From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:11:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.170251.18589@midway.uchicago.edu> 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.

References, please?  The reason that drug prohibition was enacted in the USA
was because the Treasury department seized the power in implementation of a
food and drug quality legislation that was intended to bring the U.S. into
compliance with an international treaty.  Drug prohibition was not intended
to prevent excess drug use.

}	Drugs are addictive; you can get hooked; that is a fact.

An addict is a habitual drug user, nothing more.  If their drug use isn't
excessive, then they not only aren't committing any crime, but they aren't
even committing any vice.

}If we legalize drugs, then we must eliminate the better business bureau.
}After all, many scams are merely 'hooks' designed to take money
}much as drugs are 'hooks' and act to take money.  In the same sense,
}we should legalize everything except laws affecting personal interaction.
}Even tort laws should be removed.

Not quite.  Property, contract, and tort law would remain.  Tort law refers
to interaction.

}	The argument for legalizing drugs revolves around the idea
}that people can choose for themselves not to use drugs.

Not quite.  The argument against drug prohibition is that it violates the
individual's right to self-determination in regards to medication.  Its
consistent application woud lead to separation of medicine and state.

But this idea
}ignores the fact that people are often carried away by emotion,
}sometimes make mistakes, and can easily be deceived or manipulated.

Not in the least.  Competent adults don't need the Nanny State to care for them
from cradle to grave.  The only way people can learn is from mistakes, so if
they are to learn, they must be free to make mistakes.  The conduct of our
lives is an experiment, and the best way for us to discover the best way of life
is for there to be free and open competition between diverse lifestyles.

}Once any of those three things have happened the drug suppliers basically
}have a guaranteed source of income.  Suppliers are faced with a market

This seems to overlook the trends in regard to the drugs of alcohol and
tobacco, which aren't prohibited.  Their use has been in gradual but steady
decline, and their potency and price (excluding sin taxes) has been also
in decline.  By contrast, if a drug is prohibited, its price goes up, its
potency goes up, and its quality goes down.

}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.
}
}				J. Wagner

I love it!  An opponent of drug prohibition who's a Maoist!  That'll make
things easier for me.

Drug use isn't an infectious disease.  It poses no inherent danger to anyone.
Only excess drug use poses any danger to the user.  The problems commonly
associated with drugs are caused by prohibition of drugs - crime, etc.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire