From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: War on Drugs
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:41:33 GMT

In article <pm9krbo@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>It is interesting to note that with the upcoming
>election, the war on drugs rhetoric seems to be going
>strong.  No one has pointed out that the "war" is not
>working.

Jeff, you have truly hurt my feelings now.  I quote from my basic
my 10 point campaign program in by basic campaign brochure"

"June Genis supports:..."Ending the war on our civil liberties which
is masquerading as a war on drugs."

>Though a majority of the money is going to policing, the
>street price of cocaine has not changed during the course
>of the "war".  The number of people in the american prison
>system due to drug related charges is astronomical.  And
>yet, the drug trade goes on almost entirely unmolested.

One of the things I point out when I talk to various groups (and
that has included Republican groups and Perot groups as well as
misc.  ad hoc groups) is that we will spend 100 billion this year on
the combined cost of interdiction, prosecution and incarceration.
That's 100 billion that isn't there to be spent on dealing with
abuse.  Whether you think the government or the private sector
should be doing the spending, two people can't spend the same dollar
at the same time.  Of course, ad a Libertarian I favor giving
federal tax ollars back to taxpayers to let them fund locally
controlled abuse programs in their own communities.

>There are still long waiting lists to get into detox
>programs and most of the people who need them will never get
>in.

And a pregnant drug user is not going to go in for pre-natal care,
even when it's available, if she shows that she probably will not be
able to get into a diversion program and that if she isn't clean
when her baby is born that there's a good chance they'll take it
away from her.

>In addition, there is still the lingering question of whether
>or not the war should be fought at all.  Should the government
>be allowed to tell people that they cannot get high?  Have they
>looked at the reports which seem to indicate that banning of a
>drug does not have any effect on the number of people who use
>it?

Of course the government shouldn't be telling people they can't get
high, but the fact pragmatic reason for ending the war on drugs are
so clear in my mind that I don't think we have to even try to sell
the moral reasons.

>It seems as if legalization and taxation of controlled substances
>could be an economic boon. A 100% tax on marijuana could not be
>protested by the marijuana industry or the users, since there is no
>price to base this on.

I do not want to see drugs legalized only to provide more revenue
fodder for a spend-thrift Congress.  I think there definitely will
be protests about any taxes on the order of 100% although it's
inevitable I suppose that there will be some tax.  The real trick
will be to see that the money from such a tax isn't eaten up by some
new regulatory administration like the Marijuana Quality Control
board.  Remember too that legalized drugs will be cheaper and have
lower profit margins.  Make the taxes too high and you invite black
market production and them of course the government will want some
huge enforcement effort to eliminate black market sales.

>Finally, the level of hysteria is getting ridiculous.  People who use
>drugs have been labelled criminals, children have turned in their
>parents (sounds like Hitler's Germany...), people are willing to give
>up their rights to fight the war on drugs (why should most americans
>care?  Only the hysteria makes them care).

Perhaps we should be asking about just who benefits from the
hysteria.  Hint, most of them work for the government.

>So, with all this stated, I saw an article this morning in the LA Times
>which had the words "Al Gore" and "War on Drugs" in the headline.  I
>thought to myself, "perhaps he will say something useful".  Instead, it
>seems he is railing on Bush's choice for drug czar.  So much for
>intellegent discourse on the topic...

If the media would cover Libertarian candidates you would see some
intelligent discourse on the subject.  Have you written to the LA
Times asking them to do that?  Last time I was in LA I couldn't get
them to even talk to me.

>This leads to the following questions in my mind:
>
>1.  What business is it of the government whether or not people
>are getting "high"?  Why should they care what people are doing
>in their free time?  In past days, many successful people have
>taken drugs, including alcohol, without it being a detriment to
>society.  Why should it matter now?

Remember that there still are folks around who regret the repeal of
alcohol prohibition.  We have been taught for multiple generations
now that when there's a problem "there ought to be a law".  There
are real problems associated with the abuse of some substances both
legal and illegal but people don't want to take the personal
responsibility for educating themselves on the differences between
use and abuse or for dealing directly with the issues of abuse.

>2.  Is it fiscally responsible for the government to continue
>a massive war on drugs which has had dubious successes?

Absolutely not.

>3.  Is it worth it to give up our civil rights to have a "drug
>free america"?

Personally I find this the most frightening things about the whole
WOD.

>Jeff
>-FWA

/June
Libertarian for U.S. Senate (full term)
Newsgroups: ca.politics