ea80e3fb   
   XPost: talk.politics.libertarian, alt.drugs, alt.politics.libertarian   
   From: bliss@sfo.com   
      
   Brother Nate wrote:   
   > On Sep 15, 12:56 pm, "Jerry Okamura"    
   > wrote:   
   >> I am generally in favor of legalizing what are now illegal drugs.  But   
   >> before we do that, if we ever do that, I would like to spend the time to   
   >> learn all of the advantages and disadvantages, before making a final   
   >> decision.   
   >   
   > I'm in favor of investing time on study of important policy   
   > decisions, but, no disrespect intended, empirical data   
   > about the issue has been in the public domain for decades.   
      
   	The Studies were done as early as Nixon who attempted   
   to suppress the results as he was morally ( or maybe immorally?)   
   opposed to the course of action recommended by his own commission.   
      
   	I can quote the relevant conclusions from some very extensive   
   studies on cannabis.  But I have done that before.  If you want me   
   to do it again I will.   
      
   > It's fair for the realm of science to have it's say about the   
   > numbers we can observe: the costs of keeping so many   
   > people, the amount of revenue that illegal drug trade   
   > feeds to cartels.  Yet dollar values we can see are only   
   > half of the debate, and the flip side is rooted in what we   
   > can't predict, or even ethically calculate.   
      
   	We can because of nations where tolerance of drug   
   use is the rule like the Netherlands, where drug use has   
   been decriminalized like Portugal,  Italy where cannabis   
   is being tolerated at least.   
   >   
   > Without legal barriers and high cost, how many people   
   > would experiment with drugs and suffer health effects   
   > from unfettered addictions?  It just isn't possible to know   
   > that ahead of time, and trying to assess a dollar value   
   > on human suffering is just somewhere nobody needs to   
   > go.  But there are similar human costs in the present   
   > system, and I'm not comfortable leaving this question   
   > where it's been stalled out for the last 40 years, in the   
   > hands of "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??" fear   
   > mongering.   
      
   	Addiction is a fetter.  It will not be unfettering for the   
   average person to see what happens when drug use is   
   not restrained by common sense but it usually happens   
   to people who are slaves to various other illnesses including   
   but not limited to schizophrenia.   
   	If you want to know what happens when drugs are   
   given to addicts consult the Swiss experiments.   
      
   	How many people presently use drugs in spite of   
   legal barriers without any particular problems?  We could   
   know that if the legal barriers to discussion and inquiry   
   were down.   
      
   >   
   > I know there are a lot of people, myself included, who   
   > get nervous at the words "We're the government and   
   > we're here to Help", but I do know that I prefer government   
   > should at least TRY to act with compassion instead of   
   > just being a bully who threatens to beat people up if   
   > they light a stinking joint.   
      
   	Well the government is not here to help you but to enable   
   the General Welfare and they don't particularly do that by   
   criminalizing   
   drugs of any kind without rhyme or reason.   
   	It would be nice if they could be helpful to people rather than   
   to big business.  But the Republicans seem to have a problem with   
   that.   
      
   >   
   > --   
   > Brother Nate   
   > bronate@gmail.com   
   > Moral Compass   
      
   	Later   
   	bliss   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)