"M_P" <m_p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1997e127-efd7-4f0f-8445-79938d9fc4c7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 25, 3:44 pm, "Taylor" <tay...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "M_P" <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:029f41b6-5ce0-46f3-b0b5-2354934090a9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sullum-stimson25apr25,0,896...
>>
>> > By Jacob Sullum
>>
>> > The ideal drug policy would apply to the currently illegal
intoxicants
>> > the same distinctions we routinely apply to alcohol: between children
>> > and adults, between use and abuse, between abuse that harms only the
>> > user and abuse that harms others.
>>
>> > Selling drugs to minors should remain illegal. But adults should be
>> > free to decide for themselves what goes into their bodies, provided
>> > they do not violate anyone else's rights in the process.
>>
>> > Under such a policy, some people would use currently illegal drugs to
>> > excess, just as some people use alcohol to excess. But judging from
>> > history, current patterns of alcohol consumption and data on illegal
>> > drug use, the vast majority would not.
>>
>> > Until 1914, opiates, cocaine and cannabis were readily and legally
>> > available in the United States over the counter and by mail order.
>> > They were incor****ated into a wide variety of medicines, tonics and
>> > popular beverages. Yet even the highest estimates of addiction in the
>> > late 19th and early 20th centuries, offered by people making the case
>> > for prohibition, indicate that heavy users represented less than 1%
of
>> > the population.
>>
>> > In the case of alcohol, moderation is the rule. About 10% of those
who
>> > have consumed at least one drink in the last year qualify as "heavy
>> > users," meaning they've had five or more drinks on the same occasion
>> > on each of five or more days in the last month. The government's own
>> > survey data indicate that what's true of alcohol is also true of
>> > marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and even heroin: The vast
majority
>> > of people who try these drugs do not become addicts. In a legal
>> > market, the rate of addiction among users would be, if anything,
>> > lower, because the people who are most prone to addiction are
probably
>> > the ones who are least deterred by prohibition. And before you
imagine
>> > Americans flocking to crack and heroin the moment prohibition is
>> > repealed, consider the fact that these are distinctly minority tastes
>> > even among illegal drug users, who overwhelmingly prefer marijuana.
>>
>> > Cully, in your first post you accused me of sidestepping "the issue
of
>> > morality," so let me be explicit. Psychoactive substances are not
>> > inherently good or evil; the morality of drug use depends on how the
>> > drug is used, for what purpose and in what context. Unwinding at the
>> > end of the day or on the weekend by smoking a little marijuana, for
>> > example, is morally indistinguishable from doing the same thing with
>> > beer, wine or liquor.
>>
>> > Your parade of horror stories, featuring a president high on heroin
>> > during a national crisis, meth-addicted child abusers and stoned
>> > school bus drivers, obscures the crucial distinction between use and
>> > abuse. We could just as easily have a president who is drunk during a
>> > national crisis, an alcoholic who beats his kids or an inebriated bus
>> > driver. There are ways to deal with such situations that do not
>> > require general prohibition. If a drunk wrecks his personal
>> > relation****ps, he pays a social cost; if he screws up at work, he may
>> > lose his job; if he assaults someone or endangers others by driving
>> > while intoxicated, he can be arrested. But unless his conduct rises
to
>> > the level of a crime or tort, the law leaves him alone.
>>
>> > The anecdote about your friend "Bob," the lawyer whose alcohol abuse
>> > jeopardized his career, family and health but who "got professional
>> > help" and is now "a world-class advocate, father and husband,"
>> > sup****ts my argument. Would Bob have been better off if he had been
>> > arrested for alcohol possession and treated like a criminal?
>>
>> > Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
>>
>> He didn't even mention the amount of money governments could collect in
>> taxes.
>
> There are too many good reasons for drug legalization to cover in a
> single newspaper column.
Ya. That was interesting about the alcohol/drug use and abuse
equivalency.
|
