From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:40:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr8.171329.10239@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:

>Tangent on the issue.  Increased usage effects of legalization for 
>alcohol and drugs will not be similar at all.  Drugs (except pot) 
>are *extremely* addictive.  So addictive, in fact, that a
>one-time experiment can lead to a life-time addiction.  That cannot
>be said for alcohol and that is why they are different.  
  
We have a winner!  Truth by Blatant Assertion Award for the day!

*Some* drugs MAY be addictive.  *Some* are NOT.  There are *NO* drugs
that anyone is aware of in which one use leads to addiction in all people.
According to some, there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, in which
one drink CAN lead to alcoholism.  Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

The fact is, addiction is a poorly defined term and should not be used
in a debate about drugs.  According to some, "Gambling" is an addiction.
Now it is obvious that there is nothing chemical about gambling that
would make it more addictive than marijuana.   Why is it so obvious that 
'drugs' (as if there WERE any such thing; 'drugs' is a generic term used
to refer to 'chemicals the government doesn't like.') would be this way?

>Further, if legalized, the big pharmaceutical companies would take
>over.  They would develop drugs, which are 90%-95% addicting 
>on the first try.  Picture samples being mailed to every home
>in the country.  I think this would be a problem.  Remember,
>these are the same people that are busy mapping all your
>genes.  (please don't think i am a conspiracy nut.)

I think you're a conspiracy nut.  :)
*Assuming* that your comment about 90-95% addicting makes sense, which I
disagree with, so?  If it could be done, ILLEGAL drug dealers will do it.  
And it's a LOT easier to regulate big pharmaceutical companies than
illegal drug dealers.  Besides, other companies would develop substances 
which will block these addictions.

>I believe that there is hope for winning the "war on drugs".

Even if there were, another question MUST be asked first -- WHY?  What
gives us the right to tell someone that he or she can't use drugs if he
or she wants to?

>But the current plan won't work.  The guys at the top are
>not touchable.  The guys at the bottom have nothing to loose.
>The guys in the middle are vulnerable, but there are lots of
>dealers waiting to take their place.  I think with a super
>effort to stop money laundering, the middle guys can be
>squeezed out.  Stop the ability to spend the profit and 
>you stop the drug sales.  This is sort of the way they got Capone.

No, stop the PROFIT and you stop drug sales.  There is no such thing as
abolishing money laundering, unless you go to a totalitarian system in
which the government has to approve every transaction made.  And even
then, as long as there's lots of money involved, you can get around it.
It's called 'bribery.'

>---dmg

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty