Re: drug abuse among the homeless

Brother Nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > 
> > 1) In regard to reducing child access to drugs, which can we best prevent 
> > from selling drugs to children, criminal black markets or licensed dealers?
> 
> Since our #1 and #2 substance abuse problems in minors are alcohol and 
> tobacco (respectively), I'd have to say that the black market appears 
> less efficient at getting drugs into the hands of children than legal 
> distribution channels.

Before Michigan went dry, there were 1,534 licensed saloons and 800
illegal unlicensed saloons in Detroit.  Following the onset of alcohol
prohibition, in 1923, a police survey showed 3,000 'blind pigs' (black
market dealers), while at the same time the Detroit News surveyed an
additional 7,000 'blind pigs'.  In 1925, the police estimated 15,000
'blind pigs'.  In 1928, the Detroit News estimated it from 16,000 to
25,000 'blind pigs' (1).

Clearly, a 10 to 15 fold increase in outlets will directly equate to a
10 to 15 fold increase in accessability!  Therefore, in 1924, this
increased accessability emerged in the form of so-called "school
pigs", as covered in a front page story in the Detroit News dealing
with "horrifying revelations" of drunkenness among grammar school
students.  Police investigations discovered that young children could
tell anyone on the street where beer or cheap whisky might be found
(1).

(1) http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Prohibition/Notes/Intemperance.html
    "INTEMPERANCE The Lost War Against Liquor" by: Larry Engelmann


> Legalizing drugs would just put an effectively-unlimited supply in the hands 
> of anybody who happens to be predisposed to selling drugs to children.

Outlawing drugs puts an 'effectively-unlimited supply' of customers in
the hands of anybody who happens to be predisposed to using children
to sell drugs to adults!

Legalizing drugs would put an 'effectively-unlimited supply' of
completely legal adult customers, virtually eliminating any
predisposition to sell drugs to children.

Additionally, by the alcohol prohibition era Detroit Police
investigation, discussed above, it was found that it was the children
who were telling the adults where alcohol could be locally purchased,
effectivly making them the dealers.

Even today, this holds true, that adults will often turn to children
for advice on where to purchase illegal drugs.  Many adults would only
turn to children for drug access as a last resort, but that children
would be a last resort is telling enough as to the failure of
prohibition, the War on Drugs.


> > To this question, most prohibitionists will recognize prefection is 
> > impossible, responding:  "Children will obtain drugs anyway."
> 
> Actually any drug abuse opponent in his or her right mind would point out 
> that most children do NOT try drugs, and of those who do try them most 
> don't go on to become chronic abusers.

So, you're saying that child drug use is insignificant,,, but Nathan,
wouldn't sending storm troopers, er, I mean police, into schools, guns
drawn, dogs straining, holding young students on the floor, for the
purpose of uncovering illegal drug sales rings suggest otherwise?


> > As children will obtain drugs anyway, this leads me to ask question 2).
> > 
> > 2) Then, in regard to reducing harm, which drugs would you prefer children 
> > obtain, those produced by a criminal black market or a licensed producer?
> 
> I would prefer that they not have drugs other than medicines.  Since we're 
> talking hypotheticals anyway I figure I'm entitled to point out that your 
> question is not really an either-or situation as long as you don't fall 
> into the self-defeating assumption that "it's going to happen anyway".

Rather, that you don't fall into the self-deluding assumption that
perfection is obtainable, and that "it won't happen".  Which,
apparently, is exactly what you have done, as you have dodged giving
any answer at all to this question.


> > To this question, most prohibitionists will begin demanding perfection, 
> > something they just got done admitting was impossible, and 
> > respond: "Children shouldn't obtain drugs to begin with."  As children 
> > shouldn't obtain drugs, this queston then leads back to question 1).
> 
> And the answer to question 1) is still that the legal drugs are the ones 
> that are our biggest problems among minors.

Yet, in that school raid, they were looking for children selling
Illegal Drugs, NOT alcohol or tobacco!

Children are the flip flop factor for the prohibitionist.  When the
prohibitionist wants more laws, they point to the children, claiming
we must save them from this new and nasty ole boogie man.  But, when
the counter productive aspects of their prohibition poses upon
children, they will claim that, thanks to their prohibition, there is
no child drug use problem, while at the same time, sending storm
troopers into schools, guns and dogs at ready, to search child drug
dealers!!!


> Whatever you think about the issue of children with drugs, the fact of the 
> matter is that it's the legal ones that pose the biggest problems.

First off, alcohol and tobacco have ALWAYS been the most popular drugs
among children, with or without prohibition of any other drugs. 
Prohibiting other less popular drugs, then pointing at the
pre-existing fact that children most often use tobacco and alcohol,
does not prove that children most often use tobacco and alcohol
because their legal.

Additionally, When was the last time police stormed schools, holding
children on the floor, guns drawn, dogs straining, to search for
cigarette or alcohol dealers?  If tobacco and alcohol pose such a
greater problem than illegal drugs, why aren't equally greater forces
used to thwart it?


> > But, with the mental block exhibited by many prohibitionists, even
> > though both questons only lead to the need for the other question,
> > neither of these questions will ever be answered, as their mental
> > block prevents it.
> 
> We just aren't grasping for every lame feeble excuse to legalize all drugs 
> and turn our backs on people who "voluntarily" live as addicts in the 
> gutters and on traffic islands.

Nathan, this sadistic puke you speak of and assult here is a Strawman,
a creation of your own.  You attempt to paint my face on this Strawman
as a lame feeble excuse to dismiss my arguments.  I have NEVER wished
that we "turn our backs on people who "voluntarily" live as addicts in
the gutters and on traffic islands.", and I resent you suggesting I
have.

I AM NOT here to justify drug use, I am here to denounce prohibition
as being counter productive to reducing drug abuse.  It is you who is
grasping for every lame feeble excuse to continue imprisoning
victimless drug users.


> Throwing them in jail need not be our first response, but legalization 
> should clearly be our last.

In other words: Unless they submit, throwing them in jail will be your
response, and will continue to be your response, until times ends.