textfiles/drugs/ALT.DRUGS/prohib.pam

From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Two anti-legalization pamphlets
Message-ID: <ByD5F7.F91@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 07:13:54 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Lines: 1134


----
On Thu Nov 26 00:51:36 1992 I wrote:

	My high school's advisor of Sigma Alpha Delta (Students Against
Drinking/Drugs-- the local misinformation joint) recently asked me to
critique two pamphlets she had received. Today I began work, but I didn't
get to the second one. (I am not finished with the first one yet.)
	If you'd like to send me suggestions about how to discuss the points
mentioned, or how to improve what I have said, please do so. This advisor is
of the "compassionate" temperament. When I was speaking to her today I
emphasized that I want legalization not because I or others want to smoke
pot, but I want it because it would make drug use less dangerous. (That was
what she picked up-- I said more, but she didn't pick up onthe rest of what
I said..)
	Note that she told me today, *sort of* that she is infavor of
alcohol prohibition. I told her how under alcohol prohibition and limited
tobacco availability the situation was worse, and I don't know if I got that
point across. Remember that when you make your comments. Someone else
commented though, that legalizing drugs is differeing from ending the
prohibition of alcohol because alcohol was in widespread usage, while most
drugs right now have been illegal for a long time and there isn't public
support for legalization.  I couldn't think of anything to say to that-- any
ideas?
	Thanks.
--------------
	Well, I finished everything that I want to say-- here it is. Send me
comments..

-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Fri Nov 27 00:45:18 1992 US Debt: $4,148,371,135,209 Per capita: $16,215

	After reading this piece, I was *amazed* at the lengths to which
the Prohibitionists continue to lie. I really shouldn't be amazed, but I
was.  The pieces you gave me provided absolutely *no* references so that
I may check out their claims to see how valid they were. Because they
didn't tell me exactly which studies they were describing, I am unable
to look at the exact study, and see if the study was done impartially.
	When I say things, I *will* provide references, so that if you
doubt anything that I say, you can check it for yourself and not that
what I am saying is true. Some things I will say are merely guesses, but
I will clearly mark that which I am guessing and the solid facts. This
will be in sharp contrast the the materials you gave me. My facts will
have evidence to back them up.
	With regard the PRIDE surveys, and having had the "pleasure" of
taking one of these, I must say that they are not very good. I don't
have the survey at hand, so that I may criticize it in full (If you have
a copy of one, I would appreciate it if you could show it to me) but I
remember a few things. The survey has one classification "LSD, PCP, and
other hallucinogens." This classification is misleading, because LSD and
PCP are incredibly different drugs. LSD is a psychedelic
(mind-manifesting) drug, while PCP is merely a disassociative
anesthetic. The term "hallucinogens" is very vague, as any drug, taken
to huge dosages, can produce hallucinations. The difference between
"hallucinations" produced by psychedelic drugs and those produced by
large doses of alcohol or opiates, is that the alcohol/opiate
hallucinations are because the user's body is dying. The hallucinations
from psychedelic drugs (LSD, DMT, etc.) are a direct result of the
drug's interactions with the brain's neurotransmitters.
	The survey also lists a "continuum" of drug experiences. I don't
remember the exact details, but the marijuana pamphlet you gave me
mentioned the "very high, bombed, or stoned" characterization. Drugs are
different, and a cocaine experience cannot be classified along the same
continuum as a psychedelic experience.  Would Terrence McKenna's DMT
flash in the Amazon in which he used the I Ching to develop a fractal
map of novelty conservation in the world count as "very high, bombed, or
stoned," or would it count as a "buzz"? Where would the Massachussets
program which reduced the recidivism of inmates to a number near 3% lie?
(This program involved the legal administration of psilocybin or LSD, I
forget which, to Massachussets prison inmates by Dr. Timothy Leary so
that they may overcome their predisposition to violence.  This is
documented in Leary's autobiography, _Flashbacks_, and _Storming Heaven
: LSD and the American Dream_ by Jay Stevens.)
	I don't have an answer to every claim that pamphlet about
marijuana makes about marijuana. I am not all-encompassing. Note the
following quote from DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young:
marijuana is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known
to man."
	I think that is about it for the preliminary comments. I am very
glad that you have given me this opportunity to tell you about my point
of view.	
	(Please excuse any typographical errors, I have an AP Lit.
presentation to write, an AP Lit. paper to write, AP Physics C homework,
AP Latin homework, and 2 college applications to finish.. I don't have
time to proofread.)

In a recent article, the Prohibitionists said:
>MARIJUANA
>An Environmental Pollutant
>
>by Marsha Keith Schuchard, Ph.D.
>
>"If we are concerned about the external pollutants that threaten our
>environment, we should be equally concerned about internal pollutants--
>like marijuana products. For sheer survival, we must defend ourselves
>against both kinds of pollution. I believe that we need to keep all our
>sense constantly at their maximum keenness if we are to take full
>advantage of our short participation in the miracle of life."
>	- Jacques Ives Cousteau
>
>CURBING THE DRUG EPIDEMIC
>
>The United States entered the 1990's with real hope of reversing the
>epidemic spread of illicit drug use. After reaching a peak in 1979,
>teenage use of marijuana has steadily declined, until a majority of high
>school seniors report that they have *never* tried the drug. However, as
	Surveys are inaccurate. As I said above, the PRIDE surveys have
a great deal of ambiguities and misconceptions. Surveys do not measure
much more than the *visibility* of drug use. While visibility of
marijuana use in 1979 was high, use was probably no different. President
Carter was in favor of decriminalization, saying that, "Penalites
against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an
individual than the use of the drug itself." (October 2, 1977: Source:
_PiHKAL: A Chemical Love Story_, by Dr. Alexander T. Shulgin)

>the multi-billion dollar consumer market shrinks, drug marketeers are
>accelerating their efforts to portray marijuana as a harmless,
>ecologically-sound "herb," in order to appeal to youthful concerns about
>the environment. This new strategy is also utilized by lobbyists for
>marijuana legislation, who receive much attention in the popular media.
	Just one simple comment: The only lobbyists for marijuana
legislation *I* notice in the popular media are the ones in favor of
stricter regulations, drivers license suspensions, and other such
tryannical marijuana legislation.

>Thus, it is important for parents, educators, youth, and concerned
>citizens to educate themselves about the documented health hazards of
>marijuana-- which is now classified as an environmental pollutant and
>biological toxin.
	Just because it is classified as something doesn't mean it is.
Marijuana is "classified" under the Controlled Substances Act under
Schedule I: "no medical use", but marijuana is useful as an
anti-convulsant, an analgesic, and muscle relaxant. It has been used for
chronic bronchitis, tetanus, asthma, glaucoma, postpartum psychosis,
appetite stimulation, migraine headaches, and opiate withdrawal.
(Source: _Marihuana Reconsidered_ by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, M.D., 1978.)

>
>CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE CRUDE DRUG
>
>While marijuana marketeers promote the drug as a "natural organic
>product," scientists and physicians increasingly documents its chemical
>complexity and biological hazards. The crude drug marijauan is made from
>the dried leaves and flowering tops of the _Cannabis sativa_ plant, and
>it contains over 400 chemicals which are transformed into 2,000
>compounds when burned and smoked. The drug contains 70 chemical
	True, but misleading. The 31 August 1990 issue of the magazine
Science notes that of the over 800 volatile chemical present in roasted
coffee, only 21 have actually been tested on animals, and 16 of these
cause cancer in rodents. Yet coffee remains legal and is generally
considered fairly safe. (Source: "Too Many Rodent Carcinogens:
Mitogenesis Increases Mutagenesis", Bruce N. Ames and Lois Swirsky.
_Science_. Vole 249, 31 August 1990, p. 971.)

>cannabinoids, which are highly fat soluble and retained in fatty
>membranes for weeks. (Alcohol, which is also a drug, is water-soluble
>and metabolizes rapidly out of the body.) Like the banned pesticide DDT,
>which is also fat-soluble, cannabinoids accumulate in the body with
>repeated use. Delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol (THC) is the most potent
	This is also true but misleading. Cannabinoids are fat soluble
as are innumerable nutrients and, yes, some poisons like DDT. For
example, the essential nutrient, Vitamin A, is fat soluble. Thus, what
one could do, is say, "Like the essential Vitamin A, cannabinoids
accumulate in the body with repeated use." Sounds a bit different
doesn't it? (Source: _Marijuana and Health_, Institute of Medicine,
National Academy of Sciences, 1982. & "The A Team" in _Scientific
American_, VOl 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991, p. 16.)

>psychoactive or mind-altering chemical, but other cannabinoids also
>affect the brain. The chemical half-life of THC is seven days, and it
>can be traced to urine 14 days after smoking a single "joint."
>
>INCREASING POTENCY
>
>In the early 1960's most American marijuana contained 0.5 ot 1.0% THC
>and gained a popular reputation as a "harmless weed." Improved plant
>genetics and cultivation techniques led to increasing potency. In the
>1990's, confiscated samples average 7% THC, with California-produces
>Sinsemilla rising to 16% and hashish oil to 28% THC. High potency
>marijuana can cause serious psyhiatric and physical problems--it is not
>a "soft" drug. PRIDE surveys reveal that 62% of 12th-grade marijuana
>users report getting "very high, bombed, or stoned" on the drug (versus
>28% of beer drinkers and 73% of cocaine users).
	See my earlier comments about using one standard for rating
experiences for different drugs.

>
>PREVALENCE OF USAGE
>
>Marijuana smoking is generally initiated during adolescence, with 14-15
>the predominant age, though some children begin usage in primary school.
>There are significant racial and ethnic differences in usage, with
>Whites and Native American Indians having the highest rates, followed by
>Hispanics, Blacks, and Orientals. PRIDE surveys reveal that among high
>school seniors, 32% of White [sic] males user marijuana (versus 22% black
>males), [All capitalization in here is sic] and that 26% white femals
>use (versus 12% black females). Males tend to be heavier users, with
>5.1% White and 2.8% Black males using daily. Consumption tends to be
>highest among White children of highly-educated, affluent suburbanites
>and in states with more permissive laws.
>
>FREQUENCY OF USAGE
>
>Despite earlier claims that marijuana is not addictive, the medical
>consensus is now clear that it is a dependence-producing drug. Chronic
>users develop tolerance (need increasing doses to get "high"),
	In fact, marijuana use does not create a tolerance, but a
sensitization. No one has found "evidence of pharmacological tolerance
in human beings at recreational doses; instead, it still seems that
experienced users are more sensitive to the desired effects at lower
doses." (Source: _Marihuana Reconsidered_, ibid. p. 381)

>experience withdrawal symptoms (irritability, restlessness, sweating,
>decreased appetite), and have difficulty stopping use. Because of the
	Dependency on marijuana is *highly* dependent on the individual.
Terrence McKenna, who used to smoke *many* joints per day, had no
trouble quitting his use of marijuana. In a study of Jamaican heavy
users, where marijuana use is socially acceptable, many users do not
become greatly upset when their supply is cut off, usually for economic
reasons. E.g. "When you don't have money, you don't buy it." (Source:
_Ganja in Jamaica_, by Vera Rubins and Lambros Comitas, 1976, p. 137.)

>drug's long half-life and slow elimination from the body, withdrawal is
>not as abrupt or dramatic as withdrawal from alcohol or heroin (which
>are rapidly metabolized out of the body). Unlike the next-morning
>"hangover" from overuse of alcohol, the abstinence syndrome from
>marijuana occurs more subtly two to three days later, as THC is slowly
>excreted from the system. Craving for the marijuana "high" and
>"post-high" depression contributes to the addiction process.
>
>PRIDE surveys reveal that 10% of teenage marijuana smokers use daily and
>21% smoke three times a week or more; by contrast, 3% of beer drinkers
>use daily and 11% use three time a week or more. NIDA surveys reveal
>that 19% of Native American male users, 13% of White male users, and 9%
>of Black male users consume marijuana daily. In certain Jamaican
>villages, where usage is socially acceptable, 50% of smokers are daily,
>heavy consumers. Epidemiological studies suggest that marijuana is three
>to seven times more addictive than alcohol, and that compulsive daily
>use escalates with rising potency, easier availability, and social
>acceptability.
>
>ROLE AS GATEWAY DRUG
>
>Though many casual "experimenters" do not move beyond marijuana, over
>1/3 of young smokers do "progress" to other illicit drugs. Conversely,
>if youngsters do *not* smoke marijuana, the odds are 90 to one that they
>will *never* try any other drug. PRIDE surveys show that 36% of high
>school marijuana users try stimulants, 28% try hallucinogens, and 21%
>try cocaine. Among young adults, 75% of frequent marijuana users also
>try cocaine. The main predictor of Crack cocaine use is previous
>marijuana use. Marijuana users also tend to be heavy consumers of
>alcohol and tobacco.
>
	A real world example of what can happen when marijuana is
readily available is Holland. The Dutch effectively decriminalized
marijuana in the 1970s. Since then, heroin and cocaine use have declined
substantially. Actual studies show that most hard drug "addicts" start
with alcohol and tobacco. (Source: "A Comparison of Marijuana Users and
Non-users" by Norman Zinberg and Andrew Weil (1971). "The Economics of
Legalizing Drugs" by Richard J. Dennis, _The Atlantic Monthly_, Vol 266,
No. 5, Nov 1990 p. 130.)  It is important to note that a correlation
does not mean causality. The person's marijuana use probably did not
*cause* them to try cocaine. The marijuana user who tries cocaine is
probably already predisposed to illegal drug use, and if marijuana were
unavailable, would use more often the more dangerous cocaine.

>EFFECTS ON BRAIN
>
>In 1990 scientists located natural receptors for cannabinoids in the
>human brain. The existence of these receptors means that marijuana acts
>for like heroin or morphine, which also have natural receptors, than
>like alcohol, which does not have receptors. The opiates and
>cannabinoids lock onto and stimulates [sic] their special receptor
>molecules. The high concentration of cannabinoid receptors in the
	This means something only to neurobiologists. It does not mean
that the effects of marijuana are in any way similar to opiates, nor
does it mean that the effects of marijuana and opiates are in some way
"more severe" than alcohol just because they have natural receptors. 
Actually, the fact that alcohol does *not* have natural receptors *may*
mean that it more dangerous than marijuana and opiates, because it
affects the ENTIRE brain, and not just certain portions, but this is
just postulation.

>cerebellum (which controls motor coordination), the forebrain (which
>controls cognition and higher mental function), and the hippocampus
>(which links to the limbic system that controls emotion) explains many
>of the behavioral and mental effects of the drug-- _i.e._, limpness of
>limbs, slowness of walk, fragmentation of thought, loosening of
>associations, impaired short term memory, decreased analytic capaciy.
>Cannabinoid receptors of the stratium, which is associated with reward
>mechanisms in the brain, stimulate sensations of relaxation,
>painlessness and euphoria which lead to marijuana addiction in users
>who are biologically susceptible to the drug. Vulnerability to marijuana
>addiction may arise from individual differences in the density and
>distribution of THC receptors in the brain. The scarcity of receptors in
>the lower brainstem areas that control cardiovascular and respiratory
>function may explain the rarity [sic] of death by marijuana overdose.
	Not rarity. Absence. No one has *ever* died of a marijuana
overdose. Although the LD50/ED50 ratio (the ratio of lethal dosage to
intoxicating dosage) for alcohol varies from 4 to 1 and 10 to 1, in
order to die you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as
is needed to get "stoned." (Source: _Marihuana Reconsidered_, ibid. p.
227.)

>
>PROVOKER OF MENTAL ILLNESS
>
>New computer imaging techniques, such as Positron Emission Tomography
>(PET), reveal the dramatic and persistent changes in brain blood flow
>and glucose metabolism cause by marijuana intoxication and chronic
>usage. These cerebral disturbances provoke not only the dreamy and
>fantasy states sough by users, but also delusional thinking, paranoia,
>panic reaction, and acute psychosis. According to Swedish researchers,
>the risk of developing schizophrenia for "high consumers" (used
>marijuana 50 or more times) was six-fold greater than those who never
>used the drug. Marijuana is not only a provoker of latent schizophrenia,
	Again, a correlation does not imply causality. In this case, it
is may be likely that a person likely to use marijuana is more likely to
have a mental disorder. Thus people who use marijuana may be more likely
to be schizophrenic merely because marijuana attracts schizophrenic
users. Although my reasoning for the results is postulation, there is
nothing said here which would mandate a causal relationship.

>but also an independent risk factor for development of the disease.
>Milder and vaguer forms of mental impairment and disorientation
>contribute to the "burn-out" syndrome in heavy users--emotional
>flatness, "spacey" gaps in thinking, slowed and slurred speech.
>Unfortunately, teenage slang descriptions of abusers as "air heads,"
>"space cadets," "vet outs," and "wasters" seem to accurately portray
>these brain changes.
>
>CAUSES CANCER IN YOUNG USERS
>
>Though it took 70 years to collect evidence of the connection of lung
>cancer with tobacco smoking, the verdict on marijuana as a potent
>carcinogen is coming in after 25 years of the American drug epidemic.
>Sadly, the evidence is coming from young patients, who are stricken with
>cancers at unusually early ages. the [sic] higher level of carcinogens
>in marijuana smoke and the method of deep inhalation and breath-holding
>by users means that smoking on "joint" equals five cigarettes, in terms
>of respiratory damage. In 1986 physicians began reporting cases of
	Smoked marijuana *does* contain more carcinogens that tobacco,
but marijuana does not need to be smoked. "Brownie Mary", an 80-year old
woman, was arrested for giving marijuana brownies to AIDS patients.
(Marijuana is useful for treating the side effects of AIDS medication.)
Many people do not do this now because of the prohibitive cost. Under a
legal system, marijuana would be cheap enough to make brownies from. 
Totally non-carcinogenic cannabis drinks such as "bhang" would also be
economical under a legal system. Additionally, "water-bongs" and related
marijuana-smoking paraphenalia reduce the number of carcinogens in
marijuana smoke, but because of drug paraphenalia laws, they are
difficult to obtain.
	Marijuana additionally, unlike tobacco, dilates the bronchial
passages, making it a useful treatment for asthma and chronic
bronchitis. This bronchiodilation promotes the self-cleaning of the
lungs. And, because tobacco is so greatly addictive, a heavy tobacco
smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker.
(Source: _Working Men and Ganja: Marijuana Use in Rural Jamaica_ by M.C.
Dreher, Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1982, ISBN
0-89727-025-8. _Marijuana and Health_, ibid.)

>marijuana-ralted cancer of the lung, upper respiratory tract, head,
>neck, and tongue in "shockingly" young patients (ages 17 to 39), versus
>ages 60 to 70 in tobacco smokers). [sic] the [sic] highly carcinogenic
>particulates deposited on the tongue are particularly dangerous, for
>tongue cancer is biologically more aggresive in young patients. Cancer
>deaths from marijuana-smoking are now documented.
	I would *really* like to see the source to this one. Everything
I have read has stated that there are no cancer deaths attributed to
marijuana smoking. Please show me the source, if you can get it.

>
>LINKED TO CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA
>
>For two decades, researchers have worried that marijuana causes
>abnormalities in DNA and chromosome formation that are potentially
>carcinogenic. In 1989 a consortium of children's cancer hospitals
>reported that maternal use of marijuana just before and during pregnancy
>raises the risk ten-fold that the child will develop Acute
>Nonlymphoblastic Leukemia (ANLL). The researchers were *not* looking for
>marijauan effects but rather for environmental pollutants such as
>ionizing radiation, pesticides, solvent and petroleum products. The
>cellular and chromosomal abnormalities in the marijuana-exposed children
>were similar to those in Down's Syndrome resulting from radiation.
>
>IMPAIRS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
>
>In *females*, marijuana chemicals are absorbed into reproductive organs,
>where they may cause some atrophy of tissues and interference with
>regular menstrual cycles. Changes in brain signals can lead to impaired
>ovluation and decreased fertility. In pregnant women, the cannabinioids
>cross the placenta and are periodically released and recirculated
>through the system, so that the fetus may be exposed for 30 days to the
>chemicals in a single "joint." Marijuana exposure produces abnormalities
>similar to the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome but at five times the rate of
>alcohol. The infants tend to be smaller and shorter, and they display
>symptoms of drug withdrawal (tremors, startling, irritability) similar
>to opiate withdrawal but milder in degree. Delated maturation of the
>visual system sometimes results in poor habituation to stimuli, lack of
>optical blink, and strabismus (crossed-eyes). Abnormalities in EEG sleep
>patterns, which reveal neurological maturation and organization, persist
>until age three. Cognitive defects in memory and verbal skills can be
>measured at age four.
>
>In *males*, marijauan smoking causes a drop in testosterone production,
	R.C. Kolodny and associates published an article about a
testosterone reduction due to marijuana use in 1974. His results have
not been replicated in other studies. Testosterone levels vary widely
from day to day, and from hour to hour. It takes a *very* large decline
to affect sexual performance. (_Marihuana Reconsidered_, ibid. p. 388).

>by as much as 44%. In adolescent males, heavy use increases the risk of
>uneven or abnormal sexual development. In some teenage "potheads," a
>stereotypical physique is observed--narrow shoulder; lack of muscle
>development in arms, chest, and buttocks; slight feminization of voice,
>beard growth, or genital developments; facial pallor and heavy-lidded,
>reddened eyes. The "amotivational syndrome" (characterized by apathy,
>lethargy, and goal-lessness) may be cause be deficiencies of sex and
	The "amotivational syndrome" varies widely from user to user. In
Jamaican communities, they have found that ganja use actually
*motivates* the Jamaicans to work hard. "The major reason given for
_ganja_ use is the perceived stimulus to energy and work motivation. .
.'I get a strong sensation toward my work.' . . . Non-smokers have
attested to increased work drive among regular smokers." (Source: _Ganja
in Jamaica_, ibid. p. 131.)
	With regard to anecdotal evidence, I conducted a survey on the
Usenet electronic bulletin board alt.drugs with regard to marijuana use
and grades. The results of that survey are in _The Free Journal_ Volume
II, Issue 2.  The people surveyed were generally either honors students,
students attending highly competitive schools, or people with
highly-skilled jobs, usually in the real of computers. If you would like
to see the complete sample, please tell me. I will have to retrieve it
from the archive at the University of Washington.

From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
	Note: This survey was done informally.  No formal conclusions
should be made from this survey.  All results are merely anecdotal.

	Thirty-seven regular marijuana users were surveyed, in addition
to nine ex-users.  I asked them their average daily dosage of marijuana,
their self-opinion of their intelligence, their "success" in the
intellectual field, and what other mind-altering drugs they use.
	I found that the mean daily dosage in grammes (Some estimates
were made, such as 1 joint = .7075 grammes.) was 0.865 g/day, with a
standard deviation of 1.188.  (Approximately 1.22 joints/day)
	Nearly all of the respondents (87%) thought of their
intelligence as something above average.  No one considered themselves
below average.  Twenty-two people provided GPAs, and the mean was 3.695,
ranging from 2.900 to 3.980 at institutions such as Stanford and M.I.T.
where the highest possible GPA is 4.0 (Unlike Libertyville's 5.0
maximum). The standard deviation was .276.  Of the 19 replies with SAT
scores, the mean was 1359 with a standard deviation of 121.15.  The
scores ranged from 980 to 1570.
	Of the 8 moderate users within two standard deviations from the
mean of consumption the mean consumption was .850 g/day with a standard
deviation of .248.  The mean GPA was 3.30 with a standard deviation of
.245.
	Of the 32 light users below two standard deviations from the
mean, the mean consumption was .179 g/day with a standard deviation of
.153.  The mean GPA was 3.407 with a standard deviation of .386.
	Of the 6 heavy users above two standard deviations the mean
consumption was 3.805 g/day with a standard deviation of .654.  The mean
GPA was 3.450 with a standard deviation of .636.
	From these data, it could be inferred that among the people
surveyed marijuana had no effect on ability to do well in school.  The
light and heavy users had only an insignificant increase in GPA above
the moderate users.
	Of the respondents, 65% have used LSD, 30% have used psilocybin,
50% have used alcohol, 13% have used caffeine, 11% have used nicotine,
4.3% have used opium, 4.3% have used speed, 2.2% have used amanita
muscaria, 2.2% have used dativa, 2.2% have used diprenhydramine
hydrochloride, 10.8% have used xtc, 4.3% have used amphetamines, 4.3%
have used nootropics, 4.3% have used nitrous oxide, 2.2% have used
valium, 2.2% have used kava, 2.2% have used MDA, and 2.2% have used
cocaine.
	Here are some comments from the replies which I have found to be
a good cross-section of the people.  (If you want a completely accurate
view you will have to look at the entire sample, which is available from
Sameer Parekh.)

Comments
	"I think regular marijuana use is detrimental to schoolwork
(from personal experience), but I don't believe it's made much
difference in my professional life (if this is hypocritical, so be
it!)."
	"My grades have improved tremendously since that time when I was
the really gifted kid who didn't work up to potential.  I have learned
that there are many rewards for postponing self-gratification until
after the work is done, and I think that marijuana has helped me learn
that."
	"The only negatives that it has produced in my life are the fear
of governmental retribution for my personal action, and lack of
understanding of people who feel my action is 'bad.'"
	"Good luck, but I must agree with other reservations about the
validity of your findings. Without a control and large representative
sampling, your findings will remain anecdotal."
	The complete results are available in tabular form and in raw
data form from Sameer Parekh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>energy hormones, as well as dulled brain function. The estrogenic
>properties of some cannabinoids (found in varying degrees in different
>types of marijuana plants) occasionally cause gynocomastia (enlarged
>breasts) in male marijuana smokers, which may require surgical removal.
>Cannabinoids produce chromosomal defects and abnormal forms in sperm, as
>well as lowered sperm count and motility. In animal sutides, chromosomal
>abnormalities are passed onton succeeding generations, where
>genetically-effected hormone production is impaired at puberty.
>Marijuana-smoking is associated with rising rates of infertility in
>young males.
>
>IMPAIRS IMMUNE SYSTEM
>
>The body defends itself against environmental pollutants, bacteria and
>viruses by mobilizing its immune system. The rapidity and persistence of
>this response is the key to successfully fighting infections,
>sexually-transmitted diseases, and cancer. Marijuana depresses
>cell-mediated immunity, which leads to increased susceptibility to
>genital herpes, syphilis, yeast infections, Legionnaire's disease, and
	Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive
system, this myth was based on studies where animals were given
extremely high doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been
duplicated in humans. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one
done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually
stimulated the immune system in the people studied. ("Marihuana and
Immunity", _Journal of Psychoactive Drugs_, Vol 20(1), Jan-Mar 1988.
Kaklamani, et al., "Hashish smoking and T-lymphocytes", 1978; Kalfoutis
et. al., "The significance of lymphocyte lipid changes after smoking
hashish", 1978. Wallace, J.M., Taskin, D.P., Oishi, J.S., Barbers, R.G.,
"Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subpopulations and Mitogen Responsiveness
in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers", 1988, _Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs_, ibid.)

>tuberculosis. Casual weekend users report that marijuana-smoking
>tirggers recurrence of their herpes outbreaks, probably caused by
>cellular absorption of cannabinoids which displace or release the
>dormant virus from nerve ganglia. Researchers worry that cannbinoids may
>also hasten the release and replication of the HIV virus and accelerate
>the development of AIDS. In 1992 the U.S. Deparment of Healty [sic] and
>Human Services warned that marijuana-smoking may be a cofactor in the
>development of the full-blown AIDS syndrome. Patients with compromised
>immunity who smoke marijuana are especially vulnerable ot sometimes
>fatal infection from salmonella bacteria and aspergillus fungus, often
>present in the crude plant material.
>
>DISRUPTS CARDIOVASCULAR AND CEREBROVASCULAR FUNCTION
>
>Marijuana smoking causes immediate tachycardia, with the heart rate
>accelerating by as much as 50% (up to 160 beats a minute), which can
>decrease the blood supply to the heart. The increased heart rate is
>dose-related and correlates with the "high," a condition intensified by
>high-potency marijuana. The sudden increase in heart rate and blood
>pressure can trigger panic attacks, thought disturbances, and
>depression. Cardiac patients show chest pains (angina pectoris) more
>quickly and with less exertion after smoking marijuana than tobacco.
>Some clinical reports associate heavy marijuana smoking with cerebral
>stroke in young patients (ages 32-34), probably triggered by abrupt
>alterations in systemic blood pressure.
>
>HAZARDS TO PUBLIC SAFETY
>
>Because of its lingering effects, marijuana poses a special threat to
>public safety. Airline pilots revealed serious problems of judgement,
>memory, concentration, and reaction for more than 24 hours after smoking
>one "social" dose of marijuana. Significantly, the pilots beleived they
>were no longer impaired and were ready to fly. Subway, train, and bus
	Some logic here is a non-sequitor. The fact that they beleived
that they weren't impaired means that they *were* impaired? It makes no
sense. What should be done is impairment testing-- before each flight
the pilot must be put through a short test in which he must make quick,
stressful decisions. If the answers are not quick enough or bad, then
the pilot would not fly that day. This set-up would also protect
travellers from fatigued, angry and otherwise impaired pilots as well.

>drivers, and operators of heavy machinery are especially vulnerable to
>the long lasting but subtle effects of persistent marijuana
>intoxication. Many automobile drivers assume they can "handle" driving
>situations while "high" on marijuana. PRIDE surveys reveal that among
>teenage marijuana smokers, 45% use the drug in the automobile (versus
>30% of beer and liquor users). Marijuana is over-represented in drug
>positive tests done on automobile crash victims. In Maryland, 40% of
>crash victims tested positive for alcohol, with 32% positive for
>marijuana, and 2% for cocaine. Twice and many drivers under age 30 used
	If a person tests positive for marijuana, it does not mean that
they are intoxicated. As this pamphlet says, marijuana can be detected
in the urine for 14 days, and a sober driver may still test positive for
marijuana. Marijuana is involved in relatively as many accidents as
alcohol (relative to the number of users in the general population). It
was also noted, however, than in 85% of the accidents in which marijuana
was involved, alcohol was also involved. For people intoxicated solely
on marijuana, the accident rate was *much* lower. This implies that
marijuana poses less of a danger to driving than alcohol. (Source: Dale
Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," _Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs_, ibid.)
	I do beleive that driving while impaired laws for alcohol should
also apply to marijuana. Someone dumb enough to operate a deadly machine
while intoxicated, tired, angry, or otherwise impaired deserves to be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

>marijuana than older drivers, with no significant differences between
>male and female use.
>
>MARIJUANA IS AN ILLEGAL DRUG
>
>The United Nations and World Health Organization characterize _Cannabis
>sativa_ as a dangerous, stupefying and addictive drug. The United States
>and 115 other nations are signatories to the _U.N. Single Convention on
>Narcotic Drugs_, which prohibits all non-medical consumption of
>_cannabis_, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs of abuse. An international
>treaty is the highest law of the land, and regional and state
	No. An international treaty is *not* the highest law of the
land. The Constitution grants the power to the President to make
treaties with the approval of the Senate, but it does not state that
treaties in any way supersede the Constitution. The Constitution of the
United States remains the highest law of the land. If an international
treaty made speech against established governments illegal, the law
would be void, as the 1st and 14th amendments to the Constitution
protect the right of the people. Only by amendment to the Constitution
can the highest law of the land be changed. This is so incredibly
offensive, that I am angered at such an organization for ignoring the
fundamentals which this country was founded on. Also note Amendment 10
to the Constitution. [End tirade]

>governments cannot independently disregard it, despite local political
>concerns. In 1975 Alaska removed all penalties for possession of four
>ounces (approximately 200 "joints") of marijuana, the state was in
>violation of federal and international laws. [sic] Because of public
>concern about rising rates of teenage marijuana use and accumulating
>evidence of marijuana hazards to health and safety, Alaskan voters
>recriminalized marijuana in 1990.
>
>Many states are enacting laws that prohibit the release of known
>carcinogens and pollutants into the environment, and marijuana would
>certainly be proscribed by these ecological regulations. Despite the
>aggresive lobbying of the marijuana-legalization lobby, which
>inaccurately portrays the drug ("hemp") as a benefactor to the
>environment, public opinion has turned increasingly against marijuana
	Hemp is a benefactor to the environment. A few uses: "One acre
of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees" to make paper. (U.S. Department of
Agriculture - Bulletin 404 : "Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material",
October 10, 1916.) Using hemp to make paper, there is no need to clear-
cut old-growth forest and destroy the homes of many animals. All that is
needed is to use some farmland to grow the hemp, and clearcutting of
forests can be decreased dramatically.
	"Hemp...is used to produce more than 5000 textile products
ranging from rope to fine laces...and can be used to produce more than
25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to cellophane." ("The New Billion
Dollar Crop," _Popular Mechanics_, February 1938, p. 238.)

>smoking. After a 25-year national experiment with _cannabis_, an
	What 25-year national experiment?

>overwhelming marjority of teenagers and adults call for tougher drug
>laws and stricter enforcement. The 1990's should be the decade in which
	Just because a majority of citizens call for tougher drugs laws
doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The majority of citizens in
ante-bellum south thought that Black people were less than human, but
that didn't mean they were correct.

>informed and concerned citizens should reclaim the American
>environment--both internal and external--from the drug marketeers.
>
>Published by PRIDE
>National Parent's Resource Institute for Drug Education, Inc.
>50 Hurt Plaza, Suite 210, Atlanta, GA 30303 404/577-4500
>
>Reprinted with Permission
>Committees of Correspondence, Inc. [*INSULTING!!!!* -SP]
>57 Conant Street, Room 113, Danvers, MA 01923 508/7742641 [sic]
>
>

	This second article fails to make a distinction between
different kinds of drugs. It pretends that marijuana is as dangerous as
cocaine, or even tobacco and alcohol. There are two methods of
classifying drugs which I find useful.
	One method is the body/mind drug division. Body drugs are those
which appeal to the body: relaxants and stimulants such as caffeine,
speed, alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, and heroin. These drugs appeal to the
terrestrial circuits of the human psyche. The "mind" drugs are drugs
which appeal to the senses or creative centers of the mind, such as
marijuana, LSD, MDMA, DMT, and most other psychedelics. This division is
based mostly upon effects.
	The second method is the hard/soft division which is most
popular. Hard drugs are the drugs which hurt the body extensively, such
as tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and speed. Soft drugs are not as
dangerous to the body, but they may have psychological dangers. These
include marijuana, the psychedelics, caffeine (which *is* bad for the
body, but not *very* dangerous.), and others.
	Using these categories, it is much easier to have a rational
attitude about these drugs, based on their risks, dangers, and benefits.

In another article, the Prohibitionists wrote:
>Legalization of Illicit Drugs Must be Vigorously Opposed by Government
>and by all Segments of Society
>
>White House Conference for a Drug Free America
>Final Report 1988
>Lois Haight [ :-) ] Herrington, Chairman
>
>In recent months, there has been increasing clamor in the news media and
>by some public figures for the legalization of drugs. At first glance,
>it would appear that this debate is not serious - after all, why would
>anyone actually espouse eliminating controls over something so
>destructive? But the proponents of legalizing drugs assure us that they
>are serious - that legalization would be a good way to eliminate crime
>and criminal organizations. It seems an exercise in futility to suggest
>that crime can somehow be eliminated by redefining it - as if a criminal
>act had no inherent danger other than that derived from its placement in
>the law books of our Nation. But illicit drugs are indeed a destructive
>force with which we must reckon.
>
>We are learning more and more about the devastating effects that drugs
>have on the minds and bodies of users. Depending on the drugs, the
	Here it makes the categorization of all illegal drugs as being
all as dangerous as alcohol, tobacco, or the other "hard" drugs.

>brain, heart, liver, lungs, and kidneys as well as the reproductive and
>immune systems can all be damaged. In fact, it would be hard to find an
>organ or a system in the body that is not damaged by illicit drugs.
	It would be hard to find an organ or a system in the body that
is not damaged by legal drugs. I'm not limiting myself to just alcohol
and tobacco when I say legal drugs-- I include drugs such as caffeine,
acetaminophen, ephedrine, and other over-the-counter and prescription
drugs.
	All drugs have a danger. High doses of Tylenol can cause a heart
attack. (I think.) Moderate doses of Tylenol ease the pain of headaches
and help ease fever symptoms. Antihistamines induce drowsiness which is
incredibly dangerous if a person has to drive or operate other heavy
machinery. Used properly, however, they can help ease the symptoms of
the common cold. Ephedrine (synthetic adrelalin) can cause a heart
attack in high doses, but used properly, is a very valuable
bronchiodilator for asthmatics. LSD has the potential to release a
latent psychosis in a person, yet it can also be used to cure
alcoholics, adjust convicts to life outside prison, and it can also help
in psychotherapy. (Source: _Storming Heaven_, ibid.) MDMA, in high
dosages, deteriorates the axons in the brain, but used with moderation,
is a valuable tool in psychotherapy, as it allows the patient to open up
to his/her therapist. (Although listed as Schedule I in the United
States, it is being used successfully in Western Europe for
psychotherapy.) (Source: _The MDMA Story_, by Bruce Eisner)

>Cocaine increases the likelihood of heart attack and stroke as early as
>the first use. Heroin ingestion can lead to suppression of respiration
>sufficient to cause suffocation. Damage to the drug user's mind may be
>even more frightening. The user under the influence of drugs is not the
>harmless, sleepy soul we once thought he was. during [sic] drug user and
>after, people are changed, they do not think clearly, they are filled
>with anger, fear, paranoia, and a host of emotions they have never
>experienced or had to keep in check. Memory deprivation, organic brain
>damage, and psychosis are the recognizable consequences of such use.
>

A quote from a friend of mine:
------------------------------
"Ha!  This is called 'getting to know yourself'.  And let's not confine the
emotions to anger, fear and paranoia, but let's include love, contentness,
happiness.  People are changed?  Very possibly: metaprogramming?  This is
ridiculous.  People feel emotions they have not felt.  I went to a
high-school football game and felt emotions I had never felt, simply bound
up in the group mentality and cheering and all.  Emotions we have had to
keep in check?  *That* sounds dangerous to me.  Bottling something up may
cause explosions."
-----------------------------
	-juxlus (the awkward condenser)

>Although it was not long ago that many people thought marijuana and even
>cocaine were not addictive or particularly harmful, most advocates of
>legalization do not try to argue that illicit drugs are safe. Instead,
	Again, the pamphlet refuses to acknowledge that all illegal
drugs are not the same. While legalization advocates argue that
marijuana is safe, they do not argue that cocaine or alcohol is safe.
(Marijuana is not totally safe, it is only "one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known to man", according to DEA
Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young.)

>they try to defuse the issue by pointing out that alcohol and
>cigarettes, two legal substances for adults, kill many more people than
>illicit drugs. Ironically, this is probably the strongest argument
>_against_ legalization that they could make. Alcohol and cigarettes are
>not inherently more dangerous than illicit drugs. A given dose of
	This is *wrong*. Alcohol and tobacco are *far* more dangerous
that most illicit drugs. One need not just look at deaths per year. One
can look at deaths per year *PER USER*. Even if usage went up (which it
probably won't) the deaths per year *PER USER* will not change. This
number is a rather reliable measure of drug danger, in my opinion.  From
_Thinking About Drug Legalization, by James Ostrowski, Cato Institute
Paper # 121, May 25, 1989 p. 47:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
	Table 4 presents the estimated per capita death rates for each
drug. (While a number of people have died as a result of marijuana
_enforcement_, there are apparently no confirmed deaths traceable to
marijuana use.) The figures for cocaine and heroin have been adjusted
downward, in accordance with the previous analysis, to include only
those deaths due to drug use per se. The unadjusted death rate for these
drugs is in parentheses.

[glo note: the "previous analysis" details how overdose due to variable
strength and toxic reactions and infections due to uncontrolled black
market in drugs causes most of the deaths due to "heroin and cocaine"
use - glo]

Estimated per capita death rates by drugs
-----------------------------------------------
Drug		Users	Deaths/Year	Deaths/100,000 users
-----------------------------------------------
Tobacco	  60,000,000	390,000		650
Alcohol	 100,000,000	150,000		150
Heroin	     500,000	    400 (2,000)	 80 (400)
Cocaine	   5,000,000	    200 (1,000)	  4 ( 20)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

>cocaine or its derivative crack is far more dangerous than a drink. A
>joint of marijuana is far more carcinogenic than a cigarette, and it
	I already compared marijuana to tobacco, and as my analysis
stated, it can be shown that marijuana is much safer than tobacco.

>negatively affects the mind as well. Alcohol and cigarettes kills more
>people than illegal drugs precisely because they _are_ legal - because
>so many more people use them. We have more public health problems than
>can presently be handled as a result of alcohol and cigarettes.
>Legalized drugs would overwhelm our public health system.
>
>A related argument that proponents of legalization have relied upon is
>libertarian: that people should be allowed to take whatever substance
>they desire, and that users are hurting no one but themselves - they are
>committing a victimless act. Although this argument has certain
>simplistic appeal, it is not only factually incorrect, but it has also
>been repeatedly rejected in the country.
	"repeatedly rejected"? What does that mean? Is that another one
of those arguments saying, "People are against it, so obviously it's a
bad idea"?  Like I said, in ante-bellum South, the majority of the
people thought that Blacks were less than human. It doesn't mean that
they were right.

>
>Regardless of what we once thought, we know now that illicit drug use is
>not a victimless crime. Whether we are family members or co-workers of
	"we know now"? Another rhetorical device, trying to ignore
logic, by saying statements such as "everybody knows that," in order to
escape the requirement that information be supported with evidence.

>addicts, passengers on airplanes or trains piloted by users, victims of
>brutal and wanton violence induced by mind altering drugs such as PCP or
>speed, travellers facing the menace of drugged drivers on our highways,
>or simply taxpayers, we are all victims of illicit drug use.
>
>We take great pains to protect the public from harmful drugs. Medically
	If they take great pains to protect the public, they would ban
alcohol and tobacco. But it has been established that Prohibition of
alcohol in the 1920's did *not* work. Ann Landers agrees that
Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's did not work and that the solution
is education. The government doesn't make tobacco illegal because it
would cause "unemployment" of tobacco farmers. They give subsidies to
farmers and tax the users. That defies all logic, for the money then
goes in a circle.

>useful drugs are tested for years before they are allowed on the market,
	By testing these medicines for years, more people die from not
having access to potentially life-saving drugs than would be saved from
a deadly drug entering the market. We *know* that people will die from
the disease, and they have a chance to either live or be killed from the
drug. "Delays on Propranolol, used to treat angina and hypertension,
resulted in at least 30,000 avoidable American deaths a year during the
period the FDA blocked its entry." (Source: "We *Can* Have Affordable
Health Care" by Vincent H. Miller & Jarret B. Wollstein.)

>and then they are carefully regulated, requiring prescriptions from
>licensed physicians. It is only because of their medically beneficial
>effects that they are allowed. What possible beneficial effect is there
>from marijuana cocaine, [sic] LSD, PCP, or heroin to justify legalizing
	I already talked about the medical uses of marijuana. I talked a
little bit about the psychiatric uses of LSD, also. Cocaine is legally
available as a prescription medicine, and is used rarely as an
anesthetic. (It is listed in Schedule II, which means that the
prescription needs to be in triplicate and other paperwork has to be
filled out. Even for *research* to be done on a Schedule I drug, you
need special permission from the DEA.)
	I think that PCP is used as an anesthetic in veterinary
medicine. (I could be mistaken.)

>them?
>
>It seems clear that most of the present fascination with legalization is
>born from a sense of frustration at the high level of violent crime
>associated with drug trafficking, and at our seeming inability to
>eliminate that violence even through increased expenditures for law
>enforcement. Legalize drugs, so the argument goes, and we will eliminate
>drug-related violent crime and save money at the same time. While this
	Before President Reagan's all-out War on Drugs, America's crime
rate had been declining, but with the event of the new wave of drug
laws, violent crimes have increased sharply -- 32% between 1976 and
1985. (Source: "Ending Our Drug Nightmare" by Jarret Wollstein)
	Drug laws produce a black market. A black market means high
prices. High prices mean that people have to steal and prostitute
themselve to afford to buy the drugs. High prices mean high profits.
High profits mean the drug dealers can afford to buy guns. Guns in the
hands of drug dealers mean violence.

>argument has appeal on its surface, it fails to stand up to scrutiny.
>Even if we were to legalize drugs, we would still need drug law
>enforcement because even most proponents of drugs do not advocate
>legalizing drugs such as crack, LSD, or PCP, and because drugs would
	If cocaine were legal, people would probably not use crack. It
is the same situation with alcohol Prohibition. During the Prohibition
of alcohol, people started using stronger alcohol products because it
was illegal and they wanted "more bang for the buck." With cocaine
illegal, people turn to crack, because *it* provides "more bang for the
buck." (And more danger.) With a legal system, I would not find it
surprising if people began to turn from crack to cocaine, and maybe from
cocaine to chewing coca leaves, a much safer form of ingesting the drug
than the purified chemical. This would be possible because of the
economics. Under a legal system, using coca leaves would be economically
feasible. Most drug-enforcement officials' goals are not to "eradicate"
the drugs, but to raise the prices. This escalation of price hurts
innocent people who get shot by stray bullets, it hurts Colombian judges
who get killed by rich drug lords, it corrupts law enforcement officials
because the drug dealers can afford to pay for huge bribes, and it hurts
the addict, because he/she must steal or prostitute himself to pay for
the drug. (Source: _A Weekend with Terrence McKenna_, speeches by
Terrence McKenna given at Esalen Institute.)
	By raising the price of heroin from five cents to five dollars,
the only result is that the addict must steal (or even kill) in order to
get the drugs. (_Licit & Illicit Drugs_, ibid. p. 522.)

>remain illegal for minors. We would thus continue to have drug-related
>crime and illegal drug distribution organization that would continue to
>push drugs on our youngsters. We would also have much higher costs
	If drugs were legal for adults, there would be no black market.
Drugs would be available at your corner pharmacy, and there is no motive
for a corner pharmacy to push drugs on youngsters. Does the corner
pharmacy push _alcohol_ on youngsters? No. Young people do buy alcohol,
but they don't go through black market channels to buy it, they go to
the corner liquor store and lie about their age.

>associated with increased health care and lost productivity.
>
>In the final analysis, legalization is wrong because drugs are wrong
	It is amazing that a species of plant can be "wrong."
	"Wrong" is subjective. Morality cannot be legislated. One
religion may state that bisexuality is immoral, yet another may mandate
bisexuality. (A few Native American religions had bisexual rites of
maturation.) If person A thinks being bisexual is immoral, he has no
right to stop person B from following the dictates of his religion.
	With the drug issue, the Native American Church uses peyote
(which contains mescaline) as a sacrament. By banning their use of
peyote, the government is trampling on the religious freedoms of this
country's native peoples.

>The legalize behavior is in large measure to condone it. Do we want to
>say as a Nation [sic] that it is acceptable to ruin one's mind and body,
>to tolerate as recreation an activity which imposes such risks on every
>one of us, and to consign a larger proportion of our population to
>incapacitation and dependence on society. [sic] We should be aware that
	Laws were not devised to "send messages." Laws exist so that
people may co-exist in harmony without hurting each other. Devices such
as television, radio, and the newspapers are the proper media which the
government should use in order to make it's statements that it is not
acceptable to ruin one's mind an body.

>other countries have tried legalization and that policy has failed.
	There is a fundamental difference between legalization and
decriminalization, which happened in Holland. Decriminalization
maintains the black market because it does not make selling the drugs
legal, it only makes possession legal. In Amsterdam, marijuana is
effectively legal, and there are few problems with marijuana. In fact,
after marijuana was made easily available, heroin use went down
substantially. (As I stated above.)

>Illegal markets with their attendant criminal problems continue to
>exist. Legalization ensures that the government condones and often ends
>up supporting an intoxicated lifestyle for a larger number of people.
>
>We can be certain that if we legalize drugs, the number of users will
>increase dramatically. The fact that we cannot deter all users of
	"We can be certain" is another statement meant to hide the lack
of logical reasoning. There is no proof that the number of users will
increase. There *is* evidence that the number of users will go down.
(The situation in Amsterdam..) It is often the laws themselves which
create the widespread drug use.
	LSD's popularization was intensified by a wave of prohibitive
legislation. Many cases in which people claimed to have killed people or
jumped off of buildings while using LSD were not true. After the
anti-LSD laws were passed, LSD availability increased and LSD demand
increased. (Source: _Licit & Illicit Drugs_, ibid. pp. 370-2).

>illicit drugs by criminal laws does not mean that we should discard
>those laws, any more than the fact that we have robbery means that we
>should make robbery legal. 
> 
>With all these articulable risks and dangers, how could one possibly 
>argue that legalization makes sense? The only conceivable answer is to
>admit that the criminal justice system is overrun and that the drug
>thugs are threatening to swap us. Two responses are apparent. First, as
>discussed elsewhere in this report, we have not given the criminal 
>justice system adequate resources to tackle the problem and pinning our 
>hopes to end the crisis of illegal drugs, solely on prevention and 
	The United States already has the highest per capita prison
population in the world.

>treatment would be an ill-fated gamble with our Nation's [sic] future. 
>Second, it has never been part of the American character to capitulate 
>on criminals.
	It has often been part of the American government to smuggle
and deal in illegal drugs. When the CIA was aiding the Afghan rebels
during the Soviet occupation, they established a hashish-smuggling ring
in order to fund the activities of the rebels. The period when the
Soviets were in Afghanistan provided hash users in the United States a
very rich supply of very-strong Afghani hash.  When the Soviets pulled
out of Afghanistan, the CIA staged an elaborate "bust" in order to close
up the Afghani smuggling operation. (Source: _A Weekend with Terrence
McKenna_, ibid.)
	It is rumored that George Bush orchestrated a cocaine smuggling
operation in order to fund military aid to some of his allies. Noriega,
the famous drug trafficker, was put in power under the auspices of the
United States CIA, which as I have stated in the last paragraph, uses
drug smuggling to fund many of its operations.
	The major reason why drugs are illegal in the United States is
not danger, nor is it public opinion. In the late 1970's, public opinion
was in favor of legalization. The Reagan/Bush years, with their
misinformation campaigns, have managed to reverse that opinion. They
wanted to keep drugs illegal because it is in their best interests to do
so.
	Under an illegal system, the government has an excuse for
limiting free speech, taking completely innocent people's property
without a trial, shooting people for possession of *one* joint, and
spending more money on the nation's police and military forces. The
government's covert operations agencies such as the CIA have drug
smuggling as an easy way to earn a great deal of money from the
illegality of the drug trade. Under a legal system the CIA would not
earn so much money smuggling drugs. The money the CIA earns from drug
smuggling would be a "blank check" for the CIA--they can use it however
they want, without the supervision of Congress, because Congress knows
nothing of it.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 	I have no proof, but I believe that *THE*_*CIA*_*IS*_*THE*   |
| *SINGLE*_*LARGEST*_*SMUGGLER*_*OF*_*COCAINE*_*INTO*_*THE*_*UNITED* |
| *STATES*.                                                          |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
	
> 
>USE OF ILLICIT DRUGS MUST NOT BE CONSIDERED A VICTIMLESS CRIME 
> 
	The last section merely says how the *black-market* causes all
these problems. It does not say that the drugs are that which creates
the problems. Making drugs illegal is a crime which created the black
market and all the deaths from unregulated drug supply, drive-by
shootings, and other "drug-related" (in fact, "black-market related")
crime.
	By raising the prices of these drugs the DEA is the group
responsible for the violence. William Bennet was proud when he said, "We
have raised the price of and ounce of pot past the price of an ounce of
gold!" In doing so, the DEA is responsible for the violence which is
tearing apart the inner-cities.

>All citizens must speak out against the common myth that illicit drug 
>use is a victimless crime. The victims of drug use are everywhere;
>residents of drug-infested neighborhoods, citizens against whom criminal
>acts are perpetrated by users and traffickers, the business community, 
>and society at large through taxes supporting prisons, law enforcement, 
>medical services, and increased insurance rates.
	These victims of "drug use" are in fact victims of drug
prohibition. Like I said before with legalization, addicts wouldn't
steal from innocent people because they would be able to afford the drug
without stealing. Taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for the huge prison
costs if drugs were legal, because the users would not be in prison. 60%
(Source: _A Weekend with Terrence McKenna_, ibid.) of all drug-offenders
in prison are in there because of marijuana, a drug safer than aspirin.
	Other victims of drug laws are rape victims and murder victims
of rapists and murderers released from prison. Because of mandatory
sentencing laws, people who sell marijuana, one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known to man, must stay in jail for
maybe seven years *at a minimum* and rapists and murderers are set free
on parole to ease up the prison crowding.

> 
>The enormous profits generated by the illict drug industry in the United
>States have attracted some of the most violent criminals to the trade.
	Legalization would eliminate the profits which have attracted
the most violent criminals to the trade.

>There is no innocent use of illicit drugs. People who use these drugs as 
>a form of "recreation" do not see themselves as hurting anyone, because 
>they did not rob or steal, to obtain their drugs. What these people do 
>not understand, however, is that their use of illicit drugs is helping 
>to fill the pockets of drug dealers with ill-gotten gains and to support 
>violence. The people who "casually" use cocaine are accomplices in the 
>deaths of foreign leaders assassinated by drug cartels, or innocent 
>inner-city children and elderly people who are caught in the crossfire 
>of rival drug gangs, and of law enforcement officers who risk their 
>lives to protect us in our homes and in our communities. 
	Drug cartels would not exist in a legal system. Coca leaves
could be purchased by a reputable pharmaceutical company such as Baxter,
and Baxter would never have a motive to kill a foreign leader. Elderly
people and innocent children would not be caught in the crossfire of
rival drug gangs, because drugs would be sold at pharmacies. When was
the last time there was a shootout between alcohol-sellers over turf?
During the Prohibition of alcohol.

> 
>We must be absolutely unyielding in our opposition to illicit drug use. 
>We must be as adamant about "casual" users as we are about addicts. And 
>whereas addicts may also deserve your help, "casual" users deserve our 
>condemnation. These persons must accept responsibility for the brutality 
>and corruption which they help finance.

	My final point: The only way to stop the war in our cities is to
remove the high profits from the illegal drug trade. To remove the high
profits drugs should be legal. That way innocent people do not die from
crossfire, drive-by shootings, turf wars, and muggings from people who
have to pay prohibitive costs for illegal drugs.
	Thank you for reading my points. I respect you a great deal for
showing interest in my viewpoint. I hope you will take these points into
consideration when you think about issues in the future. Thank you.

		-- Sameer Parekh
		   zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
		   "Specialization is for insects"
				- Robert A. Heinlein

	Remember: I have the truth on my side. All the Prohibitionists
have are lies and a great deal of money.
-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Fri Nov 27 00:45:18 1992 US Debt: $4,148,371,135,209 Per capita: $16,215