From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:25:33 GMT

In article <Bx5oLD.3yn@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff 'ifucanreedthisumustuzeunix' Aitken) writes:
} niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
} : Actually, we should *stop* enforcing the laws we have.  If we'd stop
} : enforcing laws against victimless crimes like drug sale/use, we'd have a
} : LOT more prison space, a LOT more police officers free to deal with real
} : crime, and a LOT less wasted court time.
} 
} Say what!?   "... victimless crimes like drug sale/use ..."  
} What exactly do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying
} that people who sell/abuse drugs should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin
} themselves and those around them?

I believe that people should be LEFT ALONE to ruin themselves, but if
they hurt someone else in the process, they should be held accountable
for it.  If a person hurts someone else from drug use, they should be
punished, not for taking drugs, but for hurting someone else.  It should
treated the same as the case of someone being hurt by a drunk driver --
punish the driver for the damage they caused; don't ban the sale of
alcohol.

That's not to say that I advocate people taking drugs (I don't even
smoke tobacco); their use can be very damaging.

However, the worst damage to this society is caused, not by the drugs
themselves, but from the "War on Drugs".  And the greatest damage is
to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.  RICO and forfeiture
statutes come to mind.

} If you think selling drugs is such
} a harmless event, take a visit to your nearest large city police
} department, and ask them how many homicides in their precinct were a
} direct result of drug trafficking.

But legal drug trafficing does not have that kind of crime problem --
so called "drug wars" are not fought over a sixpack of beer or a carton
of cigaretts.

And much (most?) of the crime committed though illegal drug trafficing
can be tied to the illegality itself.  For one thing, since it is already
illegal, people involved in it are less likely to call the cops if a
deal goes bad.  Secondly, its illegality causes the price to go up.
That means that the possibility of serving time in prison for committing
a crime to obtain drugs is less threatening.  For instance, people who
would not commit a crime for, say, $100 worth of drugs might find it
tempting if the price jumped to $10,000.

} I think you'll come to realize
} that those who sell drugs are responsible for a lot of the " ... real
} crime ..." you mention.  Yes locking all these people up requires a
} lot of space and manpower, but it needs to be done.  

But we can't even keep drugs out of a place as tightly controlled and
devoid of rights as a prison.  How can we possibly keep them out of a
free society?

Fact is, I would rather see this country awash in drugs (I don't believe
their legality would cause that would happen, in spite of what Bill
Bennet, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. claim) than see it turned into a police
state in the futile attempt to keep them out.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"I will not raise taxes on the middle class. ... I disagree with Mr. Perot
 on how MUCH to increase taxes on the middle class."  -- Bill Clinton, 3rd
 Presidential debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc