----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
> Dan Minette wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM > > Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) > > > > > > > >>Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: > >> > >>>>From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> > >>>>Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >>>> > >>>>The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly > >>>>obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind > >>>>drug prohibitions. > >>>> > >>>>Doug > >>> > >>> > >>>According to your theory, which would these be? > >>> > >>>JJ > >>> > >> > >>No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little > >>bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the > >>Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the > >>strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production > >>surges dramatically? > > > > > > No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug > > production that the US will not use, for good reason. > > > > Could you elaborate? Sure, kill anyone growing drugs, and kill their families too. If need be, randomly kill people in the village until they get the idea that their neighbors must be stopped from growing drugs. I'm not sure that the Taliban went quite that far every time, but the notion of human rights was not exactly high on their list. >The disruption we've created in Columbia has torn that nation apart. Your suggesting that there would be no gurrillas if we just allowed the cocaine traffic to flourish? Wouldn't the drug czars just own the government and run it like the Mafia then? >And for all our efforts, we just create a more lucrative market for cocaine. No, that's not all we've done. With crack use down, murders are also down, substantially. There was a very strong correlation between the murder rate and crack cocaine useage. People have tried various forms of decriminalizing the use of hard drugs. The problem with them is that the tolerance tends to increase with usage. England tried to have regestered addicts who got regular limited amounts of heroin, for example, cheap or free from the government. Of course, they just used this as a subsidy of their total habit, and increased their usage by buying more on the street. >And if you can coat rural Columbia with Round-Up, why can't you do the same for Afghanistan? I'd like a source that shows that at least the majority of rural Columbia has been defoliated. Afganistan is a poor country that can barely feed itself. A cash crop like poppies can make a farmer relatively rich. It takes a very repressive regieme to keep virtually everyone from trying to better their financial position this way What I find troublesome with your position is that you seem to suggest that there is an easy answer to the drug problem. Just let people use whatever they want in whatever quantities they want. The difficulty with this is 1) It interferes with the ability to work, so the money has to come from someplace else 2) Unless subsidized by the government, it will still cost money. 3) If cheap, people will tend to keep on increasing their dosage until its near fatal, or at least its no longer cheap. 4) There is a strong association with hard drugs and other crimes. There is a strong correlation between crack and violent behavior. Booze and grass are one thing, there is at least a significant fraction of folks who use/used those in a non-addictive manner. But, the fact that very liberal European countries have reversed the trend towards decriminalization of all drugs should be considered. My understanding is that, when Amsterdam decriminalized all behavior associated with drugs, the drug addicts overwhelmed the town. When New York cracked down, Time Square became someplace you could go with your teenage kids with at night. My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
