HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/drugs/antihoover

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 14.0 KB

From: Jim Rosenfield <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 09 Jun 94 22:35 PDT
Subject: Anti- Hoover.zip!
Message-ID: <1484000555@cdp>

Found this on COmpuserve, Arguments against those in Cliff Schaffer's
"HOOVER.ZIP".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re:  Hoover.zip. From the beginning:
Item 1C states, "There is no credible evidence
anywhere that we could stop, or even greatly reduce, the
sale of drugs within the United States.  In fact, all of the
Federal Government's own evidence shows that this is
impossible and not only is it a waste of money to try, but
it actually does more harm than if we did nothing at all.
    This presumes that our sole m ethod of attempting to
stop the sale of drugs is through arrest and imprisonment.
How about addressing the question of stopping the sale
of drugs by effecting change in society such as to keep
people from getting on drugs in the first place? If we do
this, then items 1A and 1B become moot -- if there's no
market (or a sharply reduced market) in the U.S. for such
drugs, other countries won't be so tempted to grow/
produce drugs and ship them here.
Item 2 asks, how many millions of people will have
to go to prison in order to win the drug war with our
current approach?
    This presumes that every last user will have to go to
prison to "win" the drug war. There are more effective
ways to get people NOT to use drugs. Legalizing drugs
will not do so, however.
Item 3 asks, What is the biggest single reason for the
epidemic of crime in the inner city? The answer: The biggest
single cause of crime in the inner city is the fact that most
black men cannot find jobs. Item 4 then goes on to link
the difficulty black men face in finding jobs to their
prison records, and Item 5 states that black men have
prison records because they're arrested on non-violent
drug charges.
    This is convoluted and unsupported reasoning at best,
and unfairly uses race as the basis for supporting
legalization of drugs.
    I won't dispute assertions about the number of black
men who have arrest and conviction records. But how
many of those black men have records for other charges *in
addition to* their drug arrests (anything from petty theft,
illegal weapons charges, and larceny to assault, battery,
rape, b&e, etc.)? These convictions also play a role in
the reluctance of employers to hire these men.
Furthermore, there are many, many additional
factors that contribute to chronic unemployment
in the inner cities.
    Factor in the high drop-out rate from school -- how
many of these men never finished high school, and in
fact are functionally illiterate? Factor in the low quality
of education even for many of those who do finish
high school.
    Factor in the astoundingly high illegitimate
birth rate in the inner cities -- those kids (boys and girls,
both) grow up in poverty and with NO role models.
Their "role models" are the fathers who sell drugs
and the teenage mothers who have crack babies.
    Factor in the fact that many of these children, born
into what we euphemisticallly call "single-parent
families," grow up virtually unsupervised, either
because their mother is out working 2 or 3 jobs to
support her family, or she's an alcoholic or drug
addict herself, or a prostitute, or otherwise is simply
*not there* for her children. This leaves these kids
with large amounts of unsupervised time. They
begin developing their lawbreaking ways very
early on.
    Factor in the culture of non-achievement, in which
black students who do well in school are ridiculed and
ostracized by their peers.
    Please factor in these considerations and the many
others that contribute to the problems in the inner city.
You simply *cannot* lay the problems of the inner city
at the feet of "non-violent drug arrests."
Item 6 asks, why were the laws against drugs passed in
the first place?
    How is this even relevent? You're once again
attempting to use race as a weapon to bludgeon
people into accepting legalization of drugs.
    We know, today, that many of these drugs
are serious health hazards, and also cause
tremendous dysfunction in the addicted individuals
(and their families). It doesn't matter why drug laws
were passed in the first place.
Item 7 compares the numbers of deaths from various
types of legal and illegal drugs. Alcohol kills 80,000
per year, and cocaine kills about 2,200.
    These numbers are bound to be misleading. How
many drinkers are there vs. how many cocaine users
are there? If there were as many cocaine users as there
are drinkers, how many would cocaine kill in a year?
I'd be more interested in statistics that you can actually
compare.
Item 8, which drug causes the greatest burden on our
medical facilities? Alcohol and tobacco are the clear
leaders.
    Again, a misleading comparison. If there were as
many crack and cocaine users as there are smokers
and drinkers, which drug would cause the greatest
burden on our medical facilities?
Item 9 asks, which drugs are the most addictive?
"Tobacco is the most addictive drug.  ... cravings
for heroin and cocaine are usually over within
the first month."
    So, if we keep drugs illegal, but mandate
treatment programs instead of jail time, we could
eliminate drug addiction fairly easily, wouldn't
you say? Then we wouldn't need to discuss legalization.
Item 10, do illegal drugs cause violent crime? "... less
than one percent (can) be attributed to the behavioral
effects of cocaine or crack."
    Again, misleading statistics. How many people
find themselves dysfunctional, out of a job, and totally
unemployable because of a severe addiction? Many of
these people turn to crime because it is the only
avenue open to them. Their crime is not necessarily
"attributed to the behavioral effects of cocaine or
crack," but can be attributed to the "lifestyle"
and "life-altering" effects of cocaine or crack.
Item 11., Can we stop drug production overseas?
"ABC Television . . .  concluded decisively that there
was no hope."
    Well, ABC Television is sure the expert I turn
to on these things.
    Additionally, the key is to reduce demand in
our own country. If the demand isn't high enough
in the U.S. to justify the cost and the risk, the flow
of drugs into this country will stop, or slow to a
trickle. Legalizing drugs will *not* reduce demand.
Simple economics says that if you take a
product, lower the cost, make it more widely
available, and make it socially acceptable, the
demand will increase.
Item 12, can we stop drug smuggling at the borders?
    Again, the key is to reduce demand, and the
supply will dry up. We reduce demand by
mandatory rehabilitation of addicts and by
changing the social and economic conditions
that lead to addiction.
Item 13, can we arrest all the drug dealers in
the United States?
    This question is ridiculous to the point of
absurdity. Again, the key is to reduce demand
through rehabilitation and social change. When
demand is reduced sufficiently, drug dealers will
disappear, because they'll have no market.
Item 14 details the cost to put a "single drug dealer" in
jail, and compares that cost to the cost of providing
treatment/education for 200 people.
    Again, a ridiculous question. While we won't
win the drug war or solve the drug problem by
jailing all drug dealers, neither will we do so by
legalizing these drugs. We will do so by
reducing demand.
    I'm all for providing treatment for drug addicts.
However, if drug use is legalized, we have to no
tool with which to compel users to get treatment.
I'd rather see the laws rewritten to provide for
"sentences" of treatment programs levied against
users rather than jail time. Legalization is not
necessary to accomplish this.
Item 15, what does this drug policy do to the black
community?
    Again, this is an incendiary, inflammatory and
unjustified use of race in an attempt to justify
legalizing harmful drugs. Alcohol, which IS legal,
is a major, major problem in the black community.
Statistics show significantly higher numbers of
liquor stores, per capita, in black neighborhoods
than in white neighborhoods.
     The easy availability of alcohol, and the social
acceptance of its abuse, leads to chronic probems
related to dysfunctional families, unemployability,
inability to function in society, child abuse, and
many other problems. The problems caused by
alcohol do not stem from arrest records for
"non-violent drinking."
    Illegal drug use causes similar problems, and
will only increase if these drugs are legalized.
     It is absurd to think that drug use by itself has no
negative impact on the black comunity and that the
only problems associated with it stem from non-violent
drug charges.
Item 16 asks, How does our policy compare with the
policies of other countries? The answer states, "Let's
compare the results of two roughly comparable
major cities which both have a drug problem.
The cities are New York, and Liverpool, England."
    How can you assert that New York City, with its
population of more than 7 million people, a city
that is a mecca for the criminal and disenfranchised,
 is "roughly comparable" to Liverpool, with its
population of about a half million? New York
City has many, many extremely serious problems
that Liverpudlians couldn't even begin to imagine.
Hardly a fair comparison.
Item 17, Do the illegal drugs have any legitimate uses?
    It is correct that many illegal drugs do, in fact, have
legitimate uses, and I grant you that, unfortunately,
our current policy does not allow for valid use for
other purposes. Unfortunately, it is also the case that
many who oppose drug legalization also oppose
allowing legitimate uses of these drugs. I support
the position that we should allow these drugs to be
used for legitimate therapeutic purposes. To
accomplish this, however, does not require blanket
legalization of all drugs for any purposes. As with
prescription narcotics, we can allow legitimate
medicinal use while maintaining controls.
    As to the sources listed: The two most major studies
cited, the Consumers' Union Report and the National
Commission Report, were both published in the
early 1970s. Marijuana was the biggest drug "problem"
at that time, and crack didn't even exist.
Under "Do's and Don'ts" is the following statement:
The following sentence works for nearly anything your
opponent may say: "There is no evidence to support hat
assertion.  Every major study of drug policy agreed that,
even if it was true, decriminalization would still be a better
solution."
    This "standard response" does not even allow for the
possibility that the "opponent" might have something
worthwhile to say, or may bring up some valid point
that has *not* been addressed by the "major studies of
drug policy." This is oversimplification to the point of
absurdity.
Another statement under "Do's and Don'ts" :
The subject is not legalization or decriminalization.
The subject is prison.
    Many of us who are against legalization are not
necessarily in favor of prison for users. I myself
would prefer to see *mandatory* treatment programs in
lieu of prison sentences. Legalization is not required to
implement this idea. This is an extreme oversimplification
and presents an unrealistic either/or choice -- prison vs.
legalization. There are other options.
Another statement under "Do's and Don'ts" :
Salesmen memorize their sales pitch because, once they
have it down by rote, they can say it without even thinking,
    That's the problem. Many pro-legalizers aren't thinking.
Another statement under "Do's and Don'ts" :
Don't let the discussion stray into related social issues.  You
don't have time for it and most Americans don't have the
brain capacity to understand the complexities anyway.
    There are many related social issues that bear directly on
the issue of whether drug legalization would be good
or bad for society. These issues MUST be discussed
and addressed by anyone who advocates taking
such a major step as legalizing crack and heroin.
This statement is also an unwarranted and
juvenile ad hominem attack on those of us
who oppose drug legalization.
Another statement under "Do's and Don'ts" :
Do not discuss your personal plan for how legalization
would work  The reasons are: a) you can only sell one
product at a time.  First convince them whether we
should change the laws. We will have plenty of time
for how later.
    Those of us out here with brains quite reasonably want
to have some idea of "how legalization would work" before
we will be prepared to discuss legalization. The "cure"
could be worse than the disease.
Under "responses to specific arguments" is the statement:
The only way that we will ever find a better approach is by
an open and honest discussion of the evidence and all of
the possible approaches to the problem.
    Refusing to discuss *how* legalization will work, refusing
to discuss the related social issues, simplifying the issue into
a false "either/or" choice, inflaming racial conflicts and
resorting to a "standard response" to any question or
objection by the "opponent" does NOT constitute an
open and honest discussion of the evidence.
Under "Political Strategies," referring to arguments based
on civil liberties and economics,  is the statement: They
make people think too much.
    This is part of the problem. This entire "Hoover.zip"
document is aimed at making sure people don't "think
too much."
Also foundunder "Political Strategies" is this
statement: Point out that people are not vilified
because they are Republican, Democrat, or
Libertarian, but people are vilified if they even
want to discuss a different drug policy.  This is
McCarthyism.
    Rubbish. This is not McCarthyism. Read your
history texts.
    As far as the information from NORML, on
marijuana, I suspect that a great many people
who are opposed to general drug legalization
 would not necessarily be against
decriminalization of marijuana use. But you
won't convince many of us that we should
legalize crack, or PCP, or heroin, just because
marijuana isn't particularly dangerous.