol, for example).  Other
>>countries have legalized drugs and haven't turned into doped out wasters.Less
>>than a hundres years ago, all drugs were legal in the U.S. and we weren't all
>>wasters.

>>But the biggie is: drugs are illegal and they're still widely available and
>>used.  The War on Drugs just makes the business of illegal drugs profitable
>>and encourages widespread drug-related crime.  Remember, these crimes aren't
>>committed by people whacked out on drugs, they're committed by people trading
>>in drugs.

>>Legalization is the only way we'll ever win the War on Drugs.

>>Question: if you support the repeal of Prohibition but not legalization of
>>other drugs, why not?  The parallels are clear.

> But there is a very major difference between drugs and alcohol.  You will get
>addicted to drugs very quickly.  Occasionally, I'll have a beer or two, and
>never touch it again for maybe over a month.  But I don't think I could say the
>same for drugs.  From what I heard, after you have it the first time, you
						^^^^^^^^^
There IS NO "IT."  There are tons of different drugs.  Alcohol, tobacco,
caffeine, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, etc...

>just crave for more.  You just cannot compare the two.

Yes, you can.  This is wrong.  The single most addictive drug we know of
is... tobacco.  Despite some drug-war propaganda, there is no such thing
as a drug that you take and must take again and again.

But let's say you were right about these addictive drugs.  So?  Why is
that a reason for *you* to tell *me* that I can or cannot use them?

> Before anyone jump on board to declare legalization is the only way to win
>the war on drugs, let me tell you one story.  In the end of last century and
>the beginning of this century, the British has control over the southern part
>of china.  The British legalizes opium.  Thier intention is that as long as
>the Chinese are content with getting 'high' everyday, the idea of revolt will
>be furthest from their mind, hence it is easier for the British to rule.
  
That doesn't have much to do with anything, really.  That *was* the
British intent, true.  But there's no reason to think it worked.

>	I think to win the drug war is to attack the demand side (not the
>supply side).  For example, we can revoke driving license or impose jail
>sentence on those people who buys drugs.  As long as there is demand, there
>is always supply to meet those demand.  Look at the oldest profession in the
>world.   It still exists because there is always demand for it. 

EXACTLY!  And there is ALWAYS going to be a demand for drugs.

Eliminating Civil Liberties won't solve the 'drug problem,' but it will
eliminate civil liberties.

(We already *do* the things you say; they don't help.)
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | Clinton/Gore '92.  Four more weeks!!!
Is every Bush supporter illiterate?  Democrat is a noun, not an adjective.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts