From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: [talk.politics.drugs] Libertarian presidential candidate Andre Marrou on Larry King 10/12
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:54:59 GMT

reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.143743.1900@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>[stuff deleted]
>>PS.  Andre Marrou is _adamantly_ opposed to the criminalization of drugs.
>>
>>--Gary
>>

>And hence, the Libertarians continue to condemn themselves to obscurity.
>If the Libertarian Party EVER wishes to join the debates, they need to
>join the mainstream of America.
 
And here I thought that mainstream America wanted to reduce violent
crime.  Virtually any study reported in the papers these days shows that
violent crime rates have increased during the Wo(S)D.  The pattern
follows that which occured during Prohibition -- huge demand for an
illegal substance creates an obscene profit margin for those willing to
enter that market as product suppliers;  the people drawn into this
business are obviously more than willing to commit violent crimes to
protect and increase their markets, hence their profits.  Meanwhile the
government, backed by some good-intentions and slow-witted supporters,
wages war on these new criminals, meeting violence with more violence
and erasing the rights of the innocent bystanders.  The huge amounts of
cash floating around is bound to corrupt some law-enforcement personnel
-- many of whom are partaking of the very substances they are supposed
to be wiping out of existence.  All the while, lots of people who are
otherwise law abiding citizens willingly break the law, exposing
themselves to criminal charges for imbibing, eating or inhaling a natural
substance that happens to be out of favor.

When Prohibition was repealed, the gangsters went belly up in a hurry
and the country returned to a semblance of normalcy.  I hope it happens
soon in the New Prohibition -- the War on (Some) Drugs.

I find it scary that it took a Constitional amendment to bring about
Prohibition, but merely a presidential declaration to cause the War on
(Some) Drugs [aka the War on Rights] to spend billions of dollars and
thousands of lives and untold aspects of the Constituion lost in the
name of preventing people from using certain drugs.  But not the drugs
like alcohol, tobacco, and caffine.  The first two, of course, being
huge killers every year -- killing tens of thousands annually.

Just because millions of people think something should be true and good
doesn't make a reality.

I for one, would like the government to get its big nose and nanny
attitude out of my business.  If I drink too much or get stoned and
drive on the roads, lock me up.  But if I want to sit in my chair, kick
back, turn on the TV and smoke a joint or drink a beer, I should be
able to without DEA agents kicking in my door and killing me if I even
think about resisting.

One last thought (an unverified quote -- anyone verify it?):
Prohibition goes beyon the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes 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 (who smoked marijuana [Indian Hemp] on occasion)


Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution