From: ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs 
Organization: The Department For Doing Departmental Things
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:07:20 GMT

wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	Well, actually, everyone seems to be ignoring the British-protected
>opium dens of China.  The British wanted to make money, so they protected
>the dens and their customers from the Chinese government which was against
>the opium dens, as well as some other things.  There were some battles
>fought on the matter.  It is not without reason that drugs have been
>illegalized in many countries around the world, although they were
>influenced in no-way by 'prudish' Christian groups.

Actually, the opium wars in China are a good argument for a more open
approach to the drug problem.  When China attempted to crack down on
the opium trade the British intervened militarily and effectively
brought to an end, forcefully, the power of the chinese to govern their
own country.  This conributed immensely to their eventual collapse.

A strong argument can be made that it wasn't opium or the trade in opium
which undermined the chinese, it was their attempt to elliminate it.  It's
interesting to speculate how different the course of history might have been 
had a more enlightened approach been taken.

>	The argument for legalizing drugs revolves around the idea
>that people can choose for themselves not to use drugs.  But this idea
>ignores the fact that people are often carried away by emotion,
>sometimes make mistakes, and can easily be deceived or manipulated.

People are carried away by emotions, make mistakes, and are easily
deceived and manipulated by almost every aspect of life, ranging from
sports to politics.  Human beings are weak willed.  Who will dispute
that?  But is that sufficient reason to restrict the things which may 
tempt them?  If it is than that same argument can be used to justify a 
police state which dictates every aspect of the people's lives, from the 
cradle to the grave.

>Once any of those three things have happened the drug suppliers basically
>have a guaranteed source of income.  Suppliers are faced with a market
>whose demand curve increases with use and consumtion, and thus are given
>an incentive to step up supply as much as possible, just short of killing
>the cow or making it incapable of getting money.

I'd be interested in seeing proof that the drug market has a demand curve
which increase with use and consumption.  Admittedly there are INDIVIDUALS
for whom this is true: give them a little and they will want more.  Give them
more and they will consume until they die.  But I have yet to see any proof
that such behavior is the rule, rather then the exception, amongst human
beings.  Most people that I know who have used drugs have either tried it
once and didn't like it, or used it more then once, but only on an infrequent
basis and usually only during social occaisions (where, btw, the frequency
of alcohol consumption is much higher).

Addictive personalities exist.  But is addiction a primary motivator in
general human behavior, or only in a minority of individuals?  That's the
real question that needs to be answered.  Unfortunately most people won't
even considering asking this question since it calls into question one of
the fundamental assumptions of the drug war.  And to do that would only
be "encouraging the problem."

>	The real problem with the drug business is not that it is illegal
>or frowned upon by society.  The real problem is that society itself,
>the individuals in society, do not in fact enforce those laws or beliefs.
>...

And perhaps the reason they don't is because deep down most people know
just how hypocritical those laws are.  They just don't have the courage,
or the knowledge, to stand up and say, "wait a minute...this doesn't
make any sense."  So instead they just sabotage the whole process by
not backing up their moral protestations with real action (its sort of like
the way most politicians work: rant and rave about a problem, but don't
actually exert to much effort to fix it.  That would mean exposing
themselves to the risk of failure.)

>... If people were legally capable
>of reacting and dealing with the presence of dangerously addictive drugs,
>then the society, the entire mass of people could rise to meet the problem
>and eliminate it.

They are legally capable of doing it.  But they won't because most people
realize, deep down, that its just not as important a problem as the 
rhetoric claims.  When people really believe that a problem exists which
needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW they will suffer whatever sacrifice is
necessary to solve it.  Unfortunately for the drug warriors, such universal
problems are few and far between and drugs just doesn't measure up as one
of them.

I doubt it ever will.
-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections