From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: re-legalize drugs? (was Re: BUSH IS A NEO_NAZI! AND A LIAR)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:33:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.203818.3302@b30.ingr.com>, pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald) writes:
> >>> = larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
> >>  = pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald)
> >   = larry
> 
> 
> 
> >[...] if you legalize one thing, they will move on to
> >something else which is still profitable.
> 
> Name something else that is nearly as profitable as today's drug trade.

Nothing, BUT, drugs weren't as profitable as booze during Prohibition (or
Prohibition I as many like to call it).

> 
> No one said that "all the criminals would magically go away".  Utopia is
> not an option.  However, as profits go down, and risk stays the same,
> _some_ of them certainly will decide that it is not worth the risk.
> 

What risk?  If it is legal, no risk.

> 
> >I cannot see the people who are now used to making 1 million a month/week
> >whatever the profits are from illegal drugs (for major dealers), sitting
> >in a small store, making 30 to 40 thousand a year.
> 
> How many of these major dealers do you think there are?  Not to mention
> that many of them are not in the U.S. (but we can nuke any country that
> exports drugs to the U.S. {if all else fails, of course}).
> 

Nah, just invade them! (Hey, that's a joke son, a joke)

> If you eliminate some major dealers, drugs will still be just as
> profitable.  The problem will not just fade away.
> 

I didn't say that it would go away, I have no idea how to cure the problem, 
I just disagree with your idea of what the cure is.  Perhaps mass hypnosis or
subliminal sugestion, to "Just say no".
My point of view is that your "cure" will cause more problems than it helps
in the long run.

> 
> >Time for a mental picture:
> >    The Godfather of one of the mafia's and his henchmen siting in a store.
> >The henchman behind the cash register (while scratching his chin with the
> >back of his fingers) says in a deep voice "The Godfather says you owe him
> >three dollars for that pack of Columbian Gold.  (He scratches again) 
> >"Youall come back now, ya hear."  "Well, Godfather We have made 50 dollars
> >today. Good day, huh?"
> 
> Your "mental picture" has severe brain damage, but it reminds me of the

But, this is what some people were saying would happen, that the dealers
would open up stores and sell their merchandice there.

> 
> >[...] if they wanted to go into legal business, they would already do
> >so, they have the money to start any kind of business they want.
> 
> Nonsense.  The drug business is much more lucrative.
> 

My point exactly, and if drugs were not "more lucrative" they would find
something that was.

> 
> >[...]
> >how many times are they proven guilty (caught with their hands in the
> >cookie jar -er dope bag) and go free because of some technicallity, "the
> >police officer spit on the ground while arresting them, and some of it hit
> >on their shoes, your honor, therefore I request dismissal of all charges
> >since it is clearly a case of physical abuse.
> >
> >This is the legal counsel that I don't want them having.
> 
> Ignoring your ludicrous "spitting" example, it seems that your problem is

Overstated example (to make a point).  Too many loopholes exist that allow
persons get off scott free, when it is quite obvious they are guilty.  One
example, (this is from nightly news a couple years ago) a guy who was caught
with over 18 pounds of pot on him (not in his house or car) claimed that it
was planted on him without his knowledge.

> that says "people accused of drug violations may only hire crappy lawyers?"
> 
> Changing the law to eliminate the "technicalities" results in more
> convictions of drug dealers.  It also results in more convictions of
> innocent people.  

What "technicalities" do you think we should have that allows people caught
with hundreds of pounds of drugs go free because all the i weren't doted, 
and the t's all crossed.

> 
> Somehow, Larry has divine guidance that tells him when someone is guilty,
> even before a trial.  Perhaps he has found his calling:
> 
> Bailiff:	Next!
> Larry:		He's a scumbag drug dealer.  Guilty!  Take away his money,
> 		and throw him in jail.
> 
> Bailiff:	Next!
> Larry:		He's a major scumbag drug dealer.  Guilty!  Blow him off
> 		the face of the earth!
> 
> Bailiff:	Next!
> Larry:		She's a witch!  Guilty!  Burn her!
> 

I would never say this.  The correct statement is: "BURN her, She's a witch,
Burn her, BURN HER!!

Besides it was a fair trial, she did weigh the same as a duck.

Not only that, She turned me into a neut.  Well, I got better.


> (now I am ranting and foaming at the mouth!)
> 

Fun, isn't it.

> 
> >>>[...] how many more alcoholics do we have today than we had then?
> >> 
> >> I don't know.  Does the legality or illegality have much to do with it?
> >
> >I think so, more availability to more people.  A lot of people did not
> >drink during probitition because they didn't know where to get it or were
> >afraid to, the law, you know.
> 
> If that is true, then when prohibition was repealed, the number of
> alcoholics would have soared.  Did it?
> 

I hear that it is higher today than ever in history.
> 
> 
> Which shows that the laws (Navy rules) against drugs stop people from
> getting help when they need it.
> 

Military rules are much more stringent than civilian.

> 
> >> Deaths by substance, [...]
> >> Deaths by substance, per user, [...]
> >
> >since legal ones cause the most deaths legalizing news ones should help them
> >catch up with the leaders.
> 
> What a wonderful leap of logic: legal substances have higher death rates,
> therefore legality causes the higher death rates?  Sorry, you'll have to
> better than that.

Legality means more availability.
Larry Billings
Newsgroups: hsv.general