correct • elegant • free

△ uk.politics △

◅ Howard Marks MP from Norwich???

Boycott the Police

In article <>,
PackMan  <> wrote:
>So, we come back to my original argument.  That legalising further
>'recreational drugs' is undesirable because, as more people use them,
>more will be harmed by the effects of said drugs (both directly and

You make two assertions here.

1. If drugs were legalized, consumption would increase.

2. If consumption rises, more harm will be done.

All the available evidence, such as that from the Netherlands, and the
US prohibition of alcohol, suggests that neither of these is true.  I
would make the following claims.

3. If drugs were legalized, consumption would initially rise for a short
period, then fall back to a slightly lower level than it was before.

4. The vast majority of the harm caused by drugs is a direct result of
their illegal status.  Were they legalized, even if consumption rose
significantly, overall harm would be reduced.

What evidence do you have that statements 1 and 2 are more accurate than
3 and 4?

Tim Goodwin | "I'm a west coast kinda guy, I'm not even sure
UUNET, UK   | where Washington is.. :-)" -- Jordan Hubbard

Original headers:

From: (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.drugs,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Boycott the Police
Date: 12 May 1997 13:07:12 GMT
Organization: UUNET, Cambridge, UK.
Message-ID: <5l74m0$>
References: <5hudse$>

△ uk.politics △

◅ Howard Marks MP from Norwich???