From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:02:10 GMT

In article <machman.715744300@milton> machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
>jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>
>>In article <Bu37L3.Jtx@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu 
>>(Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>>
>>
>>>....stuff about how could the constitution allow prohibition of narcotics
>>
>>I bet they put that baby right under "promoting the general welfare"....
>>Seeing as how drugs seem to be self-destructive in that they can totally
>>alter the way one thinks about free enterprise; seeing as how withholding 
>>them prompts people to kill, to rob, to commit crimes they otherwise would 
>>not have committed, and basically screw up a lot of people's lives, I'm
>>not sure I disagree.
>
>withholding drugs does not prompt people to commit crimes.  lucrative 
>monetary rewards reaped within the inflated black market, when often the 
>only alternative is a menial and minimum-wage job, does.  you have a lot
>to learn about how drugs work.  

Whoa, there boy, you're telling me here nobody kills or robs for drug money
and/or drugs themselves?   Puh-leeeeeeease.  I saw enough of that in the south 
side of Chicago where I grew up; it happens all the time.  To have to _tell_ 
you it happens surprises me, and tells me a [very] little about who I'm
talking to.

>
>>Now look at this.  Say drugs were legal. Less violence, lower prices.  Say 
>>then that there were a shortage, or somebody couldn't buy it when they 
>>wanted--just for the sake of argument, soemone somewhere is deprived of 
>>their new "right".  Well hell, Johnny can just go down the street and 
>>"borrow" some from Susie, right? But then susie pulls out a knife and says, 
>>"get the hell off my land," Johnny whips out his 9mm and makes her rethink 
>>things with a pop in the head; now he's got his drugs.   
>>
>
>this scenario is ludicrous.  does this happen where alcohol is invoved?
>caffeine?  tobacco?  FOOD, for goodness sake?  get real.

Have you seen the symptoms of cocaine withdrawal?  (we'll start with a simple
example).  Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for drugs, and that
no one would defend their legally bought drug supply from somebody out
to steal it, possibly resulting in death.  I'm trying to disspell the argument
that legalization would prevent drug violence.  It would have been a much
better argument on your part to say that such a shortage, as with alcohol,
food, caffeine, tobacco, would never (almost) occur, that the suppliers would
be able to maintain a continuous supply.  _That_ would be a valid point,
one I would have been more inclined to listen to.

     You say it's ludicrous, I say you have to imagine some what-if scenarios 
before jumping into something. 

>
>>Non-addictive consumer products or things that are not psychoactive drugs 
>>_usually_ don't do this to a person.  It is my belief that, legal or no, 
>>drugs would do this regularly.  
>
>on what information do you base this belief?  that belief, and the way you 
>lump everything together under the generic term "drugs" makes me think you 
>really don't have even a basic understanding of how the various substances
>affect humans in different ways.

why?  Do Usenetters not understand what drugs we're talking about here?  
It ain't aspirin.  I apologize.  For clarification:  let's say cocaine,
marijuana, hallucinogens, other illegal narcotics.  We could stick to the
heavier stuff to keep it interesting?.


okay, now to answer your question about why I believe that.  Addictive 
narcotics (we can stick to the cocaine example) are products of unlimitable 
demand.  There seems to be no way to limit or regulate the flow of cocaine 
into this country and to users.  So even if I wanted to legalize it, say with 
some regulations or taxes, it wouldn't work.  As soon as someone figured out 
his usage had been limited to a point lower than he pleased, or that the
taxation did this by decreasing the amount he was able to buy,
and somebody else figures, hey, I can save somebody a buck by going under the 
table, skip the taxes to Uncle Sam but tack on a small "dangerous job" fee 
for myself, but one that is smaller than the taxes would have been, and boom! 
We're in business.  So long as I am willing and able to do it, both parties 
stand to gain and according to some pretty simple economics it would be done.
There is no way you can limit the consumption of some drugs.  So if one were 
to find his supply suddenly and unexpectedly shortened, and we know from 
experience people are willing to do some pretty heinous things to get their 
high, this adds up to "criminal activity"--possibly violence.

Fair enough?

>
>>That's not my picture of ideal America.
>
>the injustice and opression existing in in this country right now certainly 
>aren't part of mine.
>
>>Banning items which have *that* strong a grip on someone seems pretty
>>constitutionally reasonable to me.	
>
>there is an "item" that tends to have a pretty strong grip on me.  i need to
>ingest this "item" practically every day, or else i feel listless and weak.
>you could say i am addicted to this "item".  in spite of this, i have never 
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
physical requirement for survival, not an addiction

>found myself killing someone or otherwise committing a crime to obtain this 
>"item".  this "item" is better known as FOOD.

Good point.  Would you kill for food?  I would not.  Does food deprive you of 
your sensibilities and/or motor control if taken in the wrong dosage, like many
narcotics and hallucinogens do?  Would food kill you with an overdose? [as some
illegal drugs would] (okay, let's be reasonable on the overdose amount!! :)  
Would food prevent people from being able to work effectively (like bus 
drivers, airline pilots, taxi drivers, most people in medical professions,etc. 
We know what restrictions people in these professions face with alcohol.  How 
would things swing with, say, acid?  Or how about a more addictive drug?  If a 
person in one of those professions became addicted to such a thing it would 
pretty much mean the end of his/her career sooner or later, wouldn't it? 
(unless he/she was really good at controlling or hiding it).  This "food"
business pretty much falls apart with close examination. 
 
>
>you seem to have a very warped and limited view of how drugs affect people.

Let's think things through before we jump into attack mode, shall we?

>thus you fail to see the connection between the criminal status of certain 
>drugs and the resultant criminal activity.  check out Richard Miller's
>book "The Case For Legalizing Drugs" for a mind-opening argument against
>prohibition.

You seem to not have seen these effects, or think somehow they will magically
go away, and drugs like [what is it we want to legalize here, maybe that will
help our discussion] cocaine will be the 90's analog to the disco of the 70's
or a video arcade or a movie in the 80's.  Great.

I _do_ understand the connection of which you speak.  I'm just offering some
new ideas about why legalization is something we need to think more about
than the usual LEGAL --> NO MORE WoD --> MONEY SAVED by GOVT.
		     --> LESS DANGEROUS (to produce/ship) --> CHEAPER
		     --> LESS VIOLENCE -->  EVERYBODY HAPPY
drivel.



>						-- dave
>
>-- 
> /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
> c-OO                                                                      
>    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
>   -                                                                       


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu





Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5550 alt.news-media:1323 alt.rush-limbaugh:4907