From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: drug wars (was re: VP debates)
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 16:55:24 GMT

Note crossposting.

In <1992Oct15.113548.59731@cc.usu.edu> fajack@cc.usu.edu writes:
> (Dave Sill) writes:
>>Question: if you support the repeal of Prohibition but not legalization of
>>other drugs, why not?  The parallels are clear.
> But there is a very major difference between drugs and alcohol.  You will get
>addicted to drugs very quickly.

Perhaps you should be more specific about what you mean by "addicted to
drugs" and what particular drugs you are referring to.

>			Occasionally, I'll have a beer or two, and
>never touch it again for maybe over a month.

"Occasionally, I'll have a joint or two, and never touch it again for
maybe over a month."

"Occasionally, I'll have a hit or two of acid, and never touch it again
for well over a month."

Both of these are equivalent things that I've heard either myself or other
people I know saying.  What's your point?

>					But I don't think I could say the
>same for drugs.  From what I heard, after you have it the first time, you
>just crave for more.  You just cannot compare the two.

"What You Heard".  "I Hear" and "They Say" are two of the biggest liars
going.

I crave chocolate.  Does that mean I'm addicted?  I don't crave any of
the drugs I have ever taken, including alcohol and marijuana.  Does that
mean that chocolate is a worse drug than either of those?

For a PHYSICAL addiction to heroin, one that leads to withdrawal symptoms
(which incidentally are comparable to a bad bout of the flu), one has to
hit the needle very regularly with a very high grade of dope.  If someone
desires escape enough, it's not hard for them to get there, but if a
person is just trying to see what it's like they won't be instantly hooked.
For cocaine, there isn't even any demonstration of any kind of physical
addiction or withdrawal symptoms--period.

Emotional or "psychological" addictions can be gotten for ANYTHING that
makes the idividual in question "feel better", whether it's a drug,
chocolate, television, music, sex, or whatever.  To talk about psychological
addiction to cocaine makes no more sense than to talk about psychological
addiction to television.  And the problem would best be solved by helping
the individual, not removing the thing.  I would bet that there are
documented cases of television addiction, but I don't hear society
screaming to outlaw TV.

>	I think to win the drug war is to attack the demand side (not the
>supply side).  For example, we can revoke driving license or impose jail
>sentence on those people who buys drugs.  As long as there is demand, there
>is always supply to meet those demand.  Look at the oldest profession in the
>world.   It still exists because there is always demand for it. 

And you will never eradicate demand for prostitution or drug use without
brainwashing the entire citizenry.  Somehow that seems contrary to the
principles of freedom.


Altered states of mind are second nature to humans.  Why do you think
4 and 5 year olds spin around until they're so dizzy they can't stand?
It's fun.  Why do you think that religious of all types over the years
have put themselves voluntarily through intense hardships in search of
mystical experiences?  There's nothing wrong with any of these things,
as long as they are self-regulated reasonably.  In cases where they
aren't self-regulated, the problem is inherent in the person's ability
to self-regulate, NOT the type of altered state they're seeking.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
   Suppose that you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of congress.
                              But I repeat myself.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15856 alt.politics.clinton:9399 talk.politics.misc:50564