ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/12/86)
In article <720@scc.UUCP>, steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > > The 9/15/86 *Time* had some revealing statistics. > The one I found most interesting is " . . . more people (570) > died from appendicitis last year than from cocaine abuse (563)." [p. 64] > I find it immposible to minimize the dangers of drug abuse from such com- parisions. Appendicitis certainly does not contribute to the crime rate. Nor does it lead to anti-social behaviour in any way. Those with appendicitis also do not cause others to contract it such as is the case with those who abuse drugs and encourage others to do the same. Unlike drug abuse, illnesses do not ordinarily lead young people into chemical dependency such that their lives are controlled in destructive manner by those chemicals. Mental hospitals have a lot of victims in them from drug abuse rather than from appendicitis. But enought, the concept of using silly comparisions to maximize or minimize something is a ploy that has been used by either side for years, usually unsucessfully. ray
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (09/13/86)
In article <20756@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <720@scc.UUCP>, steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: >> >> " . . . more people (570) >> died from appendicitis last year than from cocaine abuse (563)." [p. 64] >> >I find it immposible to minimize the dangers of drug abuse from such com- >parisions. Appendicitis certainly does not contribute to the crime rate. Nor >does it lead to anti-social behaviour in any way. You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco use? -- - Joe Buck {hplabs,fortune}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck, nsc!csi!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California (pesnta has been dead for two weeks, please don't reply through pesnta)
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/15/86)
In article <463@epimass.UUCP>, jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: > You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but > harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol > (25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain > to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco > use? > Knowing how harmful legalizing drugs such as alcohol and tobacco has been, how can you advocate legalizing still more harmful drugs into our society? Haven't we learned anything from this? I've been addicted to tobacco for many years now. If other controlled drugs had been legal 20 years ago, I could be addicted to those also. As I said, I'm addicted to tobacco, but I'm not ignorant nor insensitive enough to advocate the use of this horrible killer. I became addicted when I was too young to realize the consequences, just as our young people today are doing drugs and not giving the consequences enough thought. Tobacco in general takes much longer to become addicting than a lot of todays' popularly abused drugs. By the time young kids realize the dangers they could be addicted and then it is too late. ray
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/15/86)
In article <981@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > "The Drug Crackdown is the McCarthyism of the 80's"!! > > I suggest people do all in their power, write letters to the editor, > write their Congresspeople, and whatever possible to stop this new > facism before it gets started. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Yes, I'll write letters, but not the kind you want. My letters will be to opose drug abuse and fight the legalization of their use. The drug crack- down is long overdue. I'm all for using the military in this war on drugs. What better use of our soldiers than to protect the welfare of our young people here at home. Say no to drugs. ray
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/16/86)
> > "The Drug Crackdown is the McCarthyism of the 80's"!! > > > > I suggest people do all in their power, write letters to the editor, > > write their Congresspeople, and whatever possible to stop this new > > facism before it gets started. > > It is getting worse!! There is a bill before congress > that attempts to limit the exclusionary rule, give the military > police powers, and institute the death penalty in certain drug > dealing cases! Note that the states, who formerly had the > power to legislate drug use (pot is decriminalized in Alaska) > will have that power weakened, the death penalty, likewise, > is a state issue. It strikes me that the centralization of > police athority is an extremely bad idea. Who will police > the police? Especially if the police are tautological with > the most powerful military organization in the world? > > I am writing my congressperson and I am using the arguments > sketched in the article referenced on the top and my other > article "The War On Drugs is Mind Control and Colonialism." > I wonder if that article made it everywhere because I have been > getting much response to the article refered to in the title, > but none on the other. > > Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software Using the military as a *police* force is particularly scary when you see its results in both past history and other countries. Are people so stupid as to forget that it was precisely engaging the military in these sorts of police activities in Latin American countries which led to death squads in El Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries?? (Oh, I forgot. Somehow the Death Squads in all these countries were never front-page news like true-blue enemy "terrorists". Death Squads, we all know, are not "terrorists", just maintaining order via the firm hand of random execution!) Moreover, giving this sort of power to the military can be a grave threat to civilian control and our democracy. By being restricted to the primary function of simply defending us against outside invasion, the military has not acquired domestic power of its own. To break down that barrier is *VERY DANGEROUS*. tim sevener whuxn!orb
suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) (09/16/86)
In article <463@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but >harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol >(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain >to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco >use? I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't have to? But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol users. -- Maurice Suhre {decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
nose@nbires.UUCP (Steve Dunn) (09/16/86)
In article <20810@rochester.ARPA>, ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >As I said, I'm addicted to tobacco, but I'm >not ignorant nor insensitive enough to advocate the use of this horrible killer. >I became addicted when I was too young to realize the consequences, just as >our young people today are doing drugs and not giving the consequences enough >thought. Tobacco in general takes much longer to become addicting than a lot >of todays' popularly abused drugs. By the time young kids realize the dangers >they could be addicted and then it is too late. > Gee, when I was young I heard that tobacco was bad for your health. I didn't seem to have the slightest difficulty understanding this fact. You know I don't make any claims to having been some sort of child prodigy either. I think even a ten year old would have to be deaf and blind to not hear of the bad consequences of tobacco. I might also take this opportunity to point out that not all illegal drugs are addictive. Pot, LSD, mushrooms, peyote are examples of non-addictive drugs which are still illegal. -Steve "Piss bottles for God and Country" Dunn
susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (09/16/86)
> Knowing how harmful legalizing drugs such as alcohol and tobacco has been, how > can you advocate legalizing still more harmful drugs into our society? > Haven't we learned anything from this? I've been addicted to tobacco for > many years now. If other controlled drugs had been legal 20 years ago, I > could be addicted to those also. As I said, I'm addicted to tobacco, but I'm > not ignorant nor insensitive enough to advocate the use of this horrible killer. > I became addicted when I was too young to realize the consequences, just as > our young people today are doing drugs and not giving the consequences enough > thought. Tobacco in general takes much longer to become addicting than a lot > of todays' popularly abused drugs. By the time young kids realize the dangers > they could be addicted and then it is too late. > > ray I too was "addicted" to tobacco when I was too young to know any better. I decided to stop smoking and, therefore, I no longer smoke. Quitting wasn't fun. However I didn't need military intervention, nor government mandate nor police harrassment to make me quit. Do you really expect to get a lot of respect from kids who see that their elders drugs of choice are legal? Need I bring up the overwhelming success of Prohibition? Susan Finkelman {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (09/17/86)
> I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems > on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't > have to? > > But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have > to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol > users. And it would be similar for cocaine users as well if the government didn't try to hard to keep the prices high.
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (09/17/86)
In article <1302@trwrb.UUCP> suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes: >In article <463@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but >>harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol >>(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain >>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco >>use? > I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems > on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't > have to? We already have the "third problem". Millions use illegal drugs. Why are we prepared to trample the Constitution in our hysteria about it? > But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have > to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol > users. That's because tobacco and alcohol are legal. Pharmaceutical (sp?) cocaine is around a dollar a gram. The high price is entirely due to the illegality. Also, how many deaths are due to impurities or because the user is getting a much stronger concentration than s/he is used to? Answer: almost all of them, in the case of heroin. I have no idea for cocaine. Another point: when I was 14, no liquor store would sell me beer. Yet anyone would sell me marijuana. To get drugs away from children, legalize and regulate them. Making the penalties for selling cigarettes to minors as severe as those for selling alcohol to minors would help also (i.e. store loses license to sell tobacco). -- - Joe Buck {hplabs,fortune}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck, nsc!csi!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California
falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (09/18/86)
> We already have the "third problem". Millions use illegal drugs. > Why are we prepared to trample the Constitution in our hysteria > about it? > I read something interesting in one of the SF papers today. The Reagan administration has cut funding for drug treatment by more than 46% since they came into power. Reagan's 'war on drugs' will restore only *part* of that funding. I don't think this administration is at all concerned with helping people at all, it's just a power grab. This business of assigning civilian police powers to the military really gives me the heebie-jeebies. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems falk@sun.com sun!falk
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/18/86)
In article <1302@trwrb.UUCP> suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes: >In article <463@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but >>harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol >>(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain >>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco >>use? > I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems > on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't > have to? > > But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have > to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol > users. You walked right into this one - they did murder and steal for alcohol during prohibition. An extremely strong case can be made that the damage to society (crime, health costs etc) of a drug of any sort is *higher* when the drug is illegal. When a drug is illegal: a) the mystique of doing something forbidden tends to increase use. b) demand for the drug, and the lack of legitimate channels of supply force the prices way up. c) Extremely high prices: - force users to steal to support their habit - attract organized crime to the market - the high amounts of money involved result in other crimes d) People in trouble with the drug tend to try to avoid treatment How much crime would you expect to see resulting from a drug if the cost for a day's worth of "tripping" was $1 instead of $1000? Not much. If they legalized cocaine tomorrow I would suspect that usage would go up somewhat (not all that much), and the crime rate would go down sharply (excluding "possession" that is) and the health costs wouldn't change much. I bet you won't find many "dealers" in favour of decriminalization! Of *course* alcohol and tobacco are "dangerous" drugs. And, of *course* more people die from either one of them than from all the other drugs combined. But, a lot more of alcohol or tobacco is consumed than coke or whatever. And the high rates of consumption are *not* because they're legal/illegal *now*, but because of the history of our culture. The other drugs are not part of the majority's history. And, they're far more dangerous (with the notable exception perhaps of pot) on a per-individual basis. If they legalized these drugs tomorrow the mystique would be gone, the criminal involvement the day after, and many of the addicts a few years from now: - would no longer be the "in" thing to do - fewer starting on drugs. - people being able to seek treatment without fear of the law. - pushers no longer having incentive to push. And, Miami Vice would go off the air! (Yay! Worth it for that alone!) -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/18/86)
In article <445@madvax.UUCP>, susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: > I too was "addicted" to tobacco when I was too young to know any better. I > decided to stop smoking and, therefore, I no longer smoke. Quitting wasn't > fun. However I didn't need military intervention, nor government mandate > nor police harrassment to make me quit. Do you really expect to get a > lot of respect from kids who see that their elders drugs of choice are > legal? Need I bring up the overwhelming success of Prohibition? > Some things are easier to decide to stop doing than others. If you'd become addicted to crack or speed or whatever when you were young, number 1, you may not have been able to kick the habit, and number too, if you did, your brain might have been irreversibly damaged by the time you stopped. Do you really expect to get a lot of respect from kids when they see their elders breaking the law, such as doing harmful and illegal drugs? Prohibition? Too bad it didn't work. Twenty five thousand people a year every year would be alive to enjoy prohibition rather than a grave. Another 500,000 people per year would not be severly injured, trying to enjoy life from a hospital room or wheel chair. These two drugs, alcohol and tobacco, have wiped out more people then all the wars in our history, so why not introduce more drugs into our society? ray
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/18/86)
In article <890@nbires.UUCP>, nose@nbires.UUCP (Steve Dunn) writes: > Gee, when I was young I heard that tobacco was bad for your health. I didn't > seem to have the slightest difficulty understanding this fact. Gee, when were you young, when all the dangers were known about tobacco? You don't deserve a feather in your cap for knowing something that everyone else also knew. When I was young, they just began to suspect that tobacco might be linked to this or that disease. Almost every smoked then, 65,000,000 to be exact. Unfortunately, there are still over 30,000,000 smokers in spite of all the dangers. ray
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/19/86)
In article <470@epimass.UUCP>, jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: > > That's because tobacco and alcohol are legal. Pharmaceutical (sp?) > cocaine is around a dollar a gram. The high price is entirely due to > the illegality. Again, there are over 35 million tobacco addicts and 20 million alcohol addicts. This is because of the easy availability of said drugs. With cocaine and many other drugs being so addictive, there most likely would be more addicts than alcohol and tobacco addicts combined if drugs were legalized. > > Also, how many deaths are due to impurities or because the user is > getting a much stronger concentration than s/he is used to? Answer: > almost all of them, in the case of heroin. I have no idea for > cocaine. This just furthers my point concerning the problems associated with legalizing drugs. Drugs are so addicting, that even at great personal risk, people still use them. If they are made legal, then how many more people would become addicted? > Another point: when I was 14, no liquor store would sell me beer. > Yet anyone would sell me marijuana. To get drugs away from children, > legalize and regulate them. Making the penalties for selling > cigarettes to minors as severe as those for selling alcohol to minors > would help also (i.e. store loses license to sell tobacco). > Good point, but not one in your favor. It just emphasizes the growing drug problem: pushers getting kids hooked on drugs. When I was 14, it was very easy to get alcohol. We just paid a little more for a quart of beer. Some older person would get it for us. This is exactly what will happen if drugs are legalized. Kids will still have very easy access to them. They will be very cheap, so kids will be able to buy drugs in very large quantities. Just as there is an underground market for alcohol for under age kids, there will exist an underground market for drugs. Remember, the highest cause of death of kids between the ages of 14 and 20 is alcohol related car accidents. It can thus be seen that legalizing a dangerous substances does not minimize its' danger. Wake up, reality is all around you ready to replace your fantasy land. ray
gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) (09/19/86)
In article <1302@trwrb.UUCP> suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes: >In article <463@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but [note: this is in resonse to comparisons of # of cocaine deaths vs. # of appendicitis deaths, etc.] >>harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol >>(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain >>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco >>use? > I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems > on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't > have to? > The problem here is not that alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL, but that they are so ACCEPTED. Because of the fact that they are taken for granted in society, and their use is socially acceptable (if falling out of fashion), we (as a society) assume that young people will be able to make their own decisions about how to use them. BUT (and this is the main point) WE DON'T EVER TEACH YOUNG PEOPLE WHAT THESE DRUGS CAN DO AND LET THEM GAIN SOME [LIMITED] EXPERIENCE WITH THEM. THE AVERAGE PERSON DOESN'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT LEGAL [OR ILLEGAL] DRUGS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. This doesn't mean I think people should smoke or drink, but that they should be free to make that decision on their own. Society's place is to present them with information and help them out if they feel that they can't handle it once thy've started. > But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have > to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol > users. And neither would drug users if the drugs weren't sold on the black market, which always has high prices for its commodities (how expensive was alcohol during prohibition?). If drugs were legal, the competition in the market would drive prices down to the point where stealing wouldn't be necessary. In addition, it would bring the grower/producer and distributor under all the same regulations that govern tobacco and alcohol and provide a measure of control against young (<~15 or 16) people getting ahold of drus that are harmful. [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same effect? >Maurice Suhre GKB
csanders@amdcad.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) (09/20/86)
In article <20811@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <981@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> "The Drug Crackdown is the McCarthyism of the 80's"!! >> >> I suggest people do all in their power, write letters to the editor, >> write their Congresspeople, and whatever possible to stop this new >> facism before it gets started. >> tim sevener whuxn!orb > >Yes, I'll write letters, but not the kind you want. My letters will be to >opose drug abuse and fight the legalization of their use. The drug crack- >down is long overdue. I'm all for using the military in this war on drugs. >What better use of our soldiers than to protect the welfare of our young >people here at home. Doesn't the military have enough to do already? Wouldn't it be better to spend some money on the DEA or the Coast Guard? After all, those two organizations are responsible for keeping imported drugs out of the U.S. It seems like the public wants a 'quick fix' to a problem that doesn't have any easy answers. The only way to really fight drug abuse is to persuade (there's an ambiguous word!) people not to demand drugs. You do this through education, social pressure, and information about the harmful effects of drugs. The proportion of Americans who smoke is down significantly from 20 years ago because smokers know that it damages their health, and a great many non-smokers won't tolerate smoking in the workplace or in public places like restaurants. The government arrests all of the smugglers and dealers it can find, but it doesn't make much difference since there are always scummy people waiting to make money on drugs. Get rid of the demand, and there won't be a drug problem. I realize that this is a difficult task, but people's attitudes can change. Just look how much the attitude towards racial discrimination has changed in the past 100 years or so. > >ray -- Craig Anderson Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-3007 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!csanders #include <disclaimer.h>
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/20/86)
In article <3107@columbia.UUCP>, zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) writes: > In article <1251@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >> > "The Drug Crackdown is the McCarthyism of the 80's"!! > > [more twisted thoughts deleted] > > Don Steiny writes: > >> It is getting worse!! There is a bill before congress > > [additional twisted thoughts deleted] > > This is net.med and its purpose is to support a discussion about medical > issues. It's pretty clear that neither of you has anything creative to say > about a medical field. Please, redirect your postings to elsewhere. I have talk.poltics.misc in the header line. For political and religious reasons we have given the medical profession outragous powers. That is an other issue. Execpt for alcohol and tobacco the only people that can legally push drugs are doctors (they made a killing during prohibition perscribing whiskey). It is a medical issue because we live in a society where it seems reasonable that the medical profession should have control over behavior. As ludicrous as this is, it generates considerable overlap between medicine, politics, and religion. > > Both of you seem to be missing an elementary fact, necessary to understand > the difference between a drug use and a tobacco use. Regardless of the > unquestionable harm implied by both substances, this society has decided > (for whatever reasons) to accept only one of them, namely tobacco. > It's probably because of the reasonably safe end deterministic behaviour > of the addicts (and if they want to die, fine). In the United States, we have the freedom to question laws. Remember that at one time alcohol was illegal, but we decided that it was a mistake to make it illegal. The reasons why various drugs are illegal are well documented parts of US history. What are you? A communist? You sould like a communist to me. Obey the law and don't question the state! Wake up buddy! This is America. > BUT and this is a big but, if you want to use drugs you MUST do something > ILLEGAL in order to obtain them. And there are fortunately still some > people around that do believe in a law. This is circular. They are illegal because there are laws against them. > > So if you want to disscuss whether or not the drugs are harmful > and you find somebody here willing to waste his time, go right ahead. Gee, thanks! > Meanwhile, stop writing the letters to your congressmen and think > a little bit about what you are saying. Hmm, I know what year every drug was made illegal. I know which congresspeople were instrumental in generating the legislation, I know the social conditions that prevailed at the time. I know the chemical composition of most drugs or I can look it up in a moment. I know the receptor sites in the brain that the drugs bind to (for those that do such things), and much more. You just said that you do know even know why some drugs are illegal and others not! YOU are telling ME that I should think? It looks to me like your knee is jerking. > And don't forget that there > are some of us, who not only don't want to live surrounded by drug > addicts but > . . .also don't sit quiet and make sure proposals like yours > don't get very far. I, for one always will. > zdenek I proposed that we do not loose our heads over a problem that is media and political hype and recind the constitution in the process. Are you saying that you are going to try to recind the constitution? That's what we're afraid of! -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz) (09/21/86)
I think the "Drug Problem" will never be over in this country until drugs are legalized. I think that the DEA and others involved in stopping the flow of drugs into this country have a vested interest in keeping enough drugs coming through that their jobs are safe. I also think that many drug dealers are solidly against legaization for the same reason. Remember the bit about moon-shiners reminding preachers to give a hell-and-brimstone sermon against drinking the Sunday before a vote on allowing alcohol sales in dry counties? Politics make strange bedfellows. -- Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division) Bell Labs HR 2A-214 201-615-5178 (no CORNET) ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin or ihnp4!opus!jin Isn't it interesting how the beautiful little red flower in the forest becomes so ugly when you discover it's a candy wrapper.
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (09/21/86)
In article <1302@trwrb.UUCP> suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes: >In article <463@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>You're right, Ray. A fairer comparison would be to legal, but >>harmful, drugs like tobacco (350,000 deaths a year) and alcohol >>(25,000 deaths in drunk driving wrecks alone). Can you explain >>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco >>use? > I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems > on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't > have to? > > But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have > to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol > users. > >-- >Maurice Suhre > >{decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre I hear the above argument used over and over again, 'Alcohol and tobacco aren't as bad because they don't cause crime'. The reason they don't cause crime is because they are not illegal! In the first place the number of drug users who steal to support their habit is very small in comparison to the total number of users. In the second place if the drugs were legal they would be much much cheaper. The laws of economics guarantee this. Many drug users smoke and drink too, but they don't need to steal for these habits because they only cost a couple of dollars a day. If heroin and cocaine were legal and cheap, these people would not have to steal, their habits would no longer be illegal, and the only detrimental effect they would be having would be on themselves and possibly their children. In this case we take away their children, just like they do now with alcoholics. The intelligent thing to do is to stop wasting money on the enforcement of unenforceable laws and spend it on educational programs. It has been shown that education works (look at the drop in tobacco use) and I believe that the US could substantially reduce its drug problem in only a couple of years. This approach would stop making criminals of millions of casual users who are hurting no one. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz) (09/21/86)
> These two drugs, alcohol and tobacco, have > wiped out more people then all the wars in our history, so why not introduce > more drugs into our society? > > ray I think the drugs are quite introduced into our society. At this point the question is what is the least damaging to society: legalizing drugs, continuing on our current path, or an all out war. Drugs (of one sort or another) have been a part of society since the first time people ate fermented fruit, drank the liquid the floats on sour dough, or munched on one of the myriad of psychogenic plants or animals. Cross-species data indicates that birds seek out and eat fermenting fruits getting quite intoxicated in the process. I'm sure there are many other examples, I'm just not up on ethology. I think that overwhelming proportion of damage done to society "by drugs" is a direct or indirect effect of the non legal status of the drugs. -- Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division) Bell Labs HR 2A-214 201-615-5178 (no CORNET) ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin or ihnp4!opus!jin Isn't it interesting how the beautiful little red flower in the forest becomes so ugly when you discover it's a candy wrapper.
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/22/86)
In article <374@necntc.UUCP>, gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) writes: > [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said > that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have > turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that > regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so > why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same > effect? The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile. You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs. Does some moral code of ethics exist out there that would prevent someone from selling alcohol to minors but would alow the selling of illegal drugs to minors? I think you've been led astray by some of your siblings' high-school-age friends. Even if this were true, what is your point, that we should alow kids to have alcohol so that they will use less drugs? Now my point. If drugs are made legal, kids will have even easier access to them, just as they currently have easy access to alcohol. Just as they have always had easy access to alcohol. But a more frightening point is that these legal drugs will now be cheap. A kid could spend his lunch money on some drugs and be wacked out for days. Can you imagine a 'pack of coke' costing the equivelent of a pack of cigarettes with enough 'blast' to last the day? The next time you are driving by a school play ground, please observe all the kids in the area smoking. Also realize that it is against the law for minors to purchase tobacco products, but there they are, smoking away, with no one admonishing them for it. So here we have a regulated legal substance with kids having absolutely no problem obtaining it. So much for your theories on regulation and legalization. ray
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (09/23/86)
In article <20976@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <374@necntc.UUCP>, gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) writes: >> [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said >> that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have >> turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that >> regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so >> why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same >> effect? > > The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of >words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile. >You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were >raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs. Well, perhpas you'd best check your sources! At the High School level, there's always sombody around the school or hangout with some pot for sale or share. Beer's not that hard to get, but it is harder to bring to market, bulky, hard to hide or usually requires considerable aggravation to get someone with an older brother or fake id to make a run. Another trend takes place at the 18-20 year age group. In this case, these people have to shift from social drinking in public places, where drugs are apt to be discouraged to private partying, where controls are far more vague. Face it, the issues are far more complicated than either side would like to admit, and values are apt to change depending on age and family status... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) (09/23/86)
In article <8591@duke.duke.UUCP> rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes: >In article <1302@trwrb.UUCP> suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes: >>In article <463@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>>Can you explain >>>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco >>>use? >> I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems >> on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't >> have to? >> I still stand by the above paragraph. >> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have >> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol >> users. I've been somewhat convinced by the arguments that illegal substances cost way more than they would if available legally. >> Try this one. The majority of people that drink "socially" can enjoy the pleasures of alcohol without becoming addicted, damaging their lives, etc. Do the majority of cocaine users follow the same pattern? Or do almost all of them become abusers? The principle that I advance is the addictive power of the various substances under discussion. -- Maurice Suhre {decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/23/86)
> In article <374@necntc.UUCP>, gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) writes: > > [As an aside, some of my siblings' high-school-age friends have said > > that with the higher drinking age, they can't get alcohol, so they have > > turned to drugs. But that is another pet peeve.] The point is that > > regulating a legal drug has made it harder for "children" to get it, so > > why wouldn't legalizing and regulating illegal drugs have the same > > effect? > > The entire paragraph above is just about the most bullshit ridden group of > words assembled that I've seen in quite awhile. > You are saying that because the drinking ages for alcoholic consumption were > raised that kids can't get alcohol, but CAN get drugs. Does some moral code > of ethics exist out there that would prevent someone from selling alcohol to > minors but would alow the selling of illegal drugs to minors? I think you've Not a moral code. Liquor stores are afraid of losing their license. Drug dealers are completely unconcerned because they already operate illegally. > been led astray by some of your siblings' high-school-age friends. Even if > this were true, what is your point, that we should alow kids to have alcohol > so that they will use less drugs? > Now my point. If drugs are made legal, kids will have even easier access to > them, just as they currently have easy access to alcohol. Just as they have > always had easy access to alcohol. But a more frightening point is that > these legal drugs will now be cheap. A kid could spend his lunch money on > some drugs and be wacked out for days. Can you imagine a 'pack of coke' > costing the equivelent of a pack of cigarettes with enough 'blast' to last > the day? The next time you are driving by a school play ground, please > observe all the kids in the area smoking. Also realize that it is against > the law for minors to purchase tobacco products, but there they are, smoking > away, with no one admonishing them for it. So here we have a regulated legal > substance with kids having absolutely no problem obtaining it. So much for > your theories on regulation and legalization. > > ray Fine. A bunch of scum wack themselves out from cheap drugs. The REST of the population (which is the overwhelming majority) can get back to studying. You also seem to overlook that the illegality of drugs results in not only higher prices and profits for drug dealers, but the illegality of advertising price and availability makes it likely that a doper will go back to the same drug dealer that introduced them to the drug in question. This creates incentives for a drug dealer to give away free samples. If the profit is measured in the 1% range, and you have assurance that your customers will come back to you in particular, why give away drugs to get people hooked? Clayton E. Cramer
csanders@amdcad.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) (09/24/86)
In article <1568@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> . . . . I'm all for using the military in this war on drugs. >> >What better use of our soldiers than to protect the welfare of our young >> >people here at home. >> >> Doesn't the military have enough to do already? Wouldn't it be better >> to spend some money on the DEA or the Coast Guard? After all, those >> two organizations are responsible for keeping imported drugs out of >> the U.S.. ... > >The coast guard is already involved. Trouble is, they've been shot at with >anti-ship missiles and large-caliber machine guns in some cases, and they >haven't got the radars that can get a small, light plane skimming the >surface in the ``ground clutter''. The Navy *has* got these radars, and they >are equipped to deal with Soviet (and other) missiles that can be purchased >by smugglers with enough cash. The Coast Guard can deal with ships that have machine guns (their frigates have 5 in. guns). I have not heard of smugglers attacking the Coast Guard with anti-ship missiles. Please give references. The Navy and the Air Force already lend some support to the Coast Guard and the DEA by giving them information about ship and aircraft traffic. The House bill would give the military a more active role in hunting down smugglers, and would allow the military to actually make arrests. It is kind of strange that the President has declared a "War on Drugs", but doesn't want to spend much more money on the problem? 1) He want to use the military to crack down on smugglers, since the money is already allocated in the DoD budget. 2) His drive for drug-free schools and workplaces is laudable, but it puts the burden for fighting drugs on employers and the schools. 3) I read in the newspaper that he has cut funds over the last few years for drug rehabilitation. >> Get rid of the demand, and there won't >> be a drug problem. I realize that this is a difficult task, but people's >> attitudes can change. Just look how much the attitude towards racial >> discrimination has changed in the past 100 years or so. > >Great idea, but in the mean time, why not make the junk less available? Good idea, but law enforcement hasn't had much luck stemming the tide of drugs flowing in.... >How do you show someone what it's like to be so hard up for a fix that >you'll kill your parents, steal, so bent out of shape that you don't care >about anything but that next fix? Well, you could have someone who's been there talk to people about it. In high school I got the obligatory anti-drug lectures, but they didn't seem to have much impact on me or anyone else. But when our college dorm invited a former alcoholic and drug addict who got kicked out of Cal largely because of his substance abuse, it really hit close to home with some of the students there. Telling a teen-ager "Don't do drugs" without showing him/her the consequences of drug abuse is often futile because of the sometimes intense peer pressure to take drugs. > from Mole End Mark Terribile -- Craig Anderson Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-3007 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!csanders #include <disclaimer.h>
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/25/86)
gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) says: >> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have >> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol >> users. >And neither would drug users if the drugs weren't sold on the black >market, which always has high prices for its commodities (how expensive >was alcohol during prohibition?). If drugs were >legal, the competition in the market would drive prices down to the >point where stealing wouldn't be necessary. One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me, therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able to work. (In case you didn't notice, I'm not talking about the casual user or the social user, but the hard-core, can't-live-without-it addict.) -- _______________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- without a Terry Grevstad ECNALG Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry _______________________________________________________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
jwl@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (09/27/86)
Mr. Radouch may have intended this sarcastically, but his comments here are actually quite an accurate depiction of my feelings on the issue! Let me elaborate a bit: zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu.UUCP (Zdenek Radouch) writes: >>[Jim Lewis] >>I support legalized *possession* of all drugs; > >Right, after all everybody can synthesise (or grow) them at home by himself. Correct....so keeping such drugs out of the hands of recreational drug users will require massive invasions of privacy. > >> also legalized *sale* of all non-physiologically-addictive drugs > >Right, Screw yourself all you want as long as you don't become physiologically >addicted (psychological addiction is fine). Someone who knowingly uses addictive drugs is stupid. Someone who knowingly *sells* addictive drugs is unethical. The latter person is the one we want to bust! >> to people who are well-enough informed of the possible consequences. > >All you have to do is to take and pass DRUGS 101 with at least C+. YES! This really *is* what I'd like to see happen! Except with maybe a B as the passing grade.... >>Dangerously addictive drugs should not be sold (except maybe by prescription). > >Safely addictive drugs in the selected supermarkets. I've got news for you....I can walk down to the corner Safeway, and buy as much alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as I can carry! All addictive substances, and the first two aren't even all that safe. But this is as it should be... it's my choice to risk using these substances. I keep hearing references to a study that showed that nicotine is as addictive, possibly even more so, than heroin. Can someone (Craig?) give me a pointer to the study so I can verify this? >>[Would you sell alcohol to a minor...] if you knew you'd do time...? > >I would have to be more careful and it would cost the kid a hell of a lot more >money. Exactly the idea! That comment was put there to appease Ray Frank, who was concerned that lower prices for legalized drugs would lead to easy availability for children. This can be nullified by upping the penalty for unauthorized dealing. >> >>-- Jim Lewis >> U.C. Berkeley > >Verbum sat sapienti est. I don't speak Latin. What are you saying? >Zdenek Radouch Jim Lewis
piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) (09/29/86)
All this BS about escalating drug wars is ridiculous! We will gradually lose our civil rights and freedoms from these "drug wars", yet the drug problem will continue and, perhaps, escalate from all the attention! As long as people WANT drugs, they will get them! Consider incarcerated criminals-- they get drugs in prison!!!! They get them because they want them and are willing to pay. Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them? NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking them. Drugs will no longer be a problem when enough people CHOOSE, ON THEIR OWN FREE WILL, NOT TO USE DRUGS. They key to successful dealing with the drug problem is EDUCATION! Plain old truth about the risks must be known-- not "Reefer-Madness"-type hype. Credibilty must be established by the authorities. Kids must be made to BELIEVE the risks, through credible sources, so that they turn down drugs if they are offered them. Lastly, ask yourselves why YOU don't use drugs. Why didn't YOU accept undoubted offers of drugs when you were younger. Why don't YOU have a drug problem? Now.... help pass the same insights to others so thet they make their own choices. Don't get hysterical and promote laws that further chip away at our declining liberties. Bob
piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) (09/29/86)
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment: If you noticed someone driving a car erratically, posing an obvious threat to the safety of other motorists, yet knew the person hadn't taken any drugs, and you also knew that many other drivers were under the influence of ABCD (choose your drug), yet were driving safely, WOULD YOU ARREST THE DRUG USERS AND LET THE ERRATIC DRIVER CONTINUE??? The point I am trying to make is that peoples' ACTIONS should be the bottom line. If all drugs were legal, I wouldn't care what YOU used, as long as it didn't pose any threat to me. If I were an employer, why shouldn't I judge my employees by what they do? Why should an unreliable, poor-working employee, for example, who doesn't use drugs, get better treatment than a top-notch, reliable employee who does? Shouldn't both be considered upon their performance; their merits?? I suspect some readers will want to say "But, the drug user might have an excessive absenteeism rate or pose a threat to other employees.". If I had an employee who was excessively absent or threatened other employees, I wouldn't care much whether or not he were drug-free, but I'd be concerned about his actions. Its too easy to outlaw a substance, then arrest someone in possession of it; you can immediately see the "problem" being solved. Educating people, not only is difficult, but the effects take years to be noticed-- just look at tobacco usage, though people have been warned for quite some time. The pulicity of drug busts can get a lot of attention between elections, and is therefore more popular than combatting the root of the problem. Endangering others should be against the law. Just because someone commits a crime while "under the influence" is no excuse. They took a drug and it made them lose their ability to control themselves, therefore they should be punished. THEY MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!!!! Anyone making a choice to use a drug that might cause them to lose control must be aware of the sever penalties if they harm others. This is exactly how the laws regarding alcohol use are. Consuming alcohol is legal-- driving under the influence, or getting rowdy in public is grounds for arrest, as it should be. Perhaps those laws are too lenient. However, if someone wants to drink themselves to unconsciousness, in the privacy of their homes, who has the right to deny them of that?? Again, the point is not the drugs themselves, but the individual's ACTIONS AGAINST OTHERS that are the concern. Let us not lose sight of that. Don't forget the ineffectiveness of prohibition and the associated crimes it brought. Direct attention to the ROOT of the problem, not the symptoms. Redirect the drug war toward educating people ACCURATELY regarding the effects of drugs, then hope they have the desire to avoid drug use. Bob
nose@nbires.UUCP (Steve Dunn) (09/29/86)
Drug testing may have some... unanticipated results. Persons whose jobs
depend on passing a drug test who are drug users have several actions. One
of those actions, of course, is to quit taking drugs. Probably a significant
number will do so.
There may be another option however. If some psycho-active drugs are either
not tested for or cannot be tested for, then the user of drugs that are
detected by the tests has the option of switching to drugs that are not
detected. My personal experience is that some people seem impelled to use
some sort of drug, if not one than another.
LSD is a fantastically potent drug. The average dose is about 125
micrograms. A microgram is a millionth of a gram. This is speculation,
but I doubt that with a dose this small, enough would show up in the urine
to make it detectable. If I am correct than people like air traffic
controllers who will get fired for (probably offduty) use of pot and coke may
switch to acid. If I'm wrong about acid not being detectable than my argument
will apply to the first drug they don't screen for. If this has worse effects
on job performance then the problem (If there really is one) will get worse
because of drug testing.
-Steve "Piss bottles for god and country" Dunnray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/29/86)
In article <135@spectrix.UUCP>, clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > > You walked right into this one - they did murder and steal for alcohol > during prohibition. An extremely strong case can be made that the > damage to society (crime, health costs etc) of a drug of any sort > is *higher* when the drug is illegal. > We all know the damage that alcohol currently does to our society. I doubt 500,000 people annualy were killed or seriously wounded during prohibition. So much for your extremely strong case. In the paper this morning, a headline read 'Four young girls, ages 4 to 14 were killed by a drunken driver as they sat in their car IN THEIR DRIVEWAY waiting for their mother to come out of the house to drive them somewhere. The driver of the pickup truck crossed through their yard, into the driveway, rammed the car, crossed the yard, back out into the street, hit three other cars and came to a stop.' The driver wasn't hurt. Again, so much for your extremely strong case. Try convincing that family about the safety of legalizing dangerous chemical substances. > > > Of *course* alcohol and tobacco are "dangerous" drugs. And, of *course* > more people die from either one of them than from all the other drugs > combined. But, a lot more of alcohol or tobacco is consumed > than coke or whatever. And the high rates of consumption are *not* because > they're legal/illegal *now*, but because of the history of our culture. > The other drugs are not part of the majority's history. And, they're far > more dangerous (with the notable exception perhaps of pot) on a > per-individual basis. If they legalized these drugs tomorrow the mystique > would be gone, the criminal involvement the day after, and many of the addicts > a few years from now: > Legalizing drugs will make them part of our history just as tobacco and alcohol are now. The drugs could be so interwoven into our society that no matter how much damage they caused, there would never be any chance of getting rid of them, just as there is no chance of getting rid of tobacco and alcohol. These are vices that society will be forever burdened with. You believe that drug usage will go down if they are legalized. On what evidence do you base this assupmtion? What if you are wrong? Imagine a pack of crack costing less than a pack of cigarettes such that every curious kid in the nation can easily satisfy their curiosity, and get hooked in doing so. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, quite a few drugs will get you hooked in days rather than years. ray Legalizing dangerous chemical substances does not render them less dangerous.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/30/86)
> [Terry Grevstad] > One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it > virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me, > therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some > stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able > to work. (In case you didn't notice, I'm not talking about the casual > user or the social user, but the hard-core, can't-live-without-it > addict.) -------------- I can't live without food (and chocolate -) ), however, I have yet to steal to get either one. There may be some drugs which, by their very nature, make it impossible for the heavy user to hold a job, but heroin and cocaine are not among them. Legalization would greatly reduce the stealings and muggings for drug money, and the official corruption caused by drug money. Of course, legalization has its price. The social costs of legal alcohol and tobacco, due to their widespread use and lack of associated social stigma, far exceed those of illegal drugs. Legalization would solve one set of problems, and make worse another set of problems. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/30/86)
In article <720@nrcvax.UUCP>, terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: > > One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it > virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me, > therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some > stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able > to work. (In case you didn't notice, I'm not talking about the casual > user or the social user, but the hard-core, can't-live-without-it > addict.) > Well for one thing, it would be cheaper, so they would not have to steal as much. If the life of Dr. Steward Halsted, one of the founders of the John Hopkins Hospital, is any indication, large doses of morphine (and therefore heroin--di-acetyl morphine breaks down into morphine in 20 minutes or so), is not incompatible with holding a job. Alcohol is incompatible with holding most jobs, at least in excess. How much crime in our society is a result of people stealing to support their alcohol habit? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (09/30/86)
> One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it > virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. A good example of such a drug is alcohol. Do alcoholics steal? Probably yes, but less than other addicts, as they need less money to support their habits. -- Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxe!essachs
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (09/30/86)
In article <1313@trwrb.UUCP> suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes: >In article <8591@duke.duke.UUCP> rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes: >>In article <1302@trwrb.UUCP> suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes: >>>In article <463@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>>>Can you explain >>>>to me why cocaine use is worse for society than alcohol and tobacco >>>>use? >>> I don't have to. The principle is, if you have two problems >>> on your hands, should you acquire a third one if you don't >>> have to? >>> >I still stand by the above paragraph. >>> But for starters, I don't think that tobacco users have >>> to steal to support their "habit". Similar for alcohol >>> users. >I've been somewhat convinced by the arguments that illegal substances >cost way more than they would if available legally. >>> > Try this one. The majority of people that drink "socially" > can enjoy the pleasures of alcohol without becoming addicted, > damaging their lives, etc. Do the majority of cocaine users > follow the same pattern? Or do almost all of them become > abusers? The principle that I advance is the addictive > power of the various substances under discussion. >-- >Maurice Suhre > >{decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre Somehow my name was include in Maurice's posting although I couldn't find any text from my posting in it. Anyway I will answer this one. It is obvious that you do not know any drug users (notice I didn't say abusers). There are literally millions of casual drug users in this country. They use drugs in exactly the same way as people use alcohol. I personally know at least 50 people who are regular cocaine users. Most of them have been using cocaine for at least 10 years. They are well educated (many have graduate degrees), employed in good jobs, and in excellent physical shape. The reason you don't hear about these kind of people in the media is because they are afraid to be open about their use. Let me describe to you the way many people who use drugs in this country have to live. First of all, never ever admit to someone that you use drugs unless you know that person extremely well or you know that they also use drugs. Second, you basically only socialize with 'safe' people. Safe people are those who you are absolutely sure have liberal attitudes about drugs. The reason you have to live this way is because of the attitudes of people like you, Maurice. Too many people in this country automatically assume that if you use cocaine (or even pot) that you must be some kind of degenerate criminal. The media hype has only made this worse. I wish I could go into more detail about specific people and my personal experiences, but I can't. The dangers of admitting drug use or identifying someone as a drug user are too great. In my experience though, the majority of illegal drug users do not go on to become abusers any more than the majority of legal drug users go on to become abusers. Note: I cannot speak for crack users. I have heard that this form of coke is tremendously addictive. As it has not penetrated to many parts of the country I do not have any personal experience with this drug. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (10/01/86)
The truly bizarre thing about the Reagan administration going berserk over
the drug issue is that the drug trade is, on the whole, an instance of the
type of economic activity that all good Reaganites should approve of. We have
cut income transfer payments from the middle class to the ghettos and from the
rich nations to the Third World on the assumption that private initiative is
going to deliver the goods, amply replacing the lost welfare and foreign aid.
And this is precisely what happened: the drug trade is transferring tens
of billions from the suburbs to the inner cities and from the North to the
barrios in South America. It's all private initiative, marketing savvy,
inventiveness and risk-taking -- so what's the problem? Since we made the
Thirld World into a net exporter of capital to the U.S. [their interest
payments to international banks are exceeding new loans by something like
30 billion per year] - all that money has got to come from somewhere, no?
-----
Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gaborclewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (10/02/86)
In article <720@nrcvax.UUCP> terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: >One small question here: Some drugs taken often seem to make it >virtually impossible for a person to hold a job. It seems to me, >therefore, that even if drugs were cheap, there would still be some >stealing for drug money, because the addicted persons wouldn't be able >to work. I can't see how it would be any much different from people so addicted to alcohol that they can't work. You don't see much crime in support of that habit (even here, where the price of liquor is priced ridiculously high by the provincial Govt. (2 to 3 times that in the states)). Often welfare is enough to keep them in booze. Besides, they've probably destroyed themselves so thoroughly that they're unable to commit robberies of anybody sober enough to have any money... The worst they usually do is clutter up the parks/mess up the sidewalks... Even so, I'd chose that over prohibition any day. -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (10/02/86)
In article <21165@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <135@spectrix.UUCP>, clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >> >> You walked right into this one - they did murder and steal for alcohol >> during prohibition. An extremely strong case can be made that the >> damage to society (crime, health costs etc) of a drug of any sort >> is *higher* when the drug is illegal. >> >We all know the damage that alcohol currently does to our society. I doubt >500,000 people annualy were killed or seriously wounded during prohibition. I assume you're primarily talking about DWI. 500,000 are *not* being killed or seriously injured annually by alchol. You're off by at least an order of magnitude - the numbers are more like 50,000 - which I believe is actually the current *total* US highway carnage rather than just DWI. (It's about 5,000 in Canada) Further, there is some pretty strong indication (eg: the Texaco driver ed. program) that DWI accidents don't happen strictly because the driver is drunk, but that usually the driver was a really bad driver to begin with and alcohol was usually only a minor factor. I believe that some studies in Alberta and the US showed this interesting result. Further, illness attributable to alcohol is somewhat less. However, even disregarding the previous paragraph (except for the corrected fatality figure), take into account: 1) population increase 2) demographic differences 3) social differences (people are more likely to try different things now) that the numbers wouldn't be all that different. >Legalizing drugs will make them part of our history just as tobacco and alcohol >are now. The drugs could be so interwoven into our society that no matter how >much damage they caused, there would never be any chance of getting rid of them, >just as there is no chance of getting rid of tobacco and alcohol. No chance? What's happening now? The incidence of DWI is dropping pretty fast here, what with the high legal penalties for DWI offences plus other non-governmental programs. Most people are becoming far more aware (and perhaps mature) about what alcohol does *without* having to ban it from the vast majority who already are "handling it safely". Even more so with tobacco - unless I miss my guess completely, I strongly suspect that smoking will be virtually extinct in 10 years. Again, without banning it. Because: (a) virtually everybody knows it's dangerous, and (b) because the rest of society makes you feel pretty damn stupid about doing it. If the more dangerous drugs were made legal: 1) the mystique would be lost, and people would be more willing to believe the warnings about them. Especially since they're *far* more dangerous and the results a lot more direct. 2) You could get treated for drug addiction with less loss of self-esteem than for alcohol (the latter is considered to be more a "voluntary" addiction) 3) You could get treated for addiction without being arrested. 4) The people who make enormously large profits by pushing the crap at others will go elsewhere. >Legalizing dangerous chemical substances does not render them less dangerous. On an individual basis no. But society wide, perhaps. -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (10/02/86)
In article <15844@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>Verbum sat sapienti est. >I don't speak Latin. What are you saying? >>Zdenek Radouch >Jim Lewis Jim, I think he's trying for and almost saying, "A word to the wise is sufficient." Looks like some of the modern abbreviation that folks do to this kind of phrase. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)
suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) (10/02/86)
In article <746@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: ...lots of previous stuff deleted... >Alcohol is >incompatible with holding most jobs, at least in excess. This is true in some sense. However, there are an awful lot of "functional" alcoholics walking around out there gainfully employed. >How much >crime in our society is a result of people stealing to support their >alcohol habit? Hard to estimate, but assuming that you consume a quart of hard liquor a day (this is my estimate from listening to AA stories), the cost is about $8-10. Contrast this with the cost of supporting a cocaine or heroin habit. Assuming that alcoholics and addicts are both stealing, who is stealing the most? -- Maurice Suhre {decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/03/86)
(Reply to Ray, but as usual everyone else is addressed and welcome to respond. References to relevant studies welcome, especially if any exist that would help predict effect of *marijuana* legalization/decriminalization). < Kinda long, and more a statement than a reply > In article <1805@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <135@spectrix.UUCP>, clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >> >> You walked right into this one - they did murder and steal for alcohol >> during prohibition. An extremely strong case can be made that the >> damage to society (crime, health costs etc) of a drug of any sort >> is *higher* when the drug is illegal. >> >We all know the damage that alcohol currently does to our society. I doubt >500,000 people annualy were killed or seriously wounded during prohibition. Ray, please include sources for shocking statistics like this, as a matter of etiquette. However, I have a figure from the Readers Digest Almanac for alcohol related *fatalities* at 96 K, mostly their own from related illnesses, accidents (20K per year traffic, and nearly as many in *other* accidents), and suicides. 500 K/year *injured or* killed in alcohol related accidents and incidents may or may not be a little high; where did you get the figure, please? >So much for your extremely strong case. In the paper this morning, a headline ... >Again, so much for your extremely strong case. Try convincing that family >about the safety of legalizing dangerous chemical substances. Try convincing the families of people who died in the Mexicana jet crash that planes are safe... dramatic, but more heat than light. See below. >Legalizing drugs will make them part of our history just as tobacco and alcohol ... >assupmtion? What if you are wrong? Imagine a pack of crack costing less >than a pack of cigarettes such that every curious kid in the nation can easily >satisfy their curiosity, and get hooked in doing so. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, >quite a few drugs will get you hooked in days rather than years. Well, I don't agree with some of the things Chris said, but there's no need to try to shock him or us with ad-absurdum arguements, ie taking your own version of what he has said and inflating it into National Enquirer style headlines. My own suggestion would be to determine which currently illegal drugs, if any, would help *replace* alcohol as our national recreational drug *without* causing more problems than those solved by the reduced use (not prohibition) of alcohol. This may be naive on my part, to think that such drugs exist. But let's think about it. We can start by eliminating some candidates from our discussion. Crack apparently is much worse than alcohol. Heroin I'm not so sure of, but I wouldn't encourage its use. Cocaine I don't really know enough about, but I suspect it isn't a good candidate. Speed can't replace alcohol, not the same appeal. Ganja is the only major candidate I can see. No, pot is *NOT* absolutely safe. *Heavy* use will cause many of the same problems as habitual tobacco smoking. Use while driving or operating heavy equipment *could* be as bad as alcohol *if* the intoxication is maximal. But in practice, most people who use marijuana now do not get that "looped" habitually, and I suspect that the patterns of usage would evolve in ways that would not be causing tens of thousands of extra automobile fatalities per year, and that the combined toll from alcohol and pot together would actually decline significantly (*after* the first few years of adjustment). Of course, this is mere speculation, I have no scientific studies to support my proposal. And my view may be prejudiced by my experience with marijuana which was much weaker than I hear is available now. But I am not just saying this to weaken Ray's argument that "Alcohol is horrible, 'drugs' must be even worse; it's too late to prohibit alcohol, but not too late to prohibit 'drugs'"; I think that argument is weak enough already. I am concerned (but not hysterical) about alcohol abuse. I sincerely believe that there is a very good chance that legal and widely available marijuana (not so sure about any of the other drugs) would reduce alcohol abuse effects more than it would add pot abuse effects, in terms of traffic deaths and injuries, health effects (more cancer, but less cirrosis), loss of employment (pot is *relatively* non addicting, but also remains in blood longer), broken homes (pot makes you lazy, alcohol causes violence...oversimplified, of course...). Particularly coupled with a public campain to *replace* alcohol with pot, similar to present campains to quit smoking, or to not drive while drunk. I may be wrong about the tradeoffs, but it's worth looking into. Remember to seperate the two questions I raise: 1) *if* the tradeoff is as I say, does it justify *some* ills getting worse in order for larger ones to decrease? (philosophical, abstract question) 2) *would* the tradeoff be positive, or would we just have *even more* intoxicated drivers, absenteeism at work, and various alleged side-effects of pot such lowered scholarship, lowered sex drive, docility in the face of insane right wing politicians.... I *don't* claim to know the correct answer to '2', but I think it probable enough to be worth investigating. ('1' is not subject to proof, it is a value judgement. My choise obviously is in favor of "the greater good", in this example; not in all concievable "greater good" examples. I think a spate of hypothetical unrelated counter examples would be highly redundant; everyone's already heard them, so just state your stand if you disagree with '1'. '2' is more interesting, and substantitive discussion is possible, if not likely). And what if legalizing pot only puts a small (net) dent in the alcohol death- toll, say 10%? That would be about 9 or 10 thousand lives per year. About 200 per state. About 4 per state per week, at the level of effect I have arbitrarily chosen. Many of them teenage drivers, no doubt. Perhaps some state should become a laboratory for this experiment. (I hear Alaska has decriminalized pot, but I haven't heard of any social pressure to *replace* alcohol with pot, so the experiment I'm talking about has not been done yet). Needless to say, special restrictions applicable to some professions, such as pilots, bus drivers, truckers; may require some sort of drug test, much as I dislike them for general population. Comparable to breath test for alcohol (but I'm concerned about reports that current tests are sensitive to pot smoked several days earlier, or secondary smoke from a concert. I am not aware of any effort to determine an "acceptable" blood level, as for alcohol; the effort has been on detecting *any* THC, as far as I know.) Pardon me, folks, for going on so long. But alcohol abuse *is* killing even more people than cars are (and half of the people in car crashes): <<< About one every 5 or 6 minutes in the US, on average. >>> (Pretty good chance some have died while you've been reading this article. Chance of some crack deaths in same period about 1% as high) This is about two orders of magnitude more serious than the current "epidemic" of drug use, and I would guess at least a full order of magnitude greater than would be created (in terms of deaths) if all the illegal recreational drugs were indeed legalized as some others have been recomending. (Which is another number we need to know, but don't). >ray - Phil prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) or: prs@oliveb.UUCP
cda@entropy.berkeley.edu (10/04/86)
In article <711@qantel.UUCP> gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik) writes:
<The truly bizarre thing about the Reagan administration going berserk over
<the drug issue is that the drug trade is, on the whole, an instance of the
<type of economic activity that all good Reaganites should approve of.
The latest economic report shows that California's economy is in trouble...
I guess CAMP has nearly succeeded in eliminating our number one cash crop,
leaving nothing but defense spending to keep our state afloat. In spite of
all their libertarian rhetoric, I suspect that this is exactly what the
Reaganites had in mind all along.
Charlotte Allenray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (10/06/86)
In article <2519@ihlpg.UUCP>, tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > There may be some drugs which, by their > very nature, make it impossible for the heavy user to hold a job, > but heroin and cocaine are not among them. Heroin and cocaine are among them, especially in heavy cocaine use causing impaired mental capacities. ray
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (10/06/86)
In article <3707@hplabsb.UUCP>, piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) writes: > > Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they > use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them? > NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking > them. > Over 50% of high-schoolers are using or have tried various drugs. So it would appear that MOST people in a certain age group do use or have tried drugs, and the usage of certain drugs by this age group is increasing. ray
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (10/08/86)
In article <55@oliveb.UUCP> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: >In article <1805@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >>In article <135@spectrix.UUCP>, clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: Thanks for coming up with some more recent statistics plus your other comments, even though, >Well, I don't agree with some of the things Chris said, but there's no need >to try to shock him or us with ad-absurdum arguements, ie taking your own >version of what he has said and inflating it into National Enquirer style >headlines. (which "some" by the way? We sound generally in agreement - I wouldn't really want to see *all* drugs made legal). Question though, since you do seem to have some recent statistics handy, do they give any indication of the number of deaths due to *use* of drugs and the number of deaths due to the *traffic* (eg: drug industry crime) in drugs? It would really be interesting to see a comparison between: 1) the dollar cost of treating drug addiction/drug use illness versus enforcement costs, addiction-originated property theft, and other because-it's-illegal costs (eg: digging bullets out of pushers). 2) the number of deaths due to the use of drugs versus the number of deaths due to the drug *trade*. 3) the number of people injured due to the use of drugs versus injuries due to the drug *trade*. Heck, I betcha there're more people killed annually on Miami Vice than die annually due to the use of drugs! ;-) -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/08/86)
> In article <2519@ihlpg.UUCP>, tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > > There may be some drugs which, by their > > very nature, make it impossible for the heavy user to hold a job, ^^^^^^^^ > > but heroin and cocaine are not among them. ----- > Heroin and cocaine are among them, especially in heavy cocaine use causing > impaired mental capacities. > ray [frank] -- Oh, come on, Ray. No doubt some percentage of heavy heroin and cocaine users cannot hold jobs, but many do. Ray, you are saying that NO heavy users hold jobs. Ha. Ha. I'm sure that, given your sense of values, you are not a heavy cocaine user. Your impairment must come from something else. I don't know why I got involved in this debate, anyway, since I am not even sure which side I am on. The benefits of the decriminalization of drug use are obvious to anybody who has given the matter any thought - an enormous reduction in violent crime and official corruption, and some sort of quality control on the product. The costs of decriminalization are simply that when drugs are cheap and legal (i.e. alcohol and tobacco), more people will tend to use them. I'm aware that the heavy use of alcohol and tobacco is historically ingrained and not merely a result of their legality. However, the social costs of having still more drugs so deeply ingrained would be enormous. I don't give the "replacement" argument much credence. Marijuana will not replace alcohol. In general, people who use drug X are more likely to use drug Y than those who do not use drug X, for almost any X and Y. I think that the fact that the legal drugs are so much more costly to society than the illegal ones is a strong argument for keeping most illegal drugs illegal. The only fear that I have about this is that in the periodic bouts of anti-drug hysteria (such as the present one) we will lose permanently some of our precious freedoms. I would rather have drugs sold openly in candy stores than have that happen. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (10/08/86)
In article <55@oliveb.UUCP>, prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) writes: > >We all know the damage that alcohol currently does to our society. I doubt > >500,000 people annualy were killed or seriously wounded during prohibition. > > Ray, please include sources for shocking statistics like this, as a matter > of etiquette. However, I have a figure from the Readers Digest Almanac for > alcohol related *fatalities* at 96 K, mostly their own from related illnesses, > accidents (20K per year traffic, and nearly as many in *other* accidents), > and suicides. 500 K/year *injured or* killed in alcohol related accidents > and incidents may or may not be a little high; where did you get the figure, > please? > The figures I've seen quoted quite consistently for DWI incidences are: 25,000 killed yearly, with another 500,000 seriously injured. I've seen some reports that put the injury figure at 900,000. Why didn't the article from Readers Digest also in addition to the fatality figure also quote the injury figure in DWI incidences? Anyone I've ever known who was involved with pot ALWAYS used alcohol to 'top' off their high. You argue that the legalization of pot may reduce the use of alcohol, but first hand experience shows this to be a most unlikely oc- curance. ray
jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz) (10/09/86)
> You argue that the legalization of pot may reduce the use > of alcohol, but first hand experience shows this to be a most unlikely oc- > curance. > > ray QUICK, CALL THE NARCS! Ray uses drugs and alcohol (why else would he want to parade around in his jock strap). -- Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division) Bell Labs HR 2A-214 201-615-5178 (no CORNET yet) ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin (official) ihnp4!opus!jin (better) Be hair or be square.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/12/86)
> [Chris Lewis] > It would really be interesting to see a comparison between: > 1) the dollar cost of treating drug addiction/drug use illness versus > enforcement costs, addiction-originated property theft, and > other because-it's-illegal costs (eg: digging bullets out of > pushers). > 2) the number of deaths due to the use of drugs versus the number > of deaths due to the drug *trade*. > 3) the number of people injured due to the use of drugs versus > injuries due to the drug *trade*. --------------------------- Such comparisons may be interesting and informative, but they are the wrong comparisons to make if the issue to be decided is the legal status of a drug. The correct comparisons are: 1) the dollar cost of treating illegal drug addiction/drug use illness PLUS enforcement costs, addiction-originated property theft, and other because-it's-illegal costs (eg: digging bullets out of pushers) VERSUS the dollar cost of treating (presumably more widespread) drug addiction/drug use illness if the same drugs were legal. 2) the number of casualties due to the use of illegal drugs PLUS the number of casualties due to the drug *trade* VERSUS the number of casualties due to the (presumably more widespread) use of the same drugs if made legal. In short, even if the "drug *trade* problem" is more costly than the "drug problem", it is by no means obvious that legalization would lower the total cost. One only has to observe that the most costly drugs to society are the legal ones. How much would the usage of heroin, cocaine, etc. increase if they were legal and cheap? Without an answer to this question, we are nowhere. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan