Re: Admiral Inman

[jamiel@sybase.com (Jamie Lawrence)]

I knocked this off Cypherpunks. It has no relevance there,
although I was tempted. I'm also responding to both of you
in the same message for my convenience. Also, forgive the
spelling. For some reason my spell checker keeps bombing
today.

At 8:39 AM 11/22/94, Connie Sadler (415)725-7703 wrote:

>In list.cypherpunks, jgrubs@voxbox.norden1.com writes:
>
>> jamiel@sybase.com (Jamie Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>> It does amaze me that what can be a victimless activity is such
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> a hotbutton.
>>
>> Drugs are victimless? What about crack babies, which cost a million
         ^^^

First, you switched verbs on me. Semantic games are usually pretty
pointless, but here you are twisting my meaning.

Anyone who doesn't believe that the issue of drugs can be dealt with
on a societal level with rationality and respect should read up on or
take a trip to Holland (I'm talking drug policy here, not economics or
anything else).

If you want to talk crack-babies, I'd ask you what are the causes of
the situation: some depraved, subhuman need for the drug or an economic
and social environment that rapes most people in living it of their self-
respect and dignity (I don't see being raised in a U.S. ghetto as being
all that far removed from being raised in a totalitarian state, but this
is a different conversation topic, and I won't get too into it here).

"Gosh, Batman, how can we begin to deal with the root of this issue?"

"Well, we have two choices. We can assume that the drug user is a
depraved, subhuman beast that deserves to suffer and be incarcerated
(and maybe spit on, too), or we can try to find a way to either help
them out of a nasty situation, or at least not make their plight any
worse than it already is."

And we are making it worse, as a nation. As others have noted, legalization
would cause prices to fall significantly (less drug related theft), end
most related violence (as a smoker, I've never even been *tempted* to
mug someone for a butt ;), and probably have significantly better quality,
thereby alleviating many of the drug-related health concerns.

>> dollars EACH in medical care, btw.
>
>Exactly! And this is just one example of the victims. What about the extremely
                                              ^^^^^^^

If you have this take, look at DCF's comments on the topic.
'Nuff said.

>high rate of crime motivated by the need for drugs? I have personally been a

Is that 'high rate of crime' attributable to the drugs, the
users, the dealers, the economic makeup of the illegal drug
industry, the U.S.'s method of responding to what I will agree
is a problem, public morality or what?

Saying that drugs causes crime is the equivivelent of saying
the welfare state causes poverty. Without looking too closely,
both statements can seem true, and may have some validity for
a particular situation, but is a vast, politically expedient
oversimplification that paves the way for a lot of ruthless
puritanical moralizing and self-righteous demonization, a lot
of public expense in money, human life and human dignity, and
a senseless rigidity in response to a situation that can be much
better dealt with, any way you measure it.

>victim twice (theft of my car and *nice stereo system* and a breakin to my
>house where much was taken) in crimes which appeared to be motivated by the
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So drugs are nasty becuase you have lost something to someone who *might*
have stolen becuase of dependency?

"Hey - I think that Republican stole my wallet! Republicans
should be illegal!"

(Yes, I'm being snide, and no, I won't defend it. I think my
point, that this is a rather lame, nonempirical appeal, should
be clear. I must say that all of this is so basic that I think
some sarcasm is not out of line.)

>the need for drugs. I don't see where legalizing drugs would motivate addicts
>to start working to legitimately pay for their habits.

Look harder.

>CJS

-j