Hello Lowell - I have an uncle Lowell .. :o) On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:41:38 -0800, "Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Greetings, Conster (Connie?): Yes, it's Connie :-> >> Hello Shadow >> >In a Libertarian world, your neighbors wouldn't be making meth next door >> - >> >Eli Lilly and Company would, in a proper chemical plant, and its products >> >would be available at 7-11 and Circle K, cheaper and cleaner than your >> >neighbors could make. >> >> Isn't this like the biggest assumption one could make? Seriously.. Why >> would a "Libertarian" world not have the same criminal element that >> now exist in our world. We aren't talking about heaven here, we are >> talking about the same world with a different political party. To >> believe that every thing would be wonderful and it would be like >> "We're not in Kansas anymore Toto." isn't realistic at all. > >Actually, there is considerable precedent for this "assumption." The >history books call it "Prohibition." When alcohol was illegal, there were >all kinds of bad effects from its manufacture, distribution, sale and >consumption. Sugar (and along with it many other things) was stolen from >stores and warehouses so that the Feds couldn't track who was purchasing >large lots of it and investigate to see if it was involved in making >alcohol. Organized crime controlled the distribution--with the usual turf >wars and contract "enforcement" problems that went with distribution and >sale of illegal goods. And, of course, people were harmed by consuming >wood-alcohol based products. Finally, the money and opportunities for >advancement (by pumping up one's "score" of arrests) corrupted the police >and the justice system. Don't you think Organized Crime would still raise it's vile head in a situation where they could legally made loads of drugs and control the market? I don't see why they wouldn't just because it was legalized. The difference being, is the cops hands would be tied. I knew that the days of Prohibition would come up :) It usually does with conversations such as this. I have too many pot smoking friends who bring it up. Personally, I think pot should be legal and I also assume the reason it isn't is the government would have to lay off a lot of family members who are out their pleasure Cruising between Florida and Cuba. We can easily grow a little stash in our own back yard. Mind you, I haven't had a toke in 26 years but like I said I know people well into their near 70's that have been smoking pot since it used to be a felony to do so. >Obviously, alcohol-related problems are yet with us, but cause a lower level >of trouble in our society than when Prohibition was in place. People seem >to have a preference for less potent beer and wine-cooler products in a >relatively free and open market than they do for the more potent hard >liquors. Almost no one gets blinded by wood alcohol, the smugglers and moon >shiners are out of business (except for a few souls who barely make a profit >and probably continue 'shining mainly out of sheer cussedness) and the >police don't take bribes from alcohol producers, distributors or sellers and >they don't frame people with illegal possession of alcohol. We still have Everclear.. I know some folks that are friends of a sort who drink it with Root beer Schnapps. I think it would make a nice paint remover myself. >Based on the alcohol experience, one would reasonably expect a similar thing >to occur if drugs were treated in a manner similar to alcohol. Large >corporations with brand names to protect would make products without >un-advertised impurities, legal distributors would provide the product to >legal sellers who would sell the product for far less than current prices. >Sales contracts and "turf" disputes would be matters for the courts to >decide. And the population of people who drive under the influence, beat >their spouse or children and engage in other anti-social behavior probably >wouldn't change much--with the exception that when they get to the point >that they have to steal to support their habit, they will need to steal >less. But there'd be more space for them in jails and prisons when they get >caught breaking other laws (against DUI, assault, theft, etc.). And >finally, the corrupting influence on our justice system would be removed. > >Would all that happen? Or would something about the drugs make it so that >things would get much worse? Reasonable people can take both sides of the >argument. But please, understand the argument and address it. I do see your point. I think alcohol can be as dangerous in the hands of some people as cocaine. Cocaine is bad, but at least it's organic. There is no way to make Meth without using poison. It just can't happen. I'm aware that there are some poisons that are useful in small amounts. I simply can't see why anyone would consider the legalization of Meth making much of a difference, except potentially taking the fun from the kids who start doing it simply because it's 'bad'. I started smoking at 17 y.o. to be the rebel that I wanted to be. I've quit for decent periods of times, but I'm smoking again, trying to quit again. Talking about the scourge of drug abuse. Try being a smoker in the world these days. When California decided that a person couldn't smoke in a bar I really had to smirk. Personally, even when I didn't smoke, I liked the ambiance of a smoke filled bar, drinking semi-warm beer and looking at the guy next to year with Tattoos from his neck down. The problem would still remain however, because if we legalized any of these drugs, is it suggested that there would be an age limit? Like it or not and granted kids are people and have rights (though not many in this current system), wouldn't there be an age limit at which we would allow such chemical usage to be inhaled, injected or ingested? Connie _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
