Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State
From: Dr. Zarkov (Ming_at_Mongo.com)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: GEM: "Re: BIG GUMMINT dumb & dumber"
- Previous message: Michael Price: "Re: Winston Churchill: Land Price as a Cause of Poverty"
- In reply to: Bill: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:46:23 -0500
Bill wrote:
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote ...
>>Bill wrote:
>>>"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote ...
>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>>"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote
>>>>>>><Big Dog> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>On 24 Feb 2005 09:14:08 -0800, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>>>>>What I would do is, once we are out of Iraq and could afford it, make a
>>>>>>>big push on intercepting hard drugs at the border - perhaps using
>>>>>>>troops. Less drugs on the streets automatically implies less addicts.
>>>>>>>This is not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from a moral or crime point of view but rather that people really do
>>>>>>>kill themselves and destroy their lives with this stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Won't work worth a damn. You might lower the supply, but that would raise
>>>>>>the price and hence both increase the associated crime by addicts who
>>>>>>need a fix, and increase the incentive to go into the business. Also,
>>>>>>focusing on stopping drugs at the border would only shift use to drugs
>>>>>>that don't need to be imported, such as methamphetamines, made from OTC
>>>>>>cold medicines. By decreasing the choices among drugs, you increase the
>>>>>>likelihood of people choosing more harmful drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree. You would also need to do things like control ammonia and
>>>>>place such cold medications behind pharmacy counters.
>>>>
>>>>Making more and more of a hassle for everyone, not just the group you want
>>>>to target.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's true.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It is clear that if you ristrict the supply of hard drugs there will be
>>>>>less addicts.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not. With a lower supply and increased price, users tend to use
>>>>the strongest form available (injecting methamphetamines instead of taking
>>>>amphetamine pills, injecting heroin instead of taking codeine pills or
>>>>syrup, smoking crack instead of chewing coca leaves), leading to an
>>>>increased chance of addiction and more harm instead of less.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As I said originally, you focus on hard drugs. In fact the worse, the more
>>>focus. I would, for example, lower or even remove any attention to
>>>marijuana. And there are not many coco leaf chewers in the US.
>>
>>
>>No, but cocaine could be put into a similar form so that it is not as
>>addictive. A lozenge or gum has been suggested.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Also, if we reverse your argument it would say that there would be fewer
>>>addicts if simply opened the boarder to all drugs. Does that make sense to
>>>you?
>>
>>
>>There may not be fewer addicts, but there would not be more either.
>
>
> That clearly can not be true. It would say that if 10 times as many drugs were
> crossing over then the existing population of addicts would use 10 times as
> much.
The difference in supply would not be anywhere near that much in any
realistic scenario. But it's assuming that all drugs go to addicts. If
there was an increase in supply and a decrease in price, use may well
increase, but that does not mean that all users would be addicts, any
more than all users of alcohol are alcoholics.
>>But the main point is that it is not use of drugs that is the problem--It is
>>abuse and the crime and other consequences of the illegality. Aside from the
>>personal liberty argument, probably 99% of the social harm is due to the
>>illegality, not the drugs themselves. See--
>>
>
>
> Note my argument has been focused on what to do at the boarder - which the
> govt. has the right to protect. On the local level, I have argued for reduced
> sentances and more help.
>
> Bill
>
>>_Licit and Illicit Drugs_. EM Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports.
>>Mount Vernon, NY: Consumers Union.
>>http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
>>
- Next message: GEM: "Re: BIG GUMMINT dumb & dumber"
- Previous message: Michael Price: "Re: Winston Churchill: Land Price as a Cause of Poverty"
- In reply to: Bill: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
