Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:55:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
819 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message
news:G4p58v.5n8@lugnet.com...
> I admit that what follows is far from rock solid: currently, as well as
Obviously.
> in Libertopia (correct me if I'm wrong) an addict faces the potential loss
> of employment, property, and family through repercussions of behaviors
> brought on by feeding the addiction. In addition, however, today's system
> allows incarceration based on use of the drug, and it could be argued (not
> entirely convincingly, I agree) that prison in that case helps him, since
> he's unable to supply his addiction. Of course, without actual rehab, the
> likelihood of subsequent relapse is considerable, but that's another
issue.
With or without rehab, recidivism is extremely high, check the numbers.
Primarily, because there are laws against the use of drugs, and drug users
become part of a system that tracks them and brings them back in whenever
they get off the beaten track. Most people in jail (or even those who only
go to court) due to drugs don't have all the other repercusiions you listed
above because of using drugs.
> Again, I recognize that this last part isn't ironclad. It seems to me,
> though, that even in an environment in which drugs are legal, an addict • will
> go to whatever lengths are necessary to acquire it. An impoverished • heroin
> addict will still steal to fund his habit, even if heroin is dispensed at • a
> supermarket. With that in mind, I don't see that legalization of drugs
> would in any way eliminate the corrolary crime associated with them, even • if
> possession itself is no longer a crime.
There is a difference between stealing $50 for a fix and stealing $2 for
a fix. In fact, its not too hard to beg for $2. The global drug war and
illegalization has escalated the price of drugs to exorbitant levels which
in turn has caused a rise in theft and violent crimes. Just like
prohibition, because that's what it is. Prohibition did not work the first
time because the minority group of people who were being persecuted (people
who enjoy drinking) was too big to oppress. This current prohibition is
worse, in that the minority being persecuted (people who enjoy using pot,
cocaine or heroine) is too small to defend itself, and therefore is
suffering terribly.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I understand what you're saying, and as far as deterrent criteria, I agree with the ones you've cited (and which I've snipped). In the current system, an illegal drug carries with it the direct penalty of its use, in addition to whatever (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
