From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: A distinction between Soft and Hard drugs
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:18:56 GMT

In article 713795608@camms1.caos.kun.nl, tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:
>I don't know how much you realize it but there is 
>a possibility that if LSD were legal someone could put some in your
>drink without you knowing it.

Rat poison is legal...so is alcohol.  Should alcohol be illegal because
somebody could "spike the punch"?

>In fact this has happened to me twice in
>my lifetime that I'm aware of (after the fact of course) while it has been
>illegal.

For some reason this doesn't surprise me.

>True, someone can poison you too, but LSD has quite a different
>result.  You must see that the controlled substances acts are there to 
>protect you from other people, and not necessarily to protect you from
>yourself. [...]
>How would you remedy such an occurance (someone drugging someone else without
>their knowledge or approval) if all drugs were legal?

In my opinion, dosing someone without their consent is a form of
assault, and there are already laws against assault.

>At the same time I agree with you your opinion in that we as human
>beings have natural rights, not bestowed on us by the government, to
>the wonders of nature.  But in a practical sense aren't the current laws
>the best way leave that decision in the hands of each individual by
>requiring a substantial body of knowledge be accumulated in order to
>acquire these substances?

The current laws are the best way for the goverment to continue and to
expand their interference in my personal life.  Their is already a
substantial body of knowledge regarding these substances; these
substances have been used by humans for thousands of years, in many
cases.

>Why should anyone be able to purchase all
>the drugs they want without going through a reasonable amount of study
>concerning the substance in question?

Because any damage they do will be done to their own body and mind.  I
own my body and mind, therefore I have the right to choose how they are
used (and altered).  The government does not own my body nor my mind,
and therefore does not have the right to prohibit me from abusing them,
if I so choose.

>Do you deny that "hard" drugs
>do require some sort of preparation before injestion or do you suggest
>that someone just drop those tabs of acid and see what happens?

I suggest that everyone has the right of freedom of choice.  I prefer
to learn something about a substance before ingesting it, but others
may be, shall we say, more adventurous.  That is their choice.

>I'm all for legalizing things but I would like to see the plan and the
>expected behavior patterns explained first.

Expected behavior patterns?  Please define this.  It's very frightening
as written.

>Perhaps if you had just come
>off of a three day acid trip which you never expected to take you would feel 
>differently.

Do you know who dosed you?  Send them up on assault charges.  (Maybe
even kidnapping...after all, they did take you on a "trip"...)  If
you're successful, and I hope you are, you'll be setting a valuable
precedent.

Don't deny me my right to trip because some assholes changed the
chemistry of your mind without your consent.

>It is hardly the same as smelling marijuana in the air, thus
>the distinction between Hard and Soft drugs.

There are no Hard and Soft rights.

---
gak			Der Herr Buergermeister gibt bekannt, dass ab
gak@wrs.com		Donnerstag Bier gebraut wird und deshalb ab
attmail!gakhaus!gak	Mittwoch micht mehr in den Bach geschissen
107/H/3&4		werden darf.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs