prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/23/86)
In article <5360@decwrl.DEC.COM> williams@kirk.dec.com (John Williams DTN 223-2163) writes: >Last night, the Reagans called for a new wave of ignorance. Past attempts ... >1) The number of drug related deaths is low. ( @500/yr. ) I am sympathetic with your points, and would like some confirmation/references on the above statistic so that I can be sure I am using a valid statistic when comparing it to the (approx) 50K traffic deaths per year and *350 thousand* tobacco-related deaths (incl emphasima and heart attack, in addition to cancer). >I say drugs should be legalized because: Some validity to your arguments, but I wouldn't throw all drugs into the same basket. Given valid information, I *might* want to legalize some drugs w/o controls, some with minimum age restrictions (alcohol *is* a drug, and *does* kill; same for tobacco), some under observation only (a bizzarre idea I had as a teenager, when all the scare-stories about LSD were getting heavy press), some by prescription, and some for research only. But I don't have such information, do I? And such a realistic multi-teired system is much too complicated for political bandwagoning, let alone Raygun's Brain. > Maybe he's just trying to cover up >the increased funds he wants to put into the black hole defence >budget. Possibly your most important point. Senate elections are only weeks away, and distraction is a major Raygun strategy. Others have mentioned a more frightening possibility involving use of military to "solve" this problem. Small step from there to others uses, let alone the Prohibition- style abuses likely in the anti-drug "war" itself. [My followup to article by:] > John Williams - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: "Cocain is God's way of telling you you've got too damn much money" (- I think by Robin Williams, in his act).