From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 20:47:27 GMT

Just a couple comments on an otherwise good treatise....

strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:

>Absolutely NOT.  My reasoning does not say that the illegality of murder
>creates the crime.  Murder, in and of itself, would still be a crime
>even if there wasn't a law against it.

A better way to put it would be:  MURDER is obvious blatant breaching of a
person's rights (the ultimate violation of rights) by another person.  Drug
use involves only one person, the user.  The act of using drugs harms no
one.  If a user commits a crime, then punish him for the crime, not for 
the drugs.  Blaming the drugs for a person's criminal activity undermines 
society's already-tenuous hold on personal responsibility.  Users blame 
drugs for their actions because they know they can get away with it, just 
as alcohol intoxication was for a long time a legitimate excuse for driving 
like an idiot.


>The reason why the illegality of drugs causes drug violences include 1)
>Because of prohabition, drug prices are artificially high.  To satisfy

I hate to be so petty as to toss a spelling flame, but it's 'prohibition'.
I would not otherwise point this out, except for the fact that because we
advocate a social policy change that is counter to conventional wisdom, it
is imperative that we present ourselves as intelligent and informed.
Something as simple as a misspelling in a public forum could cause others
to dismiss our arguments for no other reason than poor English, no matter
how persuasive our arguments may be.

>Now, if these drugs were legalized, and a regulated industry was
>established to distribute these drugs, the following things would
>happen.  1) The price would drop, negating problem one in the first
>paragraph.  Because our government can easily undersell the mafia (when
>it wants too), people will buy drugs from the government INSTEAD of the
>mafia.  What's more, these government "clinics" would be full of
>medical personell, pamphlets, instructional videos, and so on... all
>designed to help people break their dependency on these drugs.  If drug
>use is treated as a disease, rather than a crime, there is a better
>chance of reducing it!  

At this point I have little faith in the government's ability to do this.
Government regulation?  Yes.  Government vending?  No.  I'd much rather see
free enterprise take its own course.  I think this will reduce the black
market much more effectively.

You also make the assumption that drug use is a problem in and of itself.  
I don't believe that any more than someone asserting that everyone who 
drinks is an alcoholic.  I would be so bold as to suggest that most people
can and will (and do) use recreational drugs responsibly. Unfortunately, 
there will always be those who will abuse substances regardless of their 
legal status.  If these people ask for help, I think it should be provided,
but it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
        "Go on and pollute the land -- clean air will be sold in cans
  Did you hear the master plan? One nation under Disneyland!"-Peter Schilling
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.individualism