usenet/Drugs,_Drugs,_Drugs.html
From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. Some of these posts are over a decade old. The author may have mellowed with age since these were written, but the basic views remain. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)
<![CDATA[From tms Wed Jul 26 12:35:37 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3utjbt$8vd@shado.jagunet.com> <3uugm2$gdc@mcmail.
CIS.McMaster.CA> <3v20am$rtt@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>But you completely evade the question of crime outside of a prohibitionist
>context. How do addicts pay for drugs - at any price - if they are
>unemployed? Especially if the addiction is the cause of their unemployment?
How do alcoholics pay for their booze? It's cheap enough that it's not
much of a problem. Post-prohibition, the prices of currently illegal drugs
will fall to similar levels.
>>>>>Second, do you really believe that legalization will open up the
>>>>>supply? There are only a few, tightly controlled sources for the raw
>>>>>supply; do you realy think that they will change tactics and welcome
>>>>>new sources into the market?
Who is "they" in your question? What could Columbia, for example, do
if Americans started growing coca to supply a legal drug market? (There is
already a small domestic production of coca.)
>There are an enormous number of producers of alcohol and tobacco products,
>both foreign and domestic. There are literally millions of retail outlets
>supported by aggressive advertising. There is strong name-brand
>recognition. Distribution channels are well-defined and structured. A
>well-defined taxation mechanism exists. Distributors and retailers of
>alcohol are licensed and under strong regulation by a legal body (the
>liquor board) with the authority to put offenders out of business. A body
>of law exists that defines and provides penalties for irresponsible use,
>especially if another party is injured as a result.
>
>None of which now exists for a recreational drug market.
But which will come into being. Economic mechanisms will bring about
retail outlets and distribution channels as they do with any new product.
You seem to consider yourself a conservative; don't you beleive that the
"invisible hand" of the free market will provide? The necessary body of law
(which would probably consist mostly of amendments to existing laws
governing alcohol) would be a prerequisite for ending Prohibtion.
>>The very best we can do, *EVER*, is to reduce the harms associated with
>>drug abuse.
>
>So there *is* harm associated with drug use. Why promote it?
Who's promoting it?
Do you not understand the difference between promoting an act and
failing to lock people in cages for performing it?
>>I am tired of explaining to Prohibitionists that we ALL PAY for
>>addicition RIGHT NOW. Every incarcerated drug offender costs the taxpayer
>>$30-50 K per year.
>
>That's good; roll your eyes some more. So are you advocating that a
>different way for us to ALL pay is somehow an earth-shaking improvement?
Since the net cost we ALL pay would be less, yes.
>>Seagrams and Marlboro makes a healthy profit selling recreational drugs
>>right now, don't they?
>
>And - as noted above - you have yet to demonstrate how the drug business will
>transform itself into the Marlboro Model.
How did the rum-runners transform into Jack Daniels and the local bar
after the end of alcohol prohibtion?
>And if the addict cannot or will not work? Then what?
What do you do with anyone else how cannot or will not work?
>Would you advocate selling a product that contains Alkinated Cyclopentane,
>whether that ingredient was on the label or not?
Again, do you understand the difference between adocating and
tolerating?
If you want to buy such a product, it's your business. I don't know a
damn thing about "Alkinated Cyclopentane", whatever that might be, so I
don't know if I'd advocate its sale or use for specific purposes or not. I
do think it is a legimate function of govenment to require the seller to
provide a full disclosure of the ingredients and of potential dangers of
products.
> How about Pyrogallol? Yes? No? Don't Know? Don't care as long as you
>can get the drug YOU want? Are you claiming that there is no substance
>that is too addictive or too powerful for intelligent use?
I'm claiming that in any nation that calls itself free, it is the
private choice of the individual to make that determination for his or her
self.
>But you are still putting the cart before the horse; you haven't yet shown
>why we should engage in a great deal of legislative and social change so
>that you can indulge in your whim to smoke dope.
Let me first point out that many advocates of legalization are not
users of currently illegal drugs.
Now, let's look at some of the costs of Prohibition:
- Erosion of civil liberties. To enforce anti-drug laws, freedoms
guanteeed by the First (censorship of anti-prohibition publications, the
banning of the use of certain drugs as religious sacraments) Second (drug
war hysteria and urban crime by driven by the black market in drugs
increases the anti-gun hysteria), Fourth (no-knock searches and illegal
surveillance), Fifth (no due process in civil forfiture), Ninth (right to
privacy), and Tenth (federal government has no legitimate power in this
area) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been endangered.
- Crime. The highly profitable black market in currently illegal drugs
fuels a lot of urban violence, from gang shoot-outs over crack-dealing turf
to addicts mugging someone to fincance their next purchase. Prisons crowded
with non-violent drug offenders sentanced under mandatory minimums have no
room for violent criminals. Law enforcement resources that could be
directed at catching murderers and rapists instead are directed at people
growing pot plants.
- Money. Billions of dollars on prison construction, salaries for LEOs
and correctional officers, interdiction efforts, lost wages of those
incarcerated, lost tax revenue on black-market transactions.
- Drug abuse. Prohibition sure hasn't eliminated it, but has changed
its face in interesting ways. It's given us shared IV needles, since drug
"paraphernalia" is banned, which spread AIDS. We've seen drug users subject
to testing switch from cannabis to LSD, which isn't detectable. It's
encouraged the use of concentrated forms of drugs, which are more easily
smuggled. It's lead to many deaths by overdose or drug impurities, as users
have no assurance of strength or purity.
>So tell us: Why does an educated person knowingly ingest toxins? For what
>gain? What measurable benefit do you derive that makes it worth the
>rest of us accomodating your indulgence?
Why do you drink beer? Coffee? Tea? Cola? Eat chocolate? Sugary
foods? Fatty foods? Salty foods? Don't you know that stuff's bad for you?
Why do you have sex? For what gain?Don't you know the risks? What
measurable benefit do you derive that makes it worth the rest of us
accomodating your indulgence?
People use drugs, legal and illegal, for a wide variety of reasons.
Depends on the drug and the person. Drug use can be social, religious,
escapist, theraputic, or just pleasurable. Drug use is an innate drive of
all (pardon the expression) higher animals, and we've got as much chance of
eliminating it as we do of eliminating sex.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you
take Hofstadter's Law into account.
From tms Thu Jul 27 12:22:48 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,balt.general
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v20am$rtt@shado.jagunet.com> <3v35fl$7sd@mcmail.
CIS.McMaster.CA> <3v4dh6$n11@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>But that isn't your point at all, is it?
>
>You like to smoke pot. You would like to be left alone while doing so. You
>would like all drugs to be legal, because then you would be able to smoke all
>the pot you want. You are unconcerned with other drugs and other people.
>
>That is really your point, isn't it?
Um, no.
Many people in the drug policy reform movement are not users of
currently illegal drugs. (I ain't saying whether I am or not. Frankly, it's
none of your business; that's part of the point.) One does not have to be a
drug user to be concerned with erosion of civil liberties, a shrinking
right to privacy, stormtrooper-like law enforcement methods, continuing
proposals to involve the military in domestic law enforcement to combat the
"drug menace", users dying from impure drugs, violent crime fueled by a
profitable black market, and people being locked in cages for possessing
certain types of plant material.
>You, and a notably small collection of educated and highly idealistic
>individuals make a lot of Patrick Henry "spirite encarnate" noise about
>liberty and freedoms and responsible use. But your not really concerned
^^^^
("You're" is "you are", "your" indicates possession. Probably just a
typo, but that's a pet peeve of mine.)
>with real liberties and freedoms; you just want to be able to shove
>anything you want into your mouth.
Are you saying the the right to control ones one body and nervous
system is not a real liberty or freedom? How odd. I am curious to find out
what you would consider a real liberty or freedom. Please attempt to
explain this point of view. It should prove entertaining.
>I remind you that for every member of your Birchenstock Brigade of
>self-obsessed intellectuals, there are at least a thousand poor,
>uneducated, lower class individuals for whom drug use represents an escape
>from their miseries. An escape that ultimately backfires, as the drugs
>then become their misery.
Do William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman wear Birkenstocks? How about
all those folks over at the Cato Institute? Did George Schultz recommend a
seriuos consideration of legalization? I can't picture him in Birks.
And do you have any actual numbers on what percentage of users of
currently illegal drugs are "self-obsessed intellectuals" and how many are
"poor, uneducated, lower class individuals", or are you just making stuff
up?
>It's funny that when I look around in any of the drug clinics in this city, I
>don't see YOU there. I see THEM.
And you may have noticed that Prohibition didn't keep them out.
Reducing drug abuse is a noble goal. It will not be achieved by locking
users in cages. It will not be achieved by "zero-tolerance" laws. It will
not be achieved by stormtroopers breaking down doors and shooting suspected
drug users like Donald Scott or Scott Bryant, or by imprisoning paraplegics
like Jimmy Montgomery who find cannabis the only effective medicine. It
will not be achieved by creating a "drug exception" to the Bill of Rights.
It can be achieved by recognizing that drug use is normal human
behavior. It can be achieved by education (_accurate_ education, not the
propaganda they hand out now!) and by making treatment available for
addicts who want it. It can be achieved by removing the laws that punish
users of drugs that are in many ways more benign than alcohol or
tobacco. It can be achieved by removing the "forbidden fruit" status of
currently illegal drugs. It can be achieved by freeing market forces which
will drive the development of new drugs, with reduced deleterious effects.
Make drug use safe and legal.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."
-- Mark Twain
From tms Thu Jul 27 12:51:34 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v20am$rtt@shado.jagunet.com> <3v35fl$7sd@mcmail.
CIS.McMaster.CA> <3v4jpt$n11@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>>There is harm associated with drug *ABUSE*. Is there harm associated with
>>having a glass of wine with dinner?
>
>So wine=heroin. Thanks. I didn't know that.
Once again, Lee manages to miss the point so completely, one can't
help but be impressed!
>>Because not all drug users are addicts.
>
>O.K. let's eliminate the responsible users from consideration. What shall
>we do with the other 98% of drug users?
I think you got the proportions reversed, Lee.
>>Secondly, the physical properties of drugs remain unaffected by
>>legislation. Opiates were just as addictive before and after the passage
>>of the Harrison Narcotics Act, and the propensity for a certain
>>percentage of the population to abuse these drugs would exist
>>irregardless of the existence of laws criminalizing posession.
>
>Right, so they're harmful with or without Harrison. So if Harrison didn't
>work, we should just give up?
When a strategy fails, the wise man abandons it.
>Actualy, I do care if people are rotting in jail. I think treatment and
>education are far better alternatives. But this does NOT mean that I condone
>recreational drug use.
No one's asking you to condone it. We're asking that you stop
condoning locking people in cages for it. If you really think that
treatment and education are far better, what's the disagreement?
> No one has actually asked legitimate companies about
>their intentions to enter the market,
It would currently be illegal for them to do so!
>>And i'll ask you again: How does throwing people in jail address the
>>medical problem of addicition? Do you have another smarmy response?
>
>Behavior modification? The thought of going to jail has given me pause,
>now and again.
The only behavior modification performed by modern prisons is to make
the inmate a better criminal. It certainly doesn't stop use; drugs are
still available in jails.
>You keep claiming that there will always be people inexorably drawn into
>drug abuse. You are absolutely correct about that. And there will always
>be people who don't know any better and don't understand the risks. These
>people DESERVE the compassion of society. What I am railing against is who
>should FUCKING KNOW BETTER, and then expect me to bail them out.
Who's asked you to bail anyone out? We're asking you to stop locking
people up.
>You also don't understand that law is a result, and not the cause, of social
>order. The Harrison Act - flawed as it may be - was a RESPONSE to a
>problem.
Indeed it was. And it was a poor response. The problem of addictive
drugs in patent medicines could have been handled with labeling
requirements and public education.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."
-- Mark Twain
From tms Fri Jul 28 12:55:44 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v8atn$8sg@shado.jaguNET.com> <3v8qqg$83k@blarg1.
blarg.com> <3v92m1$j8i@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>Agreed. But I favor spending money on teaching children how to avoid them,
>rather than how to use them, as some others have advocated. To me, your
>argument suggests a choice between "the lesser of two evils." [I feel
>compelled to use the quotation marks so that some boho doesn't then
>misquote me as claiming that "pot is evil."] My question then, is this:
>Why settle for the lesser of two evils? Whay settle for less than NO
>evils?
Because rational people can disagree on what is "evil", in this
context.
>Of course, I've also heard the "But you can never stop it!" arguments. A
>sound argument if you wish to roll over and give up, or if you are serving
>a self interest. I counter that maybe we're fighting "the war on drugs"
>the wrong way.
And how would _you_ fight it?
>Further, I don't argue that a repeal of prohibition would reduce the
>problems you mention. I question whether a repeal actually helps or hurts
>the drug USER.
And we question whether being locked in a cage actually help or hurts
the drug USER. We find the latter. You previously stated that you believe
that education and treatment are superior to incarceration. Would you go so
far as to agree that simple possession should be decriminalized and subject
to no more penalty than a small fine?
>Perhaps our efforts at shutting off the supply side are simply not enough?
We can't even shut off the supply of drugs to prisons.
>I'm not convinced that the white middle-class male IS the using majority
>that isn't essential to what you said or what I'm about to say.
Something to chew on:
http://www.paranoia.com/drugs/politics/misc/is.drug.war.racist:
<begin quote>
From: Jim Rosenfield <jnr@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 24 Jul 93 12:47 PDT
Subject: USA Today: RACIST Policies
Message-ID: <1484000280@igc.apc.org>
IS THE DRUG WAR RACIST? DISPARITIES SUGGEST THE ANSWER IS YES
USA Today, 7/23/93, Front Page, Cover Story
by Sam Vincent Meddis
>>>>>>> chart:
Blacks are four times as likely as whites ti be arrested on drug
charges -- even though the two groups use drugs at almost the
same rate.
Drug arrests per 100,000
Blacks 1,609 Whites 408
U.S. Adults who used illegal drugs within the past year:
Nationwide 13% Whites 12% Blacks 16%
Sources: USA TODAY analysis of drug arrest records filed with the
FBI: NIDA Household Survey on Drug Abuse. (1991-latest available)
----------------------
first part of article:
If you are black in the USA, you are four times as likely to be
arrested on drug charges as a white person.
If you live in Minneapolis, youa re 22 times as likely.
In Columbus, Ohio, 18 times; in Seattle, 13 times.
Although law enforcement officials say black and whites use drugs
at nearly the same rate, a USA TODAY computer analysis of 1991
drug arrests found that the war on drugs has, in many places,
been fought mainly against blacks.
In every part of the country -- from densely packed urban
neighborhoods to sprawling new suburbs, amid racial turmoil and
racial calm -- blacks are arrested at rates sometimes wildly
disproportionate to those of whites.
At the same time, cr4itics charge, the decade-old war against
drugs -- the largest and costliest mobilization against crime in
U.S. history -- routinely has not paid as much attention to drug
use and dealing where it happens most: among whites.
"It's just astonishing," says Allen Webster, president of the
National bar Association, the USA's largest black legal group.
"Basically, it's a war against minorities."
"it just shows how deep racism is institutionalized in American
criminal justice," says Jesse Jackson, Washington D.C.'s shadow
senator, upon seeing USA TODAY'S analysis.
"It's racist, that's the bottom line," says Rep. Charles Rangel
D-NY, head of the House narcotics abuse caucus.
<end quote>
>I agree, but so far, no one has stepped up and offered to take over the
>business from the vermin. Until that happens, it is still speculation, and
>I'm not likely to give my wholehearted endorsement to a legislative effort
>until those "speculations" get some good, hard evidence to back them up.
I'll step up and state that post-relegalization I'd happily invest in
the cannabis business!
But you're putting the cart before the horse, Lee. No business is
going to consider going into the drug market until after the legislation
passes.
>The cases of civil disobedience that exist in U.S history have these things
>in common: they were specific, identifiable events. The participants
>placed themselves at great personal risk - IN PUBLIC - and clearly stated
>why they were doing what they did. Toking up in the secrecy of one's
>basement and muttering "Oh wow, man, I'm making a political statement!" is
>NOT the same thing. (No, I'm not accusing you personally of doing that;
>it's an illustration.)
NORML has sponsored a Smoke-In in D.C. on July 4th for many years now
which does exactly as you suggest. (Thousands show up. Media coverage = 0.
Maybe it just gets overshadowed by all the other hype in D.C. that day.
Maybe there's another reason.) Similar smoke-ins have happened at various
times all over the nation.
>I agree; it would be great. What I haven't seen are convincing, detailed
>proposals on HOW all this would be accomplished. How do the taxes get from
>the seller to the educactional and treatment resources? Who's minding the
>store?
Again, you put the cart before the horse. We must agree on _what_ is
to be done before we design _how_ it should be done. (This is a general
rule of design. Software developers don't begin designing code until
there's agreement on what the program should do!) At this point, to speak
in anything more than generalities would not be appropriate.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving
and that's your own self." -- Aldous Huxley
From tms Fri Jul 28 15:52:57 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v4jpt$n11@shado.jaguNET.com> <3v8g94$b51@shemesh.
tis.com> <3v8j2m$8sg@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>The question that you continue to miss or simply ignore is this: Are there
>some drugs that are simply impossible to use safely?
I can't think of any. (Although there are certainly methods or
patterns of drug use that are not safe. Nicotine can be used safely, but I
can't imagine anyone surviving mainlining it.) Maybe one of the more
bizzare designer drugs that few people use anyway. Do we consider inhaled
solvents drugs for purposes of this discussion? If so, they might qualify,
but I note that they are used almost exclusively only by people who can't
get access to "better" drugs, and no one is considering prohibiting
gasoline.
>>>O.K. let's eliminate the responsible users from consideration. What shall
>>>we do with the other 98% of drug users?
>>
>> I think you got the proportions reversed, Lee.
>
>And you might very well be right. Show me something instead of just waving
>your arms about.
It's not trivial to determine who should or shouldn't be considered a
"responsible" drug user. But let's see what we can come up with.
NIDA figures for 1991 (see my previous article) say that 13 percent of
Americans used illegal drugs in the previous year. This is a conservative
estimate, as it relies on voluntary reporting ("Hi, I'm from the federal
government. How often do you use illegal drugs?") and does not count
prisons or those people living on college campuses. U.S. population is
about 260 million, which gives about 34 million drug users.
How can we figure out how many of these users are "irresponsible"?
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), there were 1,126,300
drug arrests by State and local authorities in 1993. Let's assume, strictly
for the sake of argument, that each arrest is a single user (i.e., none of
these arrests were the same person being arrested twice, an assumption we
can assume to be false) and that all of these users were arrested due to
irresponsible use (another assumption we know to be false). Let's say that
for each of these, two other irresponsible userss got away. Now, this is
strictly a back-of-the-envelope, order-of-magnitude sort of calculation.
But this gives 3.4 million irresponsible drug users - ten percent of the
total. That's with loading the numbers to give a low number of illegal drug
users and a high number of irresponbile users. I invite anyone with better
stats to take a shot at this question.
>>>Right, so they're harmful with or without Harrison. So if Harrison didn't
>>>work, we should just give up?
>>
>> When a strategy fails, the wise man abandons it.
>
>So the wise man stops throwing sand on a fire, but does not try water.
I don't understand your analogy. You seem to be suggesting that
legalization adovates are not interested in preventing drug abuse. Not
true.
>> No one's asking you to condone it. We're asking that you stop
>>condoning locking people in cages for it. If you really think that
>>treatment and education are far better, what's the disagreement?
>
>The disagreement stem from the claim that creating a recreational drug
>market is a good thing.
A recreational drug market ALREADY EXISTS!! It's one of the biggest in
the country. Marijuana is the number one cash crop in some states.
>> The only behavior modification performed by modern prisons is to make
>>the inmate a better criminal. It certainly doesn't stop use; drugs are
>>still available in jails.
>
>If that's your argument, then let's make better jails and better penal
>systems.
Sheesh, Lee, I think we might actually agree on something here.
>> Who's asked you to bail anyone out? We're asking you to stop locking
>>people up.
>
>No, that's not correct. You and Kelly keep telling me that the money being
>spent on jails will be spent in some other social program. You're still
>asking me to pay for it.
When did I say that? I don't recall making any suggestions about what
to do with the money saved by not locking up drug users. Directing some of
it towards education and treatment for addicts would probably be a good
idea, though; but first, I want to see if we can get agreement that we
shouldn't be locking these people up. One step at a time, Lee.
>> Indeed it was. And it was a poor response. The problem of addictive
>>drugs in patent medicines could have been handled with labeling
>>requirements and public education.
>
>So it was indeed a poor response. What is your response to the crack
>peddlers in my neighborhood?
My usual response to a crack peddler is "No, thanks, not my thing." B->
> That they are providing a valuable civil
>liberty? That I'm just an unthinking, unfeeling, unenlightened boor? That
>IF THEIR ACTIVITIES WERE LEGALIZED that they would somehow not be vermin
>preying on the ignorant?
I think tobbacco companies are vermin. I don't think tobacco use (in
one's own home; second-hand smoke is another matter!) should be prohibited.
> That jail is now the only endagerment to his
>customers?
Of course the crack users risk overdose or poisoning from drugs of
unknown strength and purity. This risk would be lessened with strength and
purity standards set up post-relegalization. Yes, even this would not
eliminate the risks of using a drug like crack cocaine. However,
post-relegalization, other, less harmful forms of cocaine would be readily
available to those users
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving
and that's your own self." -- Aldous Huxley
From tms Fri Jul 28 17:35:49 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,balt.general
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v4dh6$n11@shado.jaguNET.com> <3v8ej5$b2c@shemesh.
tis.com> <3v8i4h$8sg@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>>>I remind you that for every member of your Birchenstock Brigade of
>>>self-obsessed intellectuals, there are at least a thousand poor,
>>>uneducated, lower class individuals for whom drug use represents an escape
>>>from their miseries. An escape that ultimately backfires, as the drugs
>>>then become their misery.
>>
>> Do William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman wear Birkenstocks? How about
>>all those folks over at the Cato Institute? Did George Schultz recommend a
>>seriuos consideration of legalization? I can't picture him in Birks.
>
>Are these folks recreational drug users?
William Buckley has admitted to once using marijuana. (In, he claims,
international waters, so that no laws were broken. Riiigght...) I assume
they all use some legal recreational drug or drugs. Point is that they all
have spoken in favor or legalization, and none of them fit your suggestion
of liberal self-obsessed intellectuals. Conservative self-obsessed
intellectuals, maybe.
>>>It's funny that when I look around in any of the drug clinics in this city,
>>>I don't see YOU there. I see THEM.
>>
>> And you may have noticed that Prohibition didn't keep them out.
>
>And I'm asking you what a repeal of prohibition will do for THEM, not YOU.
Why don't you stroll on over and ask `THEM' if they'd like to be
locked in a cage for a few years for drug possession? Number one, a repeal
of drug prohibition means that won't happen. I'll bet those folks in the
clinic would be pretty happy to eliminate that possibility.
Number two, it means drugs of known purity and strength, so that users
will no longer face such a risk of overdose or poisoning.
Number three, it means drug prices reduced by orders of magnitude, so
that addicts can lead more normal lives and not have to spend so much of
their energy procuring their desired drugs.
Number four, it means the availability of a wider pharmacopeia, so
that users will have available less harmful versions of current drugs, as
well as new drugs sure to be developed.
Number five, repeal of paraphernalia laws means IV drug users don't
have to share needles. (Some suggest that needle-sharing has become an
important social ritual among IV users; I think this is more a case of
making a virtue out a necessity, and a lower risk of dying from AIDS will
win out.)
Number six, if, as some suggest, we use the savings from reduced use
of law enforcement resources and prison space to provide more treatment,
then addicts who want to stop will have a better chance of being able to do
so. Of course, another option is to cut taxes and pocket the cash and let
evolution take its course. This is not my preferred option. But here we
begin to get into implementation details, which is premature.
I assume that `THEY' also have an interest in not having their door
broken down in the middle of the night in a midnight raid and being shot by
some narc who confuses his firearm with his penis, in not being caught in
the crossfire of a gang shoot-out over drug turf fueled by obscene black
market profits, and in not having potentially therapeutic drugs outlawed.
>> Reducing drug abuse is a noble goal. It will not be achieved by locking
>>users in cages. It will not be achieved by "zero-tolerance" laws. It will
>>not be achieved by stormtroopers breaking down doors and shooting suspected
>>drug users like Donald Scott or Scott Bryant, or by imprisoning paraplegics
>>like Jimmy Montgomery who find cannabis the only effective medicine. It
>>will not be achieved by creating a "drug exception" to the Bill of Rights.
>
>I agree. But I have NO problem shooting drug sellers convicted by due
>process.
Sellers of _which_ drugs? What rational distinction will you use to
decide? This whole thing started when I asked you why you didn't include
liquor store owners or tobacco merchants. I'm still wondering just who
you'd like to shoot. If Mary buys a half-ounce of marijuana and sells half
to her roommate Jane at cost, would you shoot Mary?
>>It can be achieved by recognizing that drug use is normal human
>>behavior. It can be achieved by education (_accurate_ education, not the
>>propaganda they hand out now!) and by making treatment available for
>>addicts who want it.
...
>I can't buy some of that. Aggresion is normal human behavior, too. Shall we
>just tolerate it?
To a certain degree, yes. We even encourage it in some contexts -
professional sports, for example. We decry aggression only when it becomes
destructive. The same should apply with the drive for intoxication.
>Further, 100% effective education means, in my simple and
>prejudiced mind, that NO ONE would actually want to use the stuff.
You have an odd definition of effective education. I always thought it
meant teaching accurate, factual information.
>> Make drug use safe and legal.
>
>I argue that your creed is an oxymoron.
Do you mean to argue that drug use is safer when illegal? Or that drug
use cannot be safe? I'll be happy to demolish your argument once I know
what it is. B->
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving
and that's your own self." -- Aldous Huxley
From tms Fri Jul 28 17:52:23 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v8g94$b51@shemesh.tis.com> <3v8j2m$8sg@shado.jaguNET.
com> <3v9mjp$q6p@news0.rain.rg.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
gregr@black.phobos.com (Greg Rose) writes:
>
>At http://www.calyx.net there are transcriptions of articles by the DEA
>in which they admit that 70% of all drug users are responsible, tax paying
>citizens.
There's a _lot_ of stuff at calyx. Can you please give a complete URL?
Thanks.
>Again, I point you out to the National Review article of July 10 in
>which it was stated that only about 10% of drug users go on to
>destructive addictive cycles. Why do you want to punish the
>remaining 90%?
I'll have to look for that. (Interestingly, 10% is the figure I came
up with doing some estimates in another post today.) Thanks for pointing it
out.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving
and that's your own self." -- Aldous Huxley
From tms Fri Jul 28 18:04:37 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3up1c0$7df@mcmail.CIS.Mc <3v921f$hna@news.ysu.edu>
<3v9gkf$p96@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>>
>> What is that? "All laws are good, and even if all laws are NOT good,
>> they should be obeyed ANYWAY"? No wonder no one takes the claims of
>> all those legally-married sodomists in Georgia seriously... they're
>> breaking the law!
>
>No, Grommet, they should be CHANGED. Until then, yes, they should be
>obeyed.
The best explantion of this I ever found was in, of all places, a
science-fiction novel:
"Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on
society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians,
lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should
always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who
believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or
economic status, is a fool."
-- John J. Miller, "And Hope to Die"
(in _Jokertown Shuffle - Wild Cards IX_)
Lee, you would have made a fine slave catcher.
By the way, do you always obey Maryland's restrictive laws about sex?
If so, I can only pity you and your SO...I believe, for example, that oral
sex is illegal around here.
>There is a distinction between Liberty and Anarchy.
And you don't seem to know what it is.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving
and that's your own self." -- Aldous Huxley
From tms Mon Jul 31 13:54:12 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3vdv94$fqn@shado.jaguNET.com> <Yk6eaPS00iWQM2q0lk@
andrew.cmu.edu> <3vf05v$rio@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>In a previous post, you said I would make an "excellent slave-owner."
I think you mean me, not Christopher. And it was "slave catcher"
<begin quote>
The best explantion of this I ever found was in, of all places, a
science-fiction novel:
"Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on
society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians,
lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should
always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who
believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or
economic status, is a fool."
-- John J. Miller, "And Hope to Die"
(in _Jokertown Shuffle - Wild Cards IX_)
Lee, you would have made a fine slave catcher.
<end quote>
> Nothing
>could be further from the truth; I would - in fact - be an excellent
>abolitionist.
In a previous post, you said, in reference to bad laws, that "they
should be CHANGED. Until then, yes, they should be obeyed." In the days of
slavery, the law would have forbidden you to aid escaped slaves. So would
you obey the law or do the right thing?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." -- Blair Houghton
From tms Mon Jul 31 16:53:56 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v92m1$j8i@shado.jaguNET.com> <3vb4sv$fe9@shemesh.
tis.com> <3ve4o7$fqn@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>I'll go further than that, Tom. Right now, any citizen can produce, tax
>free, up to two hundred gallons of beer or wine for their own consumption
>in their own home. How would it strike you if we enacted a similar
>provision for pot?
It would be a good first step, and something that is reasonablly
likely to come to pass. But not nearly enough of a reform.
>But street sales, and the production and distribution of powerful drugs and
>narcotics like crack and heroin would still be illegal. Would you support
>that?
What does this do for those addicted to such drugs? Nothing. They're
still in the same bind they are now. And where do we draw the line? What
about powdered cocaine? LSD? Opium? Ecstasy? Quaaludes? Amphetamines?
leebrown:
>>>Perhaps our efforts at shutting off the supply side are simply not enough?
tms:
>> We can't even shut off the supply of drugs to prisons.
leebrown:
>Is that an inherent impossibility, or a failure of current methods?
If random drug tests, armed guards, and body cavity searches don't
work, I'm afraid to ask what sort of methods you're willing to apply.
leebrown:
>>>I'm not convinced that the white middle-class male IS the using majority
>>>that isn't essential to what you said or what I'm about to say.
(I provide stats that show roughly equal drug use between blacks and
whites.)
leebrown:
>What does "used" mean in the context of the study? Was there any attempt
>to compare long-term vs. occasional use? (or even one-time-only use?) on a
>racial basis?
The NIDA survey basically asks "Have you used illegal drugs in the
past year?" It makes no distinction between one time and every day over
that year.
>The reason that I ask this is that I still maintain that addiction is a
>larger problem in the poorer and disenfranchised segment of the population,
>which contains a disproportionate number of blacks.
Your original statement dealt with use, not abuse or addiction, as did
the information I posted. It's entirely possible that drug abuse and
addiction is more of a problem for the urban poor; I don't have any figures
handy. Anyone? Anyone?
>> But you're putting the cart before the horse, Lee. No business is
>>going to consider going into the drug market until after the legislation
>>passes.
>
>How so? Preparing a business study based on a future possibility is not
>illegal, and it is done all the time.
I didn't say it was illegal. But can you imagine the flack that, say,
Phillip-Morris would take if it came out that they were studying the
possibility of getting into the cocaine market? In the current atmosphere,
it would be a P.R. disaster comparable to the entire Board of Directors
publicly confessing to sodomizing small dogs by the light of burning
American flags.
> A friend of mine alluded that R.J.
>Reynolds already studied that a long time ago. I call it an allusion
>because none of us can find any other reference to it. Perhaps some other
>astute reader could ferret something out?
I think that's just an urban legend.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." -- Blair Houghton
From tms Mon Jul 31 17:30:08 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v9gkf$p96@shado.jaguNET.com> <3vbn05$gbh@shemesh.
tis.com> <3ve85b$fqn@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>> "Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on
>> society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians,
>> lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should
>> always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who
>> believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or
>> economic status, is a fool."
>> -- John J. Miller, "And Hope to Die"
>> (in _Jokertown Shuffle - Wild Cards IX_)
>>
>> Lee, you would have made a fine slave catcher.
>
>Gee, Tom I though slander was beneath you.
Slander? I don't think so. You said, of bad laws that "they should be
CHANGED. Until then, yes, they should be obeyed." If you _really_ believe
that, you would (if you had been alive at the relevant time) followed the
laws that prohibited you from assisting runaway slaves.
I'm hoping, of course, that you would have done the right thing, not
the legal thing. But your own words convict you. Unless you'd care to
retract or modify your statement?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." -- Blair Houghton
From tms Tue Aug 1 11:21:31 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3v8i4h$8sg@shado.jaguNET.com> <3vbla4$g91@shemesh.
tis.com> <3vdv94$fqn@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>>
>> Why don't you stroll on over and ask `THEM' if they'd like to be
>>locked in a cage for a few years for drug possession? Number one, a repeal
>>of drug prohibition means that won't happen. I'll bet those folks in the
>>clinic would be pretty happy to eliminate that possibility.
>
>And I would like to not lock them in a cage, either. But the possiblity of
>that happening was known to them beforehand. True?
So? Let's say practicing your chosen religion was outlawed tommorrow,
but you said, "I have freedom to worship as I please, regardless of the
acts of government." When they dragged you in chains from your
church/temple/synagogue on your next day of worship, would you accept it
gracefully since the possibility of being locked up was known to you
beforehand?
(And if you say "It can't happen here", just a few months ago some
pagans in Florida were busted for holding a circle in a member's back
yard.)
>Is holding a person responsible for their choices
>really such a draconian view?
Locking someone up for an act that harms no one is _not_ an example of
holding them responsible for their choices.
>> Number two, it means drugs of known purity and strength, so that users
>>will no longer face such a risk of overdose or poisoning.
>
>That statement is absolutely true. But they still are faced with the
>personal risks of addiction. (more on this below.)
Which are much less that the risks of poisoning or overdose.
>> Number three, it means drug prices reduced by orders of magnitude, so
>>that addicts can lead more normal lives and not have to spend so much of
>>their energy procuring their desired drugs.
>
>But their lives still revolve around being dependant on a chemical substance,
>true?
No. Being an addict does not mean that one's life revolves around
being dependant on a chemical substance. My father was a tobacco addict for
close to forty years - started smoking at nine, quit last year at 49. But
his life never revolved around that dependancy. A friend of mine used to
have a heroin habit, and while that wasn't exactly a period of great personal
growth, his life never revolved around his addiction.
>Their interest and involvement in family, friends, themselves, and their
>jobs until the only thing that matters is getting the drug. Is this not the
^
(I assume there's a "fades" or "decreases" here that got omitted.)
>very nature of addiction?
No. Addcition means the presence of tolerence, withdrawl, continued
use in the face of negative health consequences, and repeated failed
attempts to cease using. Nothing more, nothing less. It ain't pretty, but
in and of itself it isn't the end of one's life.
>Therefore, the drug is just as harmful to the addict REGARDLESS OF THE
>SELLING PRICE.
No, since post-relegalization we've greatly reduced the chance of
overdose and poisoning, and we will allow the addict to lead a normal life
instead of spending all their time procuding drugs. Check out the UK's
program of prescriptions for addicts.
>Therefore, I regard putting the addict back on his feet and back in control of
>his life as the most responsible and compassionate course of action.
If you force someone into treatment, you are in no way putting them
back in control of their life; you are taking it from them. I fully support
making treatment available to those who want it.
>> Number four, it means the availability of a wider pharmacopeia, so
>>that users will have available less harmful versions of current drugs, as
>>well as new drugs sure to be developed.
>
>Umm... Don't we have enough now?
New drugs will likely surpant old ones. Why use cocaine when New
Improved Ko-Kane Plus (now with Vitamin C!) gives all the high with none of
the addiction?
>Throughout
>this entire debate, I have been calling for some serious discussion on how
>elimination - rather than mitigation - could be implemented.
The lesson of history is clear:
It's can't be.
Here's some of that history for you, from the appendix of _Ceremonial
Chemistry_ by Thomas Szasz.
c. 2000 B.C. Earliest record of prohibitionist teaching, by an
Egyptian priest, who writes to his pupil: "I, thy
superior, forbid thee to go to the taverns. Thou
art degraded like beasts." [W.F. Crafts *et al*.,
*Intoxicating Drinks and Drugs*, p. 5]
4th century St. John Chrysostom (345-407), Bishop of Constantinople:
"I hear man cry, 'Would there be no wine! O folly! O
madness!' Is it wine that causes this abuse? No, for
if you say, 'Would there were no light!' because of
the informers, and would there were no women because
of adultery." [Quoted in Berton Roueche, *The Neutral
Spirit*, pp. 150-151]
1493 The use of tobacco is introduced into Europe by
Columbus and his crew returning from America.
17th century The prince of the petty state of Waldeck pays ten thalers
to anyone who denounces a coffee drinker. [Griffith Edwards,
Psychoactive substances, *The Listener*, March 23, 1972,
pp. 360-363; p.361]
17th century In Russia, Czar Michael Federovitch executes anyone
on whom tobacco is found. "Czar Alexei Mikhailovitch
rules that anyone caught with tobacco should be
tortured until he gave up the name of the supplier."
c. 1650 The use of tobacco is prohibited in Bavaria, Saxony,
and in Zurich, but the prohibitions are ineffective.
Sultan Murad IV of the Ottoman Empire decrees the
death penalty for smoking tobacco: "Whereever there
Sultan went on his travels or on a military expedition
his halting-places were always distinguished by a
terrible rise in executions. Even on the battlefield
he was fond of surprising men in the act of smoking,
when he would punish them by beheading, hanging, quartering
or crushing their hands and feed. . . . Nevertheless,
in spite of all the horrors and persecution. . . the
passion for smoking still persisted." [Edward M. Brecher
et al., *Licit and Illicit Drugs*, p. 212]
1691 In Luneberg, Germany, the penalty for smoking (tobacco)
is death.
1736 The Gin Act (England) is enacted with the avowed object
of making spirits "come so dear to the consumer that the
poor will not be able to launch into excessive use of them."
This effort results in general lawbreaking and fails to
halt the steady rise in the consumption of even legally
produced and sold liquor.
1792 The first prohibitory laws against opium in China are
promulgated. The punishment decreed for keepers of opium
shops is strangulation.
1845 A law prohibiting the public sale of liquor is enacted
in New York State. It is repealed in 1847.
1909 The United States prohibits the importation of smoking
opium. [Lawrence Kolb, *Drug Addiction*, pp. 145-146]
1914 The Harrison Narcotic Act is enacted, controlling the
sale of opium and opium derivatives, and cocaine.
1919 The Eighteenth (Prohibition) Amendment is added to the U.S.
Constitution. It is repealed in 1933.
1921 Cigarettes are illegal in fourteen states, and ninety-two
anti-cigarette bills are pending in twenty-eight states.
Young women are expelled from college for smoking cigarettes.
[Brecher et al., op. cit. p. 492]
1924 The manufacture of heroin is prohibited in the United
States.
1929 About one gallon of denatured industrial in ten is
diverted into bootleg liquor. About forty Americans
per million die each year from drinking illegal alcohol,
mainly as a result of methyl (wood) alcohol poisoning.
1937 Shortly before the Marijuana Tax Act, Commissioner Harry
J. Anslinger writes: "How many murders, suicides, robberies,
criminal assaults, hold-ups, burglaries, and deeds of
maniacal insanity it [marijuana] causes each year, especially
among the young, can only be conjectured." [Quoted in
John Kaplan, *Marijuana*, p. 92]
1937 The Marijuana Tax Act is enacted.
1941 Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek orders the complete suppression
of the poppy; laws are enacted providing the death penalty
for anyone guilty of cultivating the poppy, manufacturing
opium, or offering it for sale. [Lindensmith, *The Addict
and the Law*, 198]
1955 The Shah of Iran prohibits the cultivation and use of opium,
used in the country for thousands of years; the prohibition
creates a flourishing illicit market in opium. In 1969
the prohibition is lifted, opium growing is resumed under
state inspection, and more than 110,000 persons receive
opium from physicians and pharmacies as "registered addicts."
[Henry Kamm, They shoot opium smugglers in Iran, but . . ."
*The New York Times Magazine*, Feb. 11, 1973, pp. 42-45]
1956 The Narcotics Control Act in enacted; it provides the death
penalty, if recommended by the jury, for the sale of heroin
to a person under eighteen by one over eighteen. [Lindesmith,
*The Addict and the Law*, p. 26]
1967 New York State's "Narcotics Addiction Control Program"
goes into effect. It is estimated to cost $400 million
in three years, and is hailed by Government Rockefeller
as the "start of an unending war . . ." Under the new
law, judges are empowered to commit addicts for compulsory
treatment for up to five years. [Murray Schumach, Plan for
addicts will open today: Governor hails start, *The New
York Times*, April 1, 1967]
1971 President Nixon declares that "America's Public Enemy
No. 1 is drug abuse." In a message to Congress, the President
calls for the creation of a Special Action Office of Drug
Abuse Prevention. [The New Public Enemy No. 1, *Time*,
June 28, 1971, p. 18]
1971 On June 30, 1971, President Cvedet Sunay of Turkey decrees
that all poppy cultivation and opium production will be
forbidden beginning in the fall of 1972. [Patricia M Wald
et al. (Eds.), *Dealing with Drug Abuse*, p. 257]
1972 The house votes 366 to 0 to authorize "a $1 billion,
three-year federal attack on drug abuse." [$1 billion
voted for drug fight, *Syracuse Herald-Journal*, March
16, 1972, p. 32]
197? Operation Intercept. All vehicles returning from Mexico
are checked by Nixon's order. Long lines occur and, as
usual no dent is made in drug traffic.
1981 Congress ammends the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which
forbids the armed forces to enforce civil law, so that
the military could provide surveillance planes and ships
for interdiction purposes.
1984 U.S. busts 10,000 pounds of marijuana on farms in Mexico.
The seizures, made on five farms in an isolated section of
Chihuahua state, suggest a 70 percent increase in estimates
that total U.S. consumption was 13,000 to 14,000 tons in 1982.
Furthermore, the seizures add up to nearly eight times the
1300 tons that officials had calculated Mexico produced
in 1983. [the San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday,
November 24, 1984]
1985 Pentagon spends $40 million on interdiction.
>> I assume that `THEY' also have an interest in not having their door
>>broken down in the middle of the night in a midnight raid and being shot by
>>some narc who confuses his firearm with his penis,
>
>Whoops! If you want to discuss guns as penis substitutes in general, that's
>fine. But we can do it over in talk.politics.guns. Agreed?
I'm speaking specifically of such confusion in the context of
narcotics enforcement. It bothers me greatly that when wackos like Weaver
and Koresh are the targets of illegal raids, it's all over the news, but
when some suspected pot-smoker gets killed for no reason, there's not a
peep.
>The folks in "Mr. Gangsta's Neighborhood" are used to enormous tax-free
>profits from their current line of work. When we "eliminate" the
>black-market profits from drug use, I have to wonder what they will turn to
>instead.
Gambling and prostitution, other consensual "crimes" which prohibition
has driven underground to the benefit of organized crime and the detriment
of everyone else involved.
>>>I agree. But I have NO problem shooting drug sellers convicted by due
>>>process.
>>
>> Sellers of _which_ drugs? What rational distinction will you use to
>>decide? This whole thing started when I asked you why you didn't include
>>liquor store owners or tobacco merchants. I'm still wondering just who
>>you'd like to shoot. If Mary buys a half-ounce of marijuana and sells half
>>to her roommate Jane at cost, would you shoot Mary?
>
>No, I would NOT shoot Mary. I cannot in all good conscience see how Mary
>has casual or callous disregard for human life, and that Mary is only
>concerned with profit at the expense of human misery.
So have you changed your mind, or was your original statement
inaccurate?
>I cannot say the same thing for the street dealers who cruise around
>selling crack and heroin to those who can ill-afford its effects. They
>know full well the effects of what they are doing, and they simply don't
>give a shit who dies while they profit.
Sounds exactly like R.J. Reynolds and Phillip-Morris to me.
>>>Further, 100% effective education means, in my simple and
>>>prejudiced mind, that NO ONE would actually want to use the stuff.
>>
>> You have an odd definition of effective education. I always thought it
>>meant teaching accurate, factual information.
>
>How is it odd? Even the accurate, factual information that some of the
>kind citizens of talk.politics.drugs have been stuffing into my mailbox by
>the ream talks about ways to mitigate some of the side side effects of
>smoking pot. (Reducing the risk of cancer, as one example.) After reading
>this information, smoking pot still sounds like something I'd avoid doing,
>which is the same way I feel about tobacco.
Bully for you. Other look at the exact same data and decide otherwise.
Presented with accurate, factual information, people will make different
choices.
>>>> Make drug use safe and legal.
>>>
>>>I argue that your creed is an oxymoron.
>>
>> Do you mean to argue that drug use is safer when illegal? Or that drug
>>use cannot be safe? I'll be happy to demolish your argument once I know
>>what it is. B->
>
>If you believe that "demolition" is the only possible outcome, then you
>have no business calling my views prejudiced.
Sheesh, Lee, I even added a smilely at the end. Does no one have a
sense of humor anymore?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Finagle's first Law:
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
From tms Tue Aug 1 11:48:48 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3vf05v$rio@shado.jaguNET.com> <3vj5em$71m@shemesh.
tis.com> <carlolsen.2552.00117D42@dsmnet.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
carlolsen@dsmnet.com (Carl E. Olsen) writes:
>
>Although I realize this was addressed to Lee Brown, I'd like to throw my two
>cents worth in here. I can't remember the whole name, but there was a
>philosopher named Thoreau who wrote an essay on civil disobedience.
Henry David Thoreau, also the author of _Walden_.
>He lived
>during the days of the fugitive slave act. In his essay he said that it was
>usually best to obey an unjust law while advocating its change. He said an
>exception had to be made when the law required you to harm another human
>being. I don't see how giving up the use of marijuana until it's legal is
>harmful to any other human being. Therefore, I'd say that there's a big
>difference between obeying the marijuana laws and obeying the fugitive slave
>laws.
I agree that there's a difference between obeying the laws regarding
smoking cannabis and obeying the fugitive slave laws (but a much closer
match between assisting the persecution of cannabis users and assisting the
capture of escaped slaves); while I simply do not feel at all obligated to
obey the former[*] (i.e., I disagree with Thoreau on this point), I would
feel strongly compelled to disobey, break, and violate in every way
possible the latter.
Of course, Thoreau wasn't confronted with laws attempting to tell him
what he could or couldn't do with his own body.
([*] Which, I remind my fans in domestic surveillance, doesn't mean
that my actions are or aren't in accord with them anyway.)
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Finagle's first Law:
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
From tms Wed Aug 2 11:56:09 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3ve77f$fqn@shado.jaguNET.com> <DCLu16.L1n@Cadence.
COM> <3vmr5q$59e@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>I'm thinking that we might want a plan that's a little more specific. I do
>not relish the thought of Crips, Inc. and Bloods, Inc. being in charge of
>distributing drugs.
Assuming that they'd be doing so non-violently and in accordance with
appropriate regulations (and if they weren't, off to the slammer with 'em),
why not?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Finagle's first Law:
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
From tms Fri Aug 4 11:35:49 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3vmr5q$59e@shado.jaguNET.com> <3vo79d$ouh@shemesh.
tis.com> <3vpc5k$6bs@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
["they" being current drug dealers who might clean up their act
post-relegalization and sell drugs in the new market]
>>
>> Assuming that they'd be doing so non-violently and in accordance with
>>appropriate regulations (and if they weren't, off to the slammer with 'em),
>>why not?
>
>There you go! You did it too, Tom!
>
>"...assuming..."
>
>Right now, the very illegality of their activities allows for far more
>intensive scrutiny (insiders, informers, surveillance, etc.) than would be
>allowable if they were legitimate businesses (and rightly so.)
Eh? If any given drug dealer was under such intensive scrutiny today,
he'd be busted in a matter of days. The black market isn't under any sort
of intensive scrutiny. In a post-relegalization market, dealers would be
selling from a fixed location, need to have appropriate licences, and be
subject to complaints from buyers (no cocaine buyer today is going to file
charges of fraud against his dealer!) and fellow dealers.
>And they've
>proven to be a pretty notorious bunch. Why on earth would you ASSUME that
>they'd magically clean up their act in an atmosphere of DECREASED
>scrutiny?
Magically? No. They'd clean up their act because buyers would deal
with their more reputable competitors if they don't.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Life is a big wild crazy tossed salad, but you don't eat it, no sir! You
live it! Isn't it great?" -- _The Tick_
From tms Mon Aug 7 12:02:08 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3vpc5k$6bs@shado.jaguNET.com> <3vterb$4qc@shemesh.
tis.com> <401k4l$8fc@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>>
>> Eh? If any given drug dealer was under such intensive scrutiny today,
>>he'd be busted in a matter of days.
>
>>The black market isn't under any sort of intensive scrutiny.
>
>So the War on Drugs is a myth, then?
Occasional individual drug dealers are under under intensive scrutiny.
The majority, and the market as a whole, are not. That's why the average
drug dealer _isn't_ busted in a matter of days.
>> Magically? No. They'd clean up their act because buyers would deal
>>with their more reputable competitors if they don't.
>
>IF those reputable competitors exist. I suspect that the folks currently
>in the business aren't going to give up huge profits without a squabble.
>What keeps the current bunch from holding a monopoly in the market, and
>from threating, firebombing, and otherwise terrorizing new operators right
>out of the market?
Threatening, firebombing and terrorizing are real crimes onto which we
can sic the cops who presently spend their time looking for pot smokers to
bust.
We already have a historical example of taking a drug market out of
the hands of gansters and rum-runners and into the hands of
somewhat-respectable businesspeople, or turning said rumrunners and
gansters into somewhat-respectable businesspeople, at the end of alcohol
Prohibition. If you're curious as to how this happened, look it up.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
The Peter Principle:
People are promoted until they reach their level of incompetence.
From tms Wed Aug 9 12:14:16 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs
Summary:
Expires:
References: <401k4l$8fc@shado.jaguNET.com> <405dgo$kr9@shemesh.
tis.com> <409cqa$8ic@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>Just who would these "millions" of people be, Clifford? In 1991, the
>percentage of inmates in federal custody who were convicted of VIOLENT
>crimes was 96%. [USDoJ] 14,564 inmates were incarcerated for drug-related
>offenses in 1991; 703 of these were for SIMPLE POSSESION.
>
>So I'm having a little trouble with your argument that simple, peaceable
>persons who have a little toke in the privacy of their own homes are being
>locked up by the millions. I'm also having a little trouble believing that
>murderers are being sprung by the carload to incarcerate all these harmless
>pot-smokers.
You're only looking at federal stats. According to the FBI's Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR), there were 1,126,300 drug arrests by State and local
authorities in 1993; I don't have a breakdown on possession vs. sale,
unfortunately.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
-- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
]]>
3 days 22 hours ago
6 days 16 hours ago
1 week 8 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
2 weeks 10 hours ago
2 weeks 11 hours ago
2 weeks 23 hours ago
2 weeks 2 days ago