Subject:
|
Re: Drugs and guns
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:24:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
376 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > the utter failure to enforce those bans [on drugs]...
>
> But only because it's impossible. For us to succeed in fighting our war on
> drugs, we would have to clamp down a fascist military government and spend
> every scrap of GDP on the fight. It might even require a colonial war against
> the major producers of the problem substances so that we could wipe out the
> crops. It would be wildly more logical to lift all the bans on drugs and deal
> with the relatively inexpensive health problem.
While the health problems may be relatively inexpensive (though I don't
believe it to be so), the heath costs are, I think, considerably smaller
than the longterm impact upon productivity. Opponents might point to
tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol as "legal" drugs whose users can still
function professionally, but that's not really a good comparison. In any
case, I agree with your basic premise that there's no feasible way to
prevent the production and import of drugs from other nations.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) :-) (...) The smiley was meant (though obviously unsuccessfully) to point to my silly irony and indicate that such a result would _not_ be the best possible outcome. But I do think that it would be the outcome of a gun ban in the US. And I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
