XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: nothanks@nowhere.com   
      
   Pete Zakel wrote:   
      
   > Manny Davis   
   >  writes:   
   >   
   >>The drug war is a winner for the state and certain special interest   
   >>groups. It is a loser for drug consumers.   
   >   
   > Actually, it is a loser for the state.  It is only a winner for   
   > certain special interest groups -- primarily illegal drug dealers   
   > (especially the high level dealers) and banks who profit from money   
   > laundering.   
   >   
   > The prison industry also gets some benefits,   
      
   The prison population in 1980 was 500,000. Today it is over 2,000,000. An   
   increase of 1.5 million people over the last 25 years has been a huge   
   benefit to the industry. Construction firms that build prisons benefit.   
   Police benefit by the large budget increases necessary to fight the   
   unending WO(s)D, thus firms that supply equipment to police departments   
   also benefit.   
      
   >but it is a net loss to   
   > the state and to society in general.   
      
   The drug war is a boon for the state. The state is what started and what   
   currently fights the drug war. Drug laws exist because state and federal   
   lawmakers passed them into law. Every day state police officers and   
   federal DEA agents arrest people for violating drug laws. State and   
   federal prosecutors make deals that put drug users in prison. State and   
   federal prison officials lock up drug users sent to them by government-   
   run courts. All of the parties thus mentioned are part of the state and   
   not one of them wants to end the drug war, in fact, all of them work hard   
   to expand it. If the drug war was a net loss for the state it would be   
   ended tommorrow. Note that there is virtually no chance of that happening   
   anytime soon.   
      
   >>I agree legalization would increase consumption, because of much lower   
   >>prices. But it doesn't follow that the contents of the drug would be   
   >>altered.   
   >   
   > Also, the increase in consumption would level off pretty quickly, and   
   > then drop to a lower stable level once the novelty wore off.   
      
   Maybe. Or consumption might increase a lot and stay there. One thing we   
   know for sure about Americans is that they like their drugs.   
      
      
   > Of course, and net increase in marijuana use would have a parallel net   
   > decrease in alcohol use, which would also be a net gain to society.   
      
   That I agree with.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)