Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM (08/14/86)
Charles-- In reply to a V6 #37 article by Kieth Lynch, you inserted the following. [[... Lastly, waving your hands and saying, "well, cigarettes are bad too" is not an answer. Personally, I would much rather see a 12 year old smoking a cigarette than shooting heroin (the best thing, of course, is to see a 12 year old doing neither). Same goes for a 19 year old. Smoking cigarettes is dumb, yes, but you won't get hepatitis from a dirty cigarette, and you can't get a 'bad batch' of cigarettes. I rather doubt that most minors are aware of the dangers of even 'recreational' drug use. - CWM]] I agree that both these practices are stupid. I object, to your categorization of heroin usage as worse because of the incidence of "bad batches". I attribute that almost entirely to the fact that since Heroin is illegal, almost no one puts a brand name on their baggies. The cigarette companies (whatever you think of their product) have an enormous investment in their reputations for quality. If people started finding random greenery mixed in with their tobacco, or occasional cigarettes that looked underfilled, they would quite quickly switch to a different brand. If producers of other recreational drugs were not going to be prosecuted for identifying themselves with their products, and were allowed to sue competitors who infringed on their brand names, they would similarly invest in maintaining quality. Making clean heroin, or cleaning marijuana and "giving fair weight" is not a difficult proposition. But since customers have no rights and information about producers is very scarce, there's no incentive to invest in putting out a good product. Hepatitis, likewise is easy to prevent--the problem is that syringes and needles are hard to come by. If drugs and paraphenelia are legalized, most of the quality and dosage problmes would be easy to control. Likewise, prices would drop substantially. The only arguments left are that people should be protected from the consequences of doing stupid things to themselves. I don't believe that, and I don't think you (Charles) do either. There are a lot of others who do, and allowing them to argue that drugs should be illegal because the consequences if illegality show that drug use is bad is ceding them the use of a dangerously circular argument. Let's get them to defend the view that stupidity should be illegal instead. Chris [ Well, I think children should be protected against doing stupid things to themselves. In general, I find myself agreeing with your objections. Some comments: I wonder just how much a cure-all (if you'll pardon the expression) legalized drugs are. Having drugs regulated (presumably by the government) doesn't stop illegal activities (e.g. cigarettes, in which there is a multi-million dollar activity to illegally move cigarettes without paying taxes on them - and no mistake, if currently illegal drugs are legalized they will be taxed). It would be nice to think that the big G would keep its nose out, but I doubt it. Amphetimines and depressants, which are regulated by doctors (the government allows them to give the stuff out pretty much as they please) are a megabuck illegal business. I agree that in general people should be free to make the wrong choice, but I don't know any right choices for drugs like heroin or cocaine. Clearly, making such drugs legalized would lower the prices and raise quality, but would the increased availability (I think it likely that if prices go down, people will simply buy more of it) damage us as a society more than the value of the removal of the criminal element? Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers for that. - CWM] -------
hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM (08/24/86)
[[Having drugs regulated ... doesn't stop illegal activities
(e.g. cigarettes, in which there is a multi-million dollar
activity to illegally move cigarettes without paying taxes
on them ...)]]
And having banks regulated doesn't stop illegal activities there
either. :-) What I object to is the government declaring particular
actions which don't infringe the rights of non-consentors to be
illegal. It's okay with me (when I'm willing to concede that
government is okay for some things) if agressive acts are made
illegal.
[[Amphetimines and depressants, which are regulated by
doctors (the government allows them to give the stuff
out pretty much as they please) are a megabuck illegal
business.]]
I think a better characterization is that the government allows the
doctors to regulate those drugs. There is still a lot of government
control in this area; doctors aren't allowed individually to give it
out as they please, they are allowed to give it out pretty much as the
AMA pleases.
[[Clearly, making such drugs legalized would lower the
prices and raise quality, but would the increased
availability (I think it likely that if prices go down,
people will simply buy more of it) damage us as a society
more than the value of the removal of the criminal
element? Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers
for that. - CWM]]
I think the evidence is at least equivocal about the effects of
increased availability. The experience of Britain and the
Scandinavian countries shows that legal use of drugs can be much more
benign than (this country's experience of) illegal use. I can look
for references if you like.
I will also argue that much more important than the undefined and
unknown "benefit to society" of the change is letting people use their
bodies as they see fit. The argument is similar to that in "a free
press isn't worth anything if it only protects _popular_ speech".
Chris
-------