testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (11/11/86)
. . . [Keith Lynch argues that legalizing drugs and paraphenalia would result in less sharing of needles and transmission of AIDS] . . . Our moderator responds: >[ Another left-field analogy. Isn't this a rather small band-aid for >a somewhat larger (and different) wound? > If there is a market for it, black-market needles should be just >as available as black-market drugs. The very same forces you claim >are making drugs so available (massive market) should be making >illegal needles readily available. I wonder why not? In any event, >I am suspicious of any 'facts' containing the phrases 'it is likely' >and 'would tend to'. -CWM] I have to side with Keith on this point. If a drug addict has only N dollars in his/her pocket, he/she is more likely to spend it all on drugs rather than saving some of it for a nice shiny new needle, because the drugs give a rush but the needle doesn't. The effects of using a dirty needle are a lot less immediate than missing one's next fix. Sure, rationally they would consider the consequences and recognize that such a precaution is desirable. But i don't think it's too rational to be taking drugs in the first place, so why should we expect them to think rationally about needles? Oops, i see i used "likely" which means you'll probably ignore this.:-) Would statistical evidence convince you? (not that i actually have it...) ~joe testa~ [ Well, that's the market at work, isn't it? The value of the product outweighs the the danger so much that safety devices are judged by the buyer to be unneccesary - kind of like airbags, eh? :-) If hard drug users irrational, then it doesn't matter what price, they won't buy needles, unless needles are free. Shall we subsidize irrational people in destroying themselves? I guess its cheaper than curing them! -CWM] -------