From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:59:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.184406.28686@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>I suspect that most people who don't use crack now wouldn't use it even if
>it were cheap and legal. I know I wouldn't.

Ah!  A voice of reason!  Thank you, Mark.

As many here know, drug possesion is more-or-less legal in the Netherlands.
Drug *sales* is not.  The effect is to NOT push drug users under ground,
and that is the goal: to keep them as much a part of society as possible.
It also results in a fairly clean, steady, and cheap supply of drugs for 
users.

Several years ago, when the rest of the world's stupid drug laws were causing
the current 'crack cocaine addiction' epidemic, the Dutch wondered if they
should persue any special policies concerning crack.  What it came down to,
as I understand it, was something like:

"Lemme get this straight.  A person can drink it in tea and get a pleasant
buzz for about an hour or two (by the way, this was how that famouse burned
out druggy who threw his life away, Thomas Edison, used it), or he can snort
some of it and get a bigger buzz for a shorter period of time, or he can
smoke this crack stuff and get shot through the ceiling only to be almost
immediately dropped into the basement.  Hmm... Well, if the other stuff is
available, why in the hell would anyone want to do *that* to himself?  No one
is gonna do that!"

So, they decided that they needed to take no particular action concerning
crack at all.

These days, a lot of crack moves through the Netherlands.  It's worth a
fortune on the way in, and it's worth a fortune when it leaves, but it's
worth JUST ABOUT NOTHING during the time it's in the country.  The druggies
in the Netherlands don't want it and won't buy it.  It's just too damn
unpleasent and unhealthy.

>Fourth, in a legal market, safety would become a concern of the suppliers.
>Crack is one of the worst forms of cocaine.  Something safer would probably
>replace it, just as moonshine whiskey has been replaced by safer drinks.  In
>fact, there used to be a time when cocaine was an ingredient in Coca-Cola.
>Perhaps cocaine-laced soda pop would make a comeback.  Who would take the
>risk of using crack when they could go down to the local cocaine bar and
>have a choice of seven delicious drink flavors?

Exactly.  If the supply of cocaine in the Netherlands dropped in a big
way, no doubt crack would be more popular, and they'd see their citizens
dieing or at least becoming too preoccupied and unhealthy to work.  Just like
powerful and deadly moonshine was popular here when the alcohol supply 
was diminished.

By the way, marijuana is, practically, legal in the Netherlands.  It is less
controlled than alcohol.  This has been a major weapon in their "War on
Drugs".  For one thing, if people want to use a mild, non-addictive, and 
harmless drug instead of powerful, addictive, and deadly alcohol (which
kills more of its users than any other drug but nicotine), why not let them?

Secondly, why should they have to go to the same people who sell the 
(relatively more) dangerous stuff like cocaine and heroine to get it?
(Remeber, they don't want to push people into the deadly and lawless
underground.  They want to reduce harm and have their citizens live happy
and productive lives.  They are NOT interested in declaring a holy jihad
against their own people.  Immoral drug-loving bastards, huh?) 

Thirdly, they want to remove marijuana from the list of things kids can do to
rebel against their parents.  They can have weird music and funny hair, but
when marijuana is available at youth centers, using it is not exactly a sign
of rebellion.

The result?  Marijuana use keeps going down, especially among youth.  
Drug addicts below the age of 18 are nearly unheard of.  Even the "slums"
where drug addicts can afford to live are relatively low-crime areas, and
it's perfectly acceptable for kids all around Europe to spend the summer
between high school and college in the "slums" of Amsterdam.  Most (I
think it's "most", it's been a while since I researched this, perhaps it's
"many") addicts work.  The AIDS rate among addicts is the lowest on the
planet and is dropping, while the rate in New York is something like
40% and rising fast.  The number of addicts is also dropping.  According
to the head of law enforcement their, "the drugs problem is no longer 
very much on the agenda" (reference available, if you insist on me digging
it up).

In other words, SURPRISE SURPRISE, most people DO NOT want to become drug
addicts.

So, some of their citizens use drugs, and have nice lives.  Others have 
crummy lives, but still have nicer lives than they could in the U.S.
The laws do not push drug users deeper and deeper into the depths of
despair and depravity - anyone who gets there must *wish* to get there, since
the government encourages them always to join the citizenry in the celebration
of life.  In any case, the drug users have little effect on the non-drug
involved population, and the drug user's numbers are dropping all the time.

It doesn't work quite as well as the total lack of any drug prohibitions
at all, like in pre-1914 U.S., but it works awfully well.

Like I said: immoral, drug-loving bastards.  Why don't they declare a war?

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton