XPost: uk.legal, uk.politics.drugs
From: bliss@sfo.com
johannes wrote:
>
> Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
>> In article <49D7162E.A976327F@size436464778fitter.com> johannes
writes:
>>> M_P wrote:
>>>> On Mar 10, 12:05 pm, Dr John Watson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "There is little evidence that controls can reduce total global
production
>>>>> ... (or) for trafficking. Production and trafficking controls only
>>>>> redistributed activities. Enforcement against local markets failed in
most
>>>>> countries."
>>>> The prohibitionists' answer will be that we just need to do more of
>>>> what's not working. What's the definition of insanity, again?
>>> 'Not working' doesn't mean: Not working; that's too literal. It just
>>> means that some drugs might still get through. Enforcement hasn't failed.
>>> Try smuggling drugs into far East countries, and it's well know that you
>>> lose your life at the gallows or firing squad.
>> According to the reports I've seen, interdiction efforts get about 10% of
the
>> drugs coming in, and the price has not gone up.
>>
>> Sounds like literally "not working" to me.
>>
>> And even in the Far East countries lots of drugs get in. Some people lose
>> their life, and others step in to take their place because the profits
>> guaranteed by prohibition make the risk worth it for a lot of people.
>>
>> Remove prohibition and standard market forces will result in competition and
>> lower prices, and regulation will ensure that people aren't selling talcum
>> powder or rat poison when the package says "cocaine". Cost of enforcing
>> non-enforceable laws will go down, and tax revenue will go up.
>
> So lower prices will result in more drug users; more drug addicts who expects
> to be cared for by everybody else. Or will drugs be taxed to prevent overuse,
> in which case drug users will continue to steal and burgle to fund their
> addictive habit. Which is it?
Not all illegal drugs are addictive. But if people are addicted
under a regulation model instead of a punitive prohibition
model they could have the drugs they needed supplied by their
private physician or a public clinic. Very few would need to steal
to get money for their pharmaceutical requirements because they
wouldn't be dismissed any sooner than the alcoholic who has a
wee drinkie in the morning to calm his stomach, goes out on a smoking
break and has a wee drink at the bar, goes to lunch and has a couple
of martoonies with the boss or with clients or co-workers and goes
back with coffee to stay awake during the afternoon until he can
get to the cocktail lounge at 5 to unwind with something substantial
in the way of liquid intake.
Or the present employed drug user of tobacco who has coffee and a
cigarette on arising and on the way to work another set. Smoking
break comes too seldom but it comes and the same set of coffee
and tobacco is repeated at intervals during the day.
So drug addicts work and can work very hard with the right
drugs. The Chinese had no objection to the coolies smoking after
work that we can scarcely imagine but when it got up to the Mandarin
classes they attempted to suppress it. That refers to the 19th
Century when China was still an Empire. One other reason was that
the British(mostly) were selling opium in China to get the gold
that was the Imperial property.
But I digress. Addiction is not incompatible with earning
a wage adequate to provide for chemical stress relief.
later
bliss
--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cacao that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion.
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
