piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) (10/21/86)
Excerpt from FREE TO CHOOSE, by Milton & Rose Friedman, Avon Books 1979: (Italicized words flanked by asterisks) Prohibition was imposed for our own good. Alcohol *is* a dangerous substance. More lives are lost each year from alcohol than from all the dangerous substances the FDA controls put together. But where did Prohibition lead? New prisons and jails had to be built to house the criminals spawned by converting the drinking of spirits into a crime against the state. Al Capone, Bugs Moran became notorious for their exploits-- murder, extortion, hijacking, bootlegging. Who were their customers? Who bought the liquor they purveyed illegally? Respectable citizens who would never themselves have approved of, or engaged in, the activities that Al Capone and his fellow gangsters made infamous. They simply wanted a drink. In order to have a drink, they had to break the law. Prohibition didn't stop drinking. It did convert a lot of otherwise law-obedient citizens into lawbreakers. It did confer an aura of glamour and excitement to drinking that attracted many young persons. It did supress many of the disciplinary forces of the market that ordinarily protect the consumer from shoddy, adulturated, and dangerous products. It did corrupt the minions of the law and create a decadent moral climate. It did *not* stop the consumption of alcohol. . . . If we continue on this path, there is no doubt where it will end. If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for prohibiting alcohol and tobacco. If it is appropriate for the government to protect us from using dangerous bicycles and cap guns, the logic calls for prohibiting still more dangerous activities such as hang-gliding, motorcycling, and skiing. Even the people who administer the regulatory agencies are appalled at this prospect and withdraw from it. As for the rest of us, the reaction of the public to the more extreme attempts to control our behavior-- to the requirements of an interlock system on automobiles or the proposed ban of saccharin-- is ample evidence that we want no part of it. Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an excellent book that deals, primarily, with the consequences of government intervention in the marketplace-- mainly the economic effects. I have found it thought-provoking and inspiring. The Friedmans expose situations all around us that we generally are too busy to notice, understand, or think about. I believe the above paragraphs exemplify some of the main problems with today's drug abuse. Anyhow, reading peoples' urging for stricter government controls over drugs struck a sore nerve and I was relieved to see some sense in print, for a change. Government's role, in the drug battles, if any, should be to provide accurate information regarding the consequences of drug abuse and to help educate the public. If people chose not to use drugs on their own, we would have no drug problem. While I realize that many people would still abuse drugs, I believe education and information is a wiser path than today's fanatical drug wars. By the way, I don't use drugs (except for coffee and occasionally alcohol), but it is because I choose not to-- certainly not because of laws or unavailability. It is MY choice and I believe, strongly, in having the right to choose. People must take responsibility for their own actions! Bob