kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/23/86)
[ Firstly, you cannot simply whisk away the issue of drugs and
children. I am not satisfied with just ignoring the problem.
I am not ignoring the problem at all. There should be laws against
selling drugs to minors just as there are now laws against selling
alcohol to minors.
Is the present system working? Does it keep drugs out of the hands
of children?
To what extent do we have an obligation to child-proof our world?
Opponents of pornography often use the dangers of children being
exposed to porn as an argument against adults being allowed to have
it. Gun control proponents argue similarly. The same argument can be
extended to argue against ANYTHING being legal for adults that ought
to be illegal for children. What do YOU see the solution as being?
..."in fact this crime REDUCES the cost of cigarettes" - I take it
then that you approve of any criminal act that lowers prices, or
just those that make government the victim?
No. I do oppose this law, but I certainly sympathize with those who
want to put heavy taxes on tobacco to make tobacco users pay a higher
proportion of the tax load their diseases, carlessness, and
productivity loss adds to nonsmoking taxpayers. But the real solution
is for NO tax money to be used to pay for these things.
I do not advocate breaking unjust laws. Except for laws which I
would have to do great evil to obey. I am not aware of any such laws
in this country at this time.
Reducing the price of drugs will 1) increase the number of
overdoses - if there's more (and better) of it people will take
more;
The vast majority of overdoses are due to variation in
concentration. That would go away if drugs were legalized. The
concentration would be printed on the package just as the proof of
alcohol is printed on containers of alcoholic beverages.
I don't think there are large numbers of people who are just waiting
for heroin to be legalized so they can start using it. The use of
marijuana may increase, though probably not to 1960s levels. I think
the use of most drugs would decrease considerably.
... consider how many teenagers smoke legal, cheap cigarettes ...
Fewer than in past years. News of the health hazards of substances
and behaviors sadly seems to make little difference in the behavior of
existing users, but it does have a very real effect on the behavior of
potential new users. Making a substance legal or illegal does not
seem to have much effect on either.
... Why should anyone want to receive help to kick the habit of a
drug which is legal, cheap, and stigma-free?
Because it is dangerous. And possibly because their employer or
their school requires them to not use it, and tests for it. Millions
of dollars are paid every year for help quitting tobacco and alcohol.
... If you really think organized crime will just 'dissappear',
I'm sorry but the cure-all won't cure this one. They'll just move
on to other things - they said that about organized crime and the
repeal of Prohibition too. - CWM]
Organized crime thrives by providing goods and services there is a
high demand for but that legitimate businesses won't supply because
they are illegal. During prohibition, alcohol was in this category.
Mobsters lobbied against repeal of prohibition as did prohibition
police. They lost that battle, but were able to get many drugs made
illegal at the same time as prohibition was repealed. So the taxpayer
subsidized game of cops and robbers, or rather narks and pushers,
continued. What is sad is not just the billions of dollars that it
consumes, but the thousands of lives. Narcotics officers shot. Drug
pushers imprisoned for life (at taxpayers expense). Drug users who
rob and kill innocent people for their next fix. Teenagers who are
enticed into using unknown drugs of unknown quality by pushers who
need money for THEIR next fix.
Reagan has recently announced a major crackdown on illegal drugs.
We will show that it is NOT tolerated, says he. It is the same
message that every president since Eisenhower has sent. And it is no
more likely to succeed now then before, no matter how many billions of
dollars more of our money he proposes to throw down the sinkhole. No
matter how many more narcotics agents are to be hired. At best, he
will cause the price of street drugs to increase. Is that an
improvement? When there are users who will do anything, ANYTHING, for
their next fix? So they will have to rob two convenience stores each
week instead of one?
And government has the power to eliminate ALL of this lossage
OVERNIGHT. Usually government cannot eliminate a bad thing at all,
certainly not just by fiat, and not without spending many millions or
billions. This is a rare exception. The crime rate will plummet, the
deficit will be reduced, millions of nominal criminals will be made
law abiding citizens again, and prison overcrowding will become a
thing of the past.
Who pays for this? Only the drug users. How much do they pay? Far
less than they do now. Who has to be a drug user? Nobody who doesn't
choose to be one.
It is true that organized crime will not go away if we JUST legalize
drugs, any more than it went away when we JUST legalized alcohol. But
if we also legalize all other victimless crimes; gambling (already
legal in New Jersey and Nevada), prostitution (already legal in
Nevada), Usury (already legal in several states), and pornography
(whose definition keeps changing) organized crime WILL just go away.
...Keith
[ Who pays for the cops who keep drugs out of the hands of kids? Do
these laws that keep drugs out of kids hands include their parents?
If a parent chooses to give drugs to his child, is it legal?
On you argument of "less new smokers than before": I recall
statistics showing a rise in women smokers (these statistics could be
out of date by now, but I've heard no new ones). In any event, "less
than before" doesn't really mean a lot. There are still millions, and
there will be millions of new ones. Your statistics on weed usage in
the 1960's is incorrect: a much larger number of people smoke mj now
than did then.
Your argument of "employers and schools will still test for it": I
can see a lawsuit coming - how could an employer fire an employee for
using a drug that is legal and stigma-free - perhaps there will be
'snorting' and 'no-snorting' zones in office buildings and cafeterias?
If you think people quit a drug (including tobacco, which you have
reviled as the lowest of the low) because its "dangerous", why don't
all the smokers in the world quit? Because they like it! They
(beleive it not) enjoy it. The 'enjoy' factor of heroin, or cocaine
is tremendously higher than for cigarettes - if its legal, there's
going to be a dramatic rise in addicts. Every addict in the world has
at least some point said to him/herself, "I can handle it, I can quit
any time I want", usually early on in their addiction (and continuing
for some - other wise up). I doubt this pattern will change. If
harder drugs are cheap and legal, the number and severity of addicts
will rise.
If you think that legalized gambling will make the mob go away, go
look at who OWNS the casinos in Atlantic City. Look who takes
protection money from the prostitution houses in Nevada, look who owns
the big loan sharks. They won't go away; they're making too damn much
money to stop. You underestimate the mob: they're smart and mean.
- CWM]
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu (08/27/86)
[ Who pays for the cops who keep drugs out of the hands of kids?
Do these laws that keep drugs out of kids hands include their
parents? If a parent chooses to give drugs to his child, is it
legal?
Well, this all seems to work pretty well for alcohol and tobacco.
I never said ALL of the world's problems will go away if we adopt a
libertarian system. Kids will still get drunk. Teenagers will still
try marijuana and cocaine. At least the marijuana won't contain
paraquat, and the cocaine won't contain strychnine.
I read a few weeks ago that a 4 year old kid playing on the front
steps of his apartment downtown pricked himself on a discarded needle.
He got AIDS apparently from that needle.
If drugs and drug paraphernalia had been widely available this would
not have happened.
It is also true that if illegal drugs weren't used this would not
have happened. But do you have any ideas how to deter drug use? The
current methods aren't working. Do you think spending billions more
on narcotics police will change anything? The drug laws aren't
working. The tons of marijuana and kilos of cocaine that the Coast
Guard keep intercepting are only a small percentage of the amount that
is not intercepted. The smugglers treat it as a business expense.
And it probably costs them less than taxes would if they paid taxes.
People's attitudes aren't very anti-drug use. Very very few people
would turn in an acquantance for drug use.
... Your statistics on weed usage in the 1960's is incorrect: a
much larger number of people smoke mj now than did then.
The drug laws aren't working. Would you call the cops if you saw
someone smoking marijuana? Would anyone? Would the cops even bother
to arrest him? What use are laws which everyone ignores? Don't they
simply breed disrespect for the law?
Your argument of "employers and schools will still test for
it": I can see a lawsuit coming - how could an employer fire an
employee for using a drug that is legal and stigma-free ...
The same way they can fire people for excessive alcohol use now.
As you know, I support an employers right to set any conditions
for employment. Many employers still have dress codes. So why not
drug codes?
- perhaps there will be 'snorting' and 'no-snorting' zones in
office buildings and cafeterias?
Perhaps. But the reason for non-smoking areas is because the smoke
enters the air and affects non-smokers in the vicinity. Except for
drugs that are smoked, this won't be a problem.
If you think people quit a drug (including tobacco, which you
have reviled as the lowest of the low) because its "dangerous",
why don't all the smokers in the world quit? Because they like
it!
No. Because they are addicted. But government has not seen fit to
forbid this extremely addictive and deadly substance. Few people
would support an attempt to ban tobacco.
... The 'enjoy' factor of heroin, or cocaine is tremendously
higher than for cigarettes -
Enjoyment and addiction don't have much to do with eachother.
Anyway, I have been told by people who have quit both tobacco and
heroin that quitting heroin was much easier.
The extreme addiction of heroin is largely a myth. Most users go
several months each year without using any, and continue this pattern
for years. Most users who are forced to go through withdrawal (for
instance who spend time in a prison or a hospital) resume using heroin
as soon as possible even though they are not physically addicted
anymore.
if its legal, there's going to be a dramatic rise in addicts.
Since steadily harsher penalties don't seem to result in any fewer
users, how can you conclude that more lenient (or nonexistant)
penalties will result in more users?
Remember that we are discussing policies for the real world, not for
some ideal world. In an ideal world nobody would use the drugs and so
it wouldn't matter whether usage was legal or carried the death
penalty or anything in between. Here in the real world we can take it
as given that people will continue to use the stuff, and the only
question is should they pay a lot for cruddy stuff or should they pay
much less and get much better quality stuff? Should needles be widely
available, or should drug users share needles and catch AIDS and
Herpes? And give AIDS to innocent children playing with their drug
debris?
If you think that legalized gambling will make the mob go away, go
look at who OWNS the casinos in Atlantic City. ...
Have you any evidence for this? A friend of mine owns a lot of
stock in an Atlantic City casino, and he is no mobster.
They won't go away; they're making too damn much money to stop.
You underestimate the mob: they're smart and mean. - CWM]
I'll bet they can't outcompete honest businessmen in a free market
economy. And if they can, without breaking any laws, more power to
them!
...Keith
[ ... I'll bet you they can because they don't let little things like
laws stop them from making a buck. Legitimate businessmen don't rob
competitors or burn down their warehouses. Does you friend think that
organized crime does NOT own a substantial part of his casino? Last
time I was in Atlantic City, it was not an idyllic libertarian
community.
On drug laws: no, they don't work well, mostly because enough
people are willing to pay very high prices for the stuff (the free
market at work, eh?) The original point was, and still is, that I
don't think it will be such a good and valuable thing to have it all
cheaper, more plentiful, and easier to get. I don't think that
getting the paraquat out of mj and the milksugar out of heroin is that
all-fired important. AIDS won't go away, and getting it from a
discarded needle won't go away either (needles aren't the only way
AIDS gets spread, you know) from your plan - so your child would still
get it, unfortunately. But I digress (we digress? Use digress
toothpaste for a whiter, more libertarian smile? :-) How can YOU say
that we'll have fewer addicts? I think my arguments are stronger on
that point than yours (but then, I would!)
I guess I don't have your ability to be quite so sure about such
things as you. I have a natural suspision of anyone who says,
"The answer is simple. Just trust me and it will all be alll
right..." Because usually it isn't, and it won't be. - CWM]
-------king@KESTREL.ARPA (09/04/86)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:32:57 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
[ Who pays for the cops who keep drugs out of the hands of
kids? Do these laws that keep drugs out of kids hands include
their parents? If a parent chooses to give drugs to his child,
is it legal?
Well, this all seems to work pretty well for alcohol and tobacco.
I never said ALL of the world's problems will go away if we adopt
a libertarian system. Kids will still get drunk. Teenagers will
still try marijuana and cocaine. At least the marijuana won't
contain paraquat, and the cocaine won't contain strychnine.
I read a few weeks ago that a 4 year old kid playing on the front
steps of his apartment downtown pricked himself on a discarded
needle. He got AIDS apparently from that needle.
If drugs and drug paraphernalia had been widely available this
would not have happened.
Why? Freely available needles would never be discarded? I would
expect to see as many needles in the roadside litter as I now see
discarded cigarette packs and beer cans. Perhaps the state would
impose a deposit so I wouldn't lose too many bicycle tires to
discarded hypos :-)
-dick
-------KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/12/86)
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
I read a few weeks ago that a 4 year old kid playing on the
front steps of his apartment downtown pricked himself on a
discarded needle.
He got AIDS apparently from that needle.
If drugs and drug paraphernalia had been widely available
this would not have happened.
Why? Freely available needles would never be discarded?
If needles were freely available people wouldn't have to share
them. Thus drug users would not get AIDS. Thus someone pricked
by a discarded needle wouldn't get AIDS.
...Keith
[ Say what? AIDS is not gotten on needles by a group of people using
a needle. It takes exactly one AIDS sufferer to infect a needle. If
its clean before infection, its just as contaminated. - CWM]
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/21/86)
... In a purely libertarian society, the seller of the drug is
within his rights to sell anything to anyone who will buy, ...
Excluding fraud. Selling drugs which cause known bad effects
without informing the buyer of the effects is fraud.
Actually, most doctors don't bother to warn their patients of all
the side effects. Patients should look up any drugs in the
Physician's Desk Reference or similar refererence work before taking
them.
A typical rejoinder to unregulated medicine is that word will get
around and the seller will not be able to sell any more. This is
not so good for the people who get zapped before word gets
around...
Reasonable people will be more likely to choose drugs which have
been tested for ill effects. Such testing is thus in the interests of
drug companies. Most people would probably continue to only use drugs
suggested by their doctors. All I am saying is that if someone really
wants to take a drug their doctor doesn't recommend, even a drug that
has never been tested, they should be free to do so.
I can't think of any excuse for forbidding drugs to AIDS patients
and terminal cancer patients. What have they got to lose? So what if
the drug hasn't been tested? There is evidence from animal studies
that a drug called AZT can attack AIDS. But only a handful of AIDS
victims are allowed to use it. Why?
...Keith
[ What indeed do they have to lose but the their money and the money
of their families, and the financial ruination from buying drugs or
treatments that don't work? Is it right to allow them to be
victimized by profit-hungry drug vultures? Such people are going to
grab at anything that comes their way. Do we just say too bad about
them?
Also, since normal people don't have the resources to test drugs
(except on themselves), drugs will be tested in just this way. Is
this a good thing? We've already been the rounds on fraud. The
question comes down to who you talk to about whether the mark was
properly 'informed' or not. - CWM]
-------segall@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU (09/29/86)
...from a recent posting:
Enjoyment and addiction don't have much to do with each
other.Anyway, I have been told by people who have quit both
tobacco and heroin that quitting heroin was much easier. The
extreme addiction of heroin is largely a myth. Most users go
several months each year without using any, and continue this
pattern for years. Most users who are forced to go through
withdrawal (for instance who spend time in a prison or a
hospital) resume using heroin as soon as possible even though
they are not physically addicted anymore.
Be serious. According to this, physical addiction to heroin is not
that hard to quit. But users go right back on it. So why talk about an
abstract technical use of the word addiction? Obviously, it is hard
for a habitual user to stay off. That's what counts. Stick to the
point, please.
Thanks,
Ed
PS Hi there. I've been watching you....
-------