trc@hou5a.UUCP (02/08/84)
.
smu!salomon:
1) What would be the difference if the US government cut the
nuclear force down to that which would destroy the USSR only(sic)
once. Seriously why buy weapons that can never all be used?
A common argument is the "guaranteed counter-strike capability" -
that is, have enough that by the time enough USSR missiles have hit to
convince us to fire back, we will have enough to throw back to make it
worth their while not to do it in the first place. And of course, since
we dont know the answer to "what will make it 'not worthwhile' for the
Soviets?" - it has seemed better to err on the side of over-estimation.
2) legalize marijuana. Sell 20 packs of joints for $5.00. cost of
producing product < $1.00/ 20, government tax $4.00/ 20. the
sales would make a dent in the deficit, and give the government
more working cash.
I would agree with legalization of all drugs - I think government controls
have kept prices high enough that *real* criminals have a virtual monopoly
on drugs. Legalize them with *no* tax (lest a black market continue to
thrive). "Hard" drugs would also be legalized - but they would require a
prescription to get, and any drug addict could legally buy his drug(s).
Cocaine would probably fall into the "soft" drugs category. The same goes
for other "social" drugs - IE those that people have been able to "handle"
at least to the extent of continuing to lead productive lives.
Pushers would die out as the "speak-easy" did - they could only get "first
time customers" - once their customers got addicted, they would go to a doctor
for a prescription. There would be fewer deaths and "bad trips", as those
are often caused by impurities, not the drug itself.
Finally - I am not an advocate of drug use - but the current system is
no better than the previous Prohibition - in fact, it is worse for having
been done without constitutional basis. Society did not collapse when
liquor was made legal again. Yes, there are bad effects of drugs - but
laws do not keep people from getting them, and so do not prevent the bad
effects, in any case. All they do is make it popular to flaunt the law,
make work for more bureaucrats, and provide another un-real issue for
politicians to use to direct people's attention away from things of real
importance, such as the decline of freedoms and rights in the US.
Tom Craver
hou5a!trc
P.S. - "Rock 'n Roll".sebb@pyuxss.UUCP (S Badian) (02/08/84)
I seem to remember a friend of mine, who is a sociology major, telling me that heroin is legal in Great Britian. All heroin addicts are registered and get their heroin through the government. Can anyone produce more information on this subject, or must I call my friend for the real scoop? (She did a paper on the subject.) Sharon Badian
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (02/09/84)
I know that heroin is legal in GB for terminal cancer patients for cases where morphine does not do any more good. I do not know more about this though. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley