Posted by Elizabeth on January 5, 2000, at 19:41:25
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Adam on January 5, 2000, at 10:45:56
> One major difference between handguns and drugs: The former at best is used to hurt other people, the latter at worst is used to hurt oneself. Handguns are legally purchasable at Wal-Mart in the U.S. (my God-given right, goshdarnit) but, for instance, LSD isn't. This makes NO sense to me.
Random psychoanalytic tidbit: I had a dream once where a Walmart-esqe store (I think it was actually a KMart) was selling LSD.
> Legalization only seems defeatest if one ignores the intractability of the problem of drug abuse, which may have as much to do with socioeconimics as they do with the properties of the chemical.
I would say more. One person may get addicted to morphine and destroy his life, while another uses it reliably for control of chronic pain and improves his life, for example.
> It would seem more poor minorities in the Bronx are succumbing to drugs than rich white folks in Westchester County.
I dunno, I wonder if that isn't just a stereotype. I think that wealthy people with screwed-up family lives and/or particular natural predispositions are at risk for developing drug problems, e.g.
> Rather than blame drugs for social ills (a convenient scapegoat for do-nothing politicians in search of a hot-button issue)
Well said! :-)
> and punishing the people who use them , how about spending more time on ending the social injustices that put the poor and disenfranchised at such a high risk for self-destructive behavior?
Or that prevent the mentally ill, regardless of socioeconomic status, from seeking care.
> One is defeatest when they quit without a fight. One is pragmatic when they choose their battles carefully.
You're very quotable today!
> For instance, cigarette usage has declined in this country primarily because years of education on the dangers of smoking have made an impact.
Also, I think, because it's believable education. (Has everyone here seen "Reefer Madness?")
> Perhaps laws similar to those used for the currently acceptible drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Not a big stretch, really. Take the ATF and change its name.
The Drugs 'n' Guns Agency? :-)
> It's not at all asinine. I don't think the morality thing can be ignored, though, because the drug problem is cast by so many in the light of morals.
Well, people want to find something outside themselves to blame for social and other ills. Drugs, pornography, Canada :-), whatever.
poster:Elizabeth
thread:17775
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000101/msgs/18132.html