Conference quark::human_relations-v1

>    The purpose for my writing this note is this:  I strongly feel that
>    mothers who put their child through this addiction should be charged
>    with ilegal drug contribution (I'm not sure exactly of what it would
>    be called), AND endangering the life of a child, manslaughter if

 I truly believe that crack addicts are generally immune to this type of
deterrent.

>    I understand that if this ever came about, more mothers would deliver
>    their children in their home, obviously hurting the baby further.

 So far, so bad...

>    So, what is the answer?  IS there an answer?  What are your views?

 I don't see any quick answer. People who take drugs during pregnancy, in the
face of overwhelming evidence that it is extremely harmful to the child, are
not in full control of their faculties. 

 I just don't see anything we can do about this.

 the Doctah

    re: .-1
    there are many people in society for which the threat of punishment
    (prison, execution, etc) is no deterrent whatsoever.  That in no
    way means that we should stop the punishment, it just means that
    some number of people will continue to break the law no matter
    what society does about it.
    
    I think that a valid purpose of punishment is to express the outrage
    of society about certain acts.  You may call this "vengeance",
    but I call it attempting to establish a set of moral values
    that a society wants to protect.
    
    Frankly, I think that society should be outraged that a person
    essentially takes away the life of a newborn because she took crack
    shortly before birth.  The fact that she was already a crack user is
    of no concern to me.  Because, if I accept that as an excuse, then
    I must be prepared to say "OK, you were already a user, so it's
    OK that your child is now tragically deformed, retarded, or dead"
    
    Sorry, I can't buy it.  People who wantonly take drugs which seriously
    impact a newborn's life should be prosecuted.
    
    

>    there are many people in society for which the threat of punishment
>    (prison, execution, etc) is no deterrent whatsoever.  That in no
>    way means that we should stop the punishment, it just means that
>    some number of people will continue to break the law no matter
>    what society does about it.

 Ok. I'm just trying to see the value here. I'm just wondering what good is
expected to come from punishing a drug addict. Realize that these questions
are coming from a punish them first and ask questions later type of guy.

>    Frankly, I think that society should be outraged that a person
>    essentially takes away the life of a newborn because she took crack
>    shortly before birth. 

 I won't disagree. 

 I guess I'm trying to come up with a means of prevention and I can't think
of any way to prevent this.

>    Sorry, I can't buy it.  People who wantonly take drugs which seriously
>    impact a newborn's life should be prosecuted.

 Frankly, I don't see how 'newborn' should matter. I think people who do things
that adversely affect other people's lives should be prosecuted, regardless
of the age and relationship of the victim.

 I still have the nagging feeling that nothing we can do will deter women from
doing crack while pregnant. And it's quite a bothersome notion.

 The Doctah

    Several months ago, I saw a "Nova" (I think) episode on addiction.
    The show, very quietly, made the point that *no*one* had ever
    been successful at kicking an addiction to crack.  Now, things
    may have changed, and a technique developed, but if it hasn't,
    I'm not comfortable about punishing someone for failing to do
    something that no one has ever been able to do.  It's...abusive.
    
    						Ann B.

"I'm not comfortable about punishing someone for failing to do something that no
one has ever been able to do.  It's...abusive."

Good should be rewarded; Evil should be punished.  I don't think of this as
vengence or retribution, but rather merely Justice.

Perhaps you could think of them as being punished for becoming addicted?  Or for
becoming pregnant, being an addict?

If an addict can't stay off drugs while pregnant, then they need to be
committed, at least for the duration of the pregnancy.

Jijm.

    TO: .4
    
    Your statement, "The show, very quietly, made the point........"
    
    I don't normally react in a "flaming" manner, mentally or physically,
    but that statement has my blood warming up very rapidly.  Having
    been VERY closely affiliated with an addicted child, I strongly
    oppose the righteousness of the statement ....."very quietly". 
    You (mankind) CANNOT make a quiet CRACK/COCAINE/HEROIN point.  You
    have to scream it - physically - emotionally - from the bottom of
    your soul, and if your "directed recipient" doesn't hear it - SCREAM
    for yourself - then maybe you can "unflame" yourself enough to find
    another - better - way to reach your loved one's soul.  I screamed
    to myself long enough, I searched many avenues and, thank God, I
    was able to bring my loved one back.  "Quiet"?  Doesn't make many
    points to many of the right people.
    
    This is not intended as a personal "flame" - it just still makes
    me feel desperate, when I think back.
    
    Barb 

    Some goals-clarification seems to be in order.  The goals being
    espoused are:
    
    	- punishing those responsible for addiction in the newborn
    
    	- curtailing/ending the occurence of addiction in the newborn
    
    Given that these two goals are not always compatible, prioritising them
    seems to be in order.
    
    If the higher goal is to punish those responsible, then the secondary
    goal of safeguarding the unborn/newborn could easily suffer.  Faced
    with potential punishment, addicts [all sorts, pregnant and otherwise]
    tend to go underground. Children will continue to be born addicted,
    possibly in higher numbers.
    
    If, on the other hand, the goal is to curtail/end addiction in the
    newborn, the secondary goal of punishing the guilty would suffer.  If
    we choose a plan of attack that offers treatment to the pregnant
    addict, not all will come forward; but some _will_ and the incidence of
    addiction in the the newborn will go down.  This costs money, both
    public and private.
    
    Setting aside the complex questions of free-will and addiction, we need
    to decide whether the higher good is 'Justice' or 'Life'.
    
    For my part, I would rather see some of the guilty go unpunished so
    that some of the victims might not occur than see all of the guilty
    punished yet the victims be on the increase.
    
      Ann

    re: .8: I agree with your priorities, even though I don't see them
    being necessarily conflicting.  If I HAD to choose though, between
    the life of the newborn and punishing the guilty, there's no
    question I would choose the newborn's welfare.
    
    re: .4 and .5:
    Again, the issue isn't deterrence that I was addressing.  It would
    be nice if punishing a few addicted people would put an end to
    pregnant drug-users.  But, it won't happen.  Deterrence should
    absolutely be a high priority...through drug treatment facilities,
    pre-natal training and help, drug education, etc, etc.
    
    But, given that you do all those things, and given that a pregnant
    woman wantonly risks (or takes) their child's life by drug use
    during pregnancy, then society MUST hold those people accountable.
    
    Again, I'm not advocating punishing a *drug addict*.  There are
    already laws for that.  I'm advocating punishing someone for the
    *effects* that their drug use has on other people!  To use an
    analogy, I don't want to throw every alcoholic in jail for being
    an alcoholic, or even for drinking too much....but, I sure as
    hell DO want to put someone in jail for taking someone else's
    life while driving drunk.
    

    [ Lisa Price of Kansas City is accused of trading her baby for $20.00
    worth of crack cocaine at a bar Tuesday. On Thursday Price 23 was
    charged in a warrant with abandonement and endangering the life of the 
    child. She surrendered to police Thursday morning, and was being held 
    under $10,000 bond. ] Reported in the Montreal Gazette Sept. 30th 1989.
                 

    That's funny.  I thought I wrote an IF-THEN in .4.  Oh!  I did.
    How odd.  I write six lines, and about the only line not quoted is:
    
    > Now, things
    > may have changed, and a technique developed, but if it hasn't,
    
    People, I do try to take alternatives into account.  I resent
    having this ignored, and I resent being made to look as if I had
    not done this.
    
    Yes, .7, the point was made quietly, probably because 1) it was
    a show on all kinds of addiction, and yes, that includes tobacco,
    and 2) crack was very new at the time the filming was done, so
    that they knew they did no have all the information there would
    ever be.  (It was definitely an "until now, no one..." case.)
    
    Now, given that a person is addicted to cocaine, and given that
    that person has taken crack, what is the percentage chance that
    that person can break the habit?  How long would this be likely
    to take?
    
    							Ann B.

>(It was definitely an "until now, no one..." case.)

 I would be highly suspicious of any such claim. It reeks of irresponsible 
journalism. How can someone say that without having interviewed at least MOST
crack addicts? (I'm not beating on you, Ann, just the program).

 That sounds like a high school reporter going to the school track team and 
interviewing them and making a statement like "No one has ever broken a 4 minute
mile.)

 The Doctah

    Thank you, Mike.
    						Ann B.

.13>	I hope those people who would punish the addict for bringing
.13>	a drug-addicted child into the world, would allow her the
.13>	option of a legal abortion.

You gotta be kidding. If she gets an abortion, there will be no baby
whose rights we (the righteous) must guard and consequently, no one to
punish. If we punish no one, how can we (the righteous) ensure the
purity of the non-righteous rabble, not to mention our own self 
righteousness?

-- Ron

    re: .-2
    
    Yes, I would definitely offer them the option of a legal abortion,
    with the same conditions as any other woman (ie, being a crack addict
    doesn't allow you any *extra* abortion rights).
    
    However (this should generate some heated comments!), I don't view
    the two concepts as being necessarily directly related.  In other
    words, I don't view it as being inconsistent to be against
    abortion, as well as being in favor of prosecuting mothers
    who seriously damage their babies.
    
    

    It occurs to me that the answer may lie deeper in the respect of a
    *reason* the women take crack (or any drug for that matter) and,
    subsequently, become addicted.  To start with, what needs are they 
    trying to fulfill by taking drugs?
    
    Then they become addicted and the addiction takes precedence over all
    else - including self preservation.
    
    IMHO, prosecution may deter this tragedy for awhile, but it will only
    serve as a bandaid in the long run.....
    
    Carol

    This is along the lines of a discussion we've had in =wn=. The
    problem is where do you draw the line once you decide to punish.
    Will we punish pregnant women who smoke or drink too? That also
    harms babies. How about the effect of withdrawal symptoms on the
    baby if we take the mother off cold turkey? If a pregnant woman
    driving a car is speeding and has an accident that causes a
    miscarriage should she be jailed? liesl

    
    >It occurs to me that the answer may lie deeper in the respect of a
    >*reason* the women take crack (or any drug for that matter) and,
    >subsequently, become addicted.  To start with, what needs are they
    >trying to fulfill by taking drugs?
    
    Generally, most addicts are trying to feel good about themselves.  An
    alcoholic or addict is generally full of self-hate.  They drink and/or
    take drugs to forget their pain/problems.  What they don't stop to 
    realize is that the "high" is going to go away and in order to feel 
    "good" again, they must induce more alcohol and/or drugs.  The body soon 
    becomes accustomed to the initial amount of alcohol/drugs and then 
    requires more in order to attain that same high.
    

"The problem is where do you draw the line once you decide to punish."

Treat it the same way as other 'your conduct contributed to harm to another
person' situations: Murder, Manslaughter, negligence, accident....

Crack warps babies so badly they can never be the same again... (so I'm told)
It's not the same as the harm 'normal' smoking or drinking *could* cause...

Treatment is for people who want to change, and to make sure they don't harm
others; Justice is for people who insist on courses of action which harm others.

"I hope those people who would punish the addict for bringing a drug-addicted
child into the world, would allow her the option of a legal abortion."

Well, I'm not being sarcastic, nor do I think I'm particularly righteous, but I
wouldn't allow an abortion.  It seems like a clear contradiction to me... We'll
punish the woman for addicting the baby, but we'll allow her to kill it???
Doesn't make sense to me.

Jim.

>	... nor do I think I'm particularly righteous, but I
>	wouldn't allow an abortion.

There's a contradiction in terms right there. Only the righteous 
assume they have the right to allow or disallow anything for others.


>	... punish the woman for addicting the baby, but we'll allow
>	her to kill it??? Doesn't make sense to me.

Of course it doesn't. No one's talking about killing babies. 
Abortion **prevents** babies before they exist; it doesn't **kill**
them. 

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

The above paragraphs belong in another note; but they demonstrate
the futility of the discussion on this one. 

There is a colossal social problem, revolving around drug use and
abuse. There is another colossal social problem, revolving around
the well-to-do-smug-I-know-what's-best-for-you segment of society
using it's morals (they know what God wants and exactly how He wants
it) to keep the depressed, oppressed and impoverished segment of
society at its depressed, oppressed and impoverished level. 

Out of these two horrendous problems, we get a multitudes of
atrocities. One of these --just one; there are more-- are addicted,
defective (for life) babies. You can discuss this until you are blue
in the screen, but you will definitely not solve this particular
problem, until you remove at least one of its causes. EITHER solve
the drug problem, OR allow (indeed, demand) abortion in all
pregnancies of addicted mother. 

Now, some people's 'solution' is to punish the victim: the poor,
miserable mother (statistically, a teen ager or young adult, from a
poor background) who had probably no more deliberate control over
her impregnation than she had over her becoming addicted. Either
stick her in jail throughout the pregnancy, or afterwards; whichever
is more painful. Delving into the deep seated motives of these
people will be left as an exercise for the more advanced students. 

We now return you to our regular programming. Over and out. 

-- Ron 

    Then perhaps the solution will start with me.  
    
    If/when I have children, I will tell they are loved and demonstrate 
    that love by examples that were not given to me as a child.  I will 
    tell them that it's okay to make mistakes and they will have my love, 
    regardless.  I will tell them it's okay to cry.  I will tell them it's 
    okay to ask questions.  I will tell them it's okay to feel whatever it 
    is they feel.  I will tell them they don't have to live up to their 
    older sister's examples.  And I won't throw out their toys when they 
    become ragged and tattered because it embarrasses *me*.
    
    That's just a small example.  Perhaps I can show them how to get their
    self esteem without drugs.
    
    It's worth a try.
    
    Carol
    

    re. .23
    
    I try to avoid abortion issues but this one deserves a torching.
    
    First you say this:
                   
>    There is another colossal social problem, revolving around
>the well-to-do-smug-I-know-what's-best-for-you segment of society
>using it's morals (they know what God wants and exactly how He wants
>it) to keep the depressed, oppressed and impoverished segment of
>society at its depressed, oppressed and impoverished level. 

    Then you say this:
    
>    EITHER solve
>the drug problem, OR allow (indeed, demand) abortion in all
>pregnancies of addicted mother.                              
    
    Demand an abortion?!!
    
    Anyone who demands an abortion be performed for whatever reason is
    playing the ultimate moral judge.  You are making a judgement on the
    future worthiness of an unborn human being because of the circumstance
    in which it has been placed by his or her mother.  Do you realize
    that?!  That to me is far more morally repugnant than the segment of
    society you seem to be flaming in your note.  Who the hell are you to
    claim which unborn child will be a "defective baby" and how does that
    have a bearing on whether or not one human being is worth less than
    another? 
    
    Do you really think that you or anyone else on this planet has the
    right to *demand* that someone get an abortion?
    
    How far are you going to go with this idea?  Demand abortions for all
    "defective babies"?  Why stop at addicted mothers?  Lets demand abortions
    for pregnant people over 40, what, with the higher incidence of
    "defective babies" being born to women over 40.  Wouldn't want those
    "defective babies" going to school and playing with the "well formed
    babies", now would we?
    
>    Of course it doesn't. No one's talking about killing babies. 
>Abortion **prevents** babies before they exist; it doesn't **kill**
>them. 

    Of course we're not killing them.  Noooo, we're just playing the role
    of God and witholding that which we of the extra-uteral club hold most
    dear: life itself.  As if the abortion issue isn't complex enough,
    now you want to *demand* that they take place.
    
    How much do you actually believe in what you said?  I have to give
    the benefit of the doubt because I've never heard of such backward
    thinking in all my life.
    
    Kris

    
    If a crack addict is pregnant, I feel abortion may be the best
    solution.  I've read so many articles on crack babies, it's terrible
    the pain they suffer and the long term affects.  Punishing the mother
    for this may help to decrease the number of crack addicted babies
    but I also feel that in drug infested neighborhoods free birth control,
    of all types, may help to decrease the number of drug addicted babies
    born.
    
    Does anyone agree with that?
        
    Regarding an earlier reply, to punish a mother for falling and aborting
    her baby is ridiculous.
       
    Denise
    

>Note 902.2                        Crack babies                           2 of 25
>    
>    Sorry, I can't buy it.  People who wantonly take drugs which seriously
>    impact a newborn's life should be prosecuted.
>    
>    
	Does this go for nicotine, 

    re: .-1                 
    Puleeeze!  Yes, I know that nicotine can cause harmful effects on
    newborns.  Yes, I know about fetal alcohol syndrome.  The only
    point you're making is that this is not a black and white issue.
    Who said it was?  I find it no easier to determine precisely
    where to draw the line than anybody else does.  But, there are
    many things that are unlawful that are also very difficult to
    pin down precisely.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal
    intelligently with each situation.
    
    Look...the whole issue is obviously a continuum.  For example:
    
    	If a pregnant woman does this:		should they be prosecuted?:
    
    	smokes a couple of cigs each day	of course not!  Ridiculous!
    
    	smokes 3 packs a day for 9 months	No.
    
    	takes cocaine once during pregnancy	no, probably not.
    	...
    	takes crack daily for nine months,	Hell, yes!
    	  and gives birth to deformed,
    	  retarded, addicted child
    
Again, each case has to be considered on its own merits.

RE: .25 

Your objection is well taken and I stand corrected. The word
'demand' was a very poor choice. I did not mean 'demand' in the
sense of 'mandate'. I quite agree that NO ONE has the right to
**tell** a woman to have an abortion. 

That said, I will stand behind everything I said, after replacing
'demand' with 'encourage'. 

I do believe that abortion should be very favourably considered when
a baby is highly likely to be born defective. This applies, I
believe, to crack babies. Where I come from, abortions are routinely
performed in cases where the mother contracts measles (I hope I got
this right. Could be another trivial disease), during the first
three months of pregnancy, because, statistically, the baby stands a
good chance of brain damage. 

You ask how far I would go with the idea? I believe that common 
sense should prevail and that the final judges are the parents,
after they have been fully informed of the pros and cons.

As you said, abortion is a very complex issue. People against it
often talk about the rights of the unborn baby (even if the 'unborn
baby' is a bunch of cells at that point), but entirely ignore the
rights of other human beings, notably the mother. How about the
rights of Society, who may not wish to support and maintain a
retarded person for the duration of its life? 

-- Ron 

    Off on a little tangent but not away from the discussion. The
    discussion is going more towards.... Abortion.. and generally how much
    responsibility the mother has towards the child (feotus) say.
    My question when you look at someone who is hopelessly hooked on crack but
    still goes through the procedure of becoming a mother. No precautions,
    No abortions.. etc. is, Has the instinct outlived its usefullness.
    People in this position can rationalise (when sober/clear headed) they
    will agree that the last thing that they would wish to do is to create
    a child.  Instinct however takes over. Should our scientists forget
    about complicated b*control and concentrate on a pill which will
    guarantee that the instinct to become a parent can be brought under
    control.
    Can you punish an animal for following its instinct?

RE: 'various ways prenatal babies can be harmed'

The type of drug or chemical is irrelevent.  The question is did the appropriate
people behave responsibly?  If nobody knows taking your prescription drug
endangers your baby, then that's one of the perils of progress.  If your doctor
should have known and didn't tell you then that is his fault.  If you drink or
smoke obcessively or do drugs knowing that this will damage the baby, then then
is your fault, and that should be punished.

"The above paragraphs belong in another note;"

Then you should have put your admittedly sarcastic remarks in that other note.

"There is another colossal social problem, revolving around the
well-to-do-smug-I-know-what's-best-for-you segment of society using it's morals"

There is a basic disagreement here on whether abortion is a moral issue that
differs from murder which is enforced.  This is not the best place for that
topic, so let's just leave it at that.

"EITHER solve the drug problem, OR allow (indeed, demand) abortion in all
pregnancies of addicted mother"

The cause of the defect in the baby does not justify having them aborted. The
mother willfully causing the defect justifies punishment.

"Now, some people's 'solution' is to punish the victim: the poor, miserable
mother (statistically, a teen ager or young adult, from a poor background) who
had probably no more deliberate control over her impregnation than she had over
her becoming addicted."

I disagree.  Both pregnancy & drug addiction require willfull action.  An Addict
who wants to quit merits treatment.  Pregnancy does not ever require punishment,
but does require treatment in some cases.  Willfully damaging a baby requires
treatment for the baby who is the victim in this case, not the mother; and
punishment for the perpetrator of the cause - the mother.

It is important to keep seperate what is what here...  Stop trying to make it
look like I want to "keep the depressed, oppressed and impoverished segment of
society at its depressed, oppressed and impoverished level"

"Delving into the deep seated motives of these people will be left as an
exercise for the more advanced students. "

That's an underhanded statement which contributes nothing.

RE: Carol...

That is something that we can all do, and which I think in the long run is the
best thing we can do.

"What about "tries crack, gets addicted, gets pregnant, tries to stop but
doesn't, and gives birth to a deformed, retarded, addicted child" ?"

Perhaps addicts should be committed for the duration of the pregnancy?  This
both protects the baby, and gives the addict a chance to quit.

""smokes cigarettes daily, for nine months, and gives birth to an underweight,
sickly baby, who has diminished res- piratory capacity, and will suffer 2 to 4
times more upper respiratory infections that a baby born to a mother who
abstained from smoking during the pregancy""

sounds like child abuse to me, and should be treated as such.


"I also feel that in drug infested neighborhoods free birth control, of all
types, may help to decrease the number of drug addicted babies born."

tubal ligation is nice because it can be over and done with...  It's a bit
harder to reverse then a vasectomy, but the only thing that can be done about
that is more research into birth control.  I wonder if there are drugs/* which
can cause a man to father a defective baby in a situation similiar to crack
babies?

"Where I come from, abortions are routinely performed in cases where the mother
contracts measles"

That doesn't sound good to me either.  The difference is that the mother
probably doesn't go out and perform an action that will contract cause her to
contract measles.

"the final judges are the parents,"

I agree that there are situations where the right thing to do in a situation is
too grey, and that the decision should be lft up to those involved.  I don't
believe most abortions, including those of crack babies fall in that category.
For one, the mother of a crack baby is incapable of making a decision about the
babies life; I imagine most such decisions are decision in the mothers best
interest, *not* in the babies best interest.

"People against it often talk about the rights of the unborn baby (even if the
'unborn baby' is a bunch of cells at that point), but entirely ignore the rights
of other human beings, notably the mother."

And the people who are pro abortion usually ignore the rights of the baby in
favor of the mother.  Virtually no one considers the rights of the father in the
issue.

"How about the rights of Society, who may not wish to support and maintain a
retarded person for the duration of its life?"

Society has little obligation to support anyone.  Charity is a Grace, not an
obligation.

Jim.

     There has been a tone in the past few notes which shows (I believe) 
    a lack of understanding of what an _addiction_ is.  People have used
    phrases like "if the mother chooses to take crack" or "wantonly uses
    drugs" (paraphrases, 'cos I don't remember the exact wording).
     To me, there is an implication here that the mother (in this case)
    "chosing to take the drug" is a decision with as little weight as my
    "chosing" to eat at MacDonalds tonight.
     This is ridiculous.  Crack cocaine is an addictive drug (like many
    others), and an addict has little or no choice in the matter. Very few
    people (especially those in our expanding 'underclass') have the
    incredible willpower required to REALLY give up an addictive drug. And
    none of these poor people  (I know, a *generalisation*) have the
    necessary support structures to stay off the drug even if the addiction
    were to be "cured".
    
     As to whether she should be prosecuted. Hell, no.  She should be
    pitied. The real crime is that the petty "anti-abortion" evangelists
    who have prevented her from having access to an abortion have also
    conspired to deny her access to sexual education and birth control.
    
    						Nigel

    In order to get a driver's license, you have to demonstrate knowledge
    and ability.  In order to buy a car, you have to demonstrate financial
    stability.  In order to enter a political office, you have to
    demonstrate you are of "good character" (whatever THAT means). 
    Someday, we all may have to demonstrate that we don't take drugs in
    order to get a job.
    
    But you don't have to have any qualifications whatsoever to become
    pregnant.  I wish it were at least as hard to have a baby as it is to
    get a car loan.
    
    Jim
    

    re: .32
    
    I agreed with every single word of that reply....until I got to
    the last sentence.  It said something like: "Society has no
    obligation to support those who can't support themselves (the
    example was a severely retarded person).  Charity is a grace,
    not an obligation".
    
    In my view, society (or, at least the type of society that I want
    to live in) DOES have an obligation to support reasonably those
    persons who truly can't support themselves.  I view feeding
    and housing a severely retarded person as an absolute obligation
    of any humane society.
    

You are absolutely right.  It is an obligation.
    
    Sarah

    RE:CIGARETTES VS CRACK:: In the 50's when cigarettes were "in",
    lots of mothers smoked. Although it was unknowingly dangerous
    the effects were minimal for most children.
    
    ****SOME INNER CITY HOSPITALS ARE CLAIMING A 50% CRACK ADDICTION****
        RATE AMONG NEWBORNS!
    
    If a doctor identifies the possible signs of drug abuse at any time
    during a pregnancy, he must report it. The mother-to-be is put on
    a type of probation for the remainder of her pregnancy. This is
    the law in Minnesota. 
    
    This is not a joke. This is not going to go away unless we take
    measures.
    
    The right to limit a woman's freedom during her pregnancy is wholly
    contingent upon her ability to get an abortion if she so chooses.
            
    "Bless the beasts and the children. In this world they have no voice.
     In this world they have no choice."
                                       -Paul Williams
    
    Kate
    
             

>       In my view, society (or, at least the type of society that I want
>    to live in) DOES have an obligation to support reasonably those
>    persons who truly can't support themselves. 

 Without getting into a prolonged rathole or esoterical discussion about the
nature of society, I would like to say this. Society, from an objective stance,
doesn't _have_ to do much of anything. We _assume_ the responsibility to
take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. If we simply placed
them on a rock to die, society would still exist- albeit a cold one. Taking care
of those who cannot take care of themselves is a self-imposed obligation of
society. We do it because we feel that society as a whole is better off for
it. But it is still a choice (though a forgone conclusion).

 The Doctah

>    Someday, we all may have to demonstrate that we don't take drugs in
>    order to get a job.

	 I've had to do that many times already.


	 DEC surprised me when then didn't require it.

	 kat    

>    Someday, we all may have to demonstrate that we don't take drugs in
>    order to get a job.
     
     ... or at least don't take drugs not officially sanctioned by the
    pharmaceutical industry and/or individual governments.

RE: 'lack of understanding of addiction'

Regardless, there is at some point in the addiction where the choice is made to
start, or to continue to use drugs.  The drug user must be held responsible for
that choice.  Again, this is a seperate issue from helping an addict quit if
they wish to do that.

If a pregnant addict cannot quit for the sake of the child, then abstinance for
the duration of the pregnancy should be enforced by commitment to a drug clinic.
What rights the addict has that are being violated, they have lost by 1) being
unable to control their addiction, and 2) becoming pregnant.  They have proven
twice that they cannot control their own life, and the safety of the child must
be safeguarded.

"Taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves is a self-imposed
obligation of society. We do it because we feel that society as a whole is
better off for it. But it is still a choice (though a forgone conclusion)."

Is a self-imposed obligation really an "obligation"?  I don't think that it
quite has the same flavor.  An obligation imposed from without is a different
experience from an obligation which a person takes upon themselves to fullfill.

If you make Charity an Obligation, you make it meaningless.  It must remain a
choice.

Jim.

>Is a self-imposed obligation really an "obligation"? 

 The point of the quoted text is that in essence, it is not.

 The Doctah

> What rights the addict has that are being violated, they have lost by 1) being
> unable to control their addiction, and 2) becoming pregnant.  They have proven

    So you view becoming pregnant as grounds for losing one's rights, eh?
    Shoot, I'm going out to have my tubes tied right now!

    I find it ironic that you place so much value on charity being a choice,
    yet would place so many obligations upon female addicts.  Perhaps it is
    really the state that is guilty for allowing the availability of drugs
    to be what it is?  Perhaps it is the state, not the addict, that has
    the obligation to clean up the mess it, the state, has created for its
    present and future citizens?  Is it "charity" then on the part of the
    taxpayers?

    Not that I necessarily agree with that, but I find the reasoning behind 
    your viewpoint troublesome when applied to other societal problems.

	Sharon
    

"So you view becoming pregnant as grounds for losing one's rights, eh?"

If your actions place you in a position where you cannot control your actions
which will violate another's rights. then yes, you lose the freedom to violate
another's rights, which is a right which you never had anyway.  If you cannot
control yourself, you will need to be controlled.

"Perhaps it is really the state that is guilty for allowing the availability of
drugs to be what it is?"

The State *cannot* prevent the availibility of drugs.  Look around... This is
true.

"I find it ironic that you place so much value on charity being a choice, yet
would place so many obligations upon female addicts."

I don't place any more obligations on female addicts then I do on male addicts,
or just plain straight people.  A male addict is also responsible for the
children their actions produce.  A straight person is also responsible for how
they might violate other's rights.

Jim.

    re:-1 (Mike)
    
    	As far as assuming the fetus has rigts goes I must say that
    a fetus is not in question. A deformed child is the question. If
    I poisened my 19 month old the law would find me negligent. What
    is the difference between my child and the 19 month old child who
    was injured due to poisening by crack? Is it a timing issue? Why
    is someone allowed to poisen a child before he is born but not after?
    
    Kate
    

    Since sperm suffer chromosomal damage, too, should all male addicts be
    jailed, too, lest they impregnate some woman?  Should they be given
    involuntary vasectemies?  Should they be castrated?
    
    The argument that female addicts should be jailed while pregnant or
    forced to abort the fetus is interesting when applied to male addicts.
    
    I'm not trying to rabble-rouse, and don't really know how this terrible
    situation should be solved, but I question some of the solutions...  
    
    Pam

    AFTER they impregnate some woman.
    
                         

    Re .48:  
    Closing the barn door after the horse has run out, eh??!
    
    I actually do see the point you're making -- you should know that this
    man is a risk before taking action.
    
    However, enforcing that would be difficult.  In the underworld that I
    assume many serious drug addicts live in, I think proving that one
    specific man has impregnated one specific woman would be nearly
    impossible -- particularly if the man knew that if he admitted he was
    responsible he would be jailed, vasectemized, ... or worse.
    
    So, still curious...
    
    Pam

         Yes, it is nearly impossible to prove.  However, paternity suits
    are judged with similarly flimsy evidence everyday.
    
         Speaking of risks, a friend of mine dated a lady who really looked
    like an axe murderer to me.  I think that is clearly grounds to lock
    her up.  However, I wouldn't want to be judged on somebody's impression
    of me.
    
                                       Greg

  Re: 902.0  >> ..what is the answer ...what are your views.. ?" >>
 
 Perhaps some explanations might help others understand this simple problem of
 "C~R~A~C~K~i~N~G-   


  o  Who is the originator of the formula for making crack ?
    
  o  Where are the high-tech factories for making crack located ?

  o  How does the crack get to these women ?

  o  Is crack available in Rome(for example) or is it confined to one specific 
     spot on the globe ?
     
  o  Heroin addicts in Amsterdam(Holland) are given free daily shots by the
     government. Are the crack addicts in Amsterdam given free crack also?

  o  What happened to smart industralist - John Z. DeLorean when he 
     abandoned the car manufacturing business ?

  o  Can someone from the Kansas City area check and find out if Ms. Price is
     still in jail or hooked on crack ?  ( in ref. to note .11 )

  o  Is John Zaccaro (son of Geraldine) a product of an "under-class family?"
  
     ..just a few questions from those seeking to understand what all this
    -crack-o-jaz- is about ?    

    Well, having just waded through all 53 notes worth I'm going to
    try to gather my thoughts.
    
    Ever since the Webster decision there has been an (alarmingly)
    increasing trend of prosecuting women for fetal endangerment. This
    includes many different types. (There was an article in the Boston
    Globe several weeks ago.)
    
    Also in the Globe a few weeks ago was an article about female addicts
    and the lack of available space for them in treatment facilities.
    I believe the waiting list is extensive. Those women seeking treatment
    may not get it.
    
    Time and again in the notes people kept saying that a woman should
    be jailed, confined, made to attend treatment programs and so on.
    Not once has anyone suggested how we are going to achieve this.
    Even with the current budget package the state of Massachusetts
    will experience a 400 million dollar shortfall with little relief
    in sight. Those of you who oppose a tax hike, will you be reaching
    into your pockets to see that these things happen? It seems we can't
    have it both ways.
    
    Every time the subject of nicotine or alcohol is brought up it is
    brushed aside. These are DRUGS! Whether we like to admit it or not.
    And yes I like my drink too. But no one seems to take seriously
    the effects these "legal" drugs has on the newborn, they just want
    to see those crack users behind bars. I suppose it might not be
    so comfortable if your next door neighbor, daughter, aunt perhaps
    were dragged of for the same offense, different drug. And yes fetal
    alcohol syndrome has effects that last a lifetime, including learning
    disabilities.
    
    Finally we are living in a society where some frightening things
    are happening. They can't be ignored or separated from the "offence"
    itself. There is increasing polarization in this country between
    black and white, rich and poor. Addiction may come from many sources.
    It may come from lack of hope. I am white, college educated and
    have done well for myself. My friend is black, has a year of college
    and lives on welfare with her baby. She is intelligent, willing
    to work. How come she's not where I am? Until we tell all people
    in this country that they are worth more than flipping burgers
    ($4.90/hr), until we look beyound our priviledge, we will not extend
    hope to the rest of this country.
    
    I'm not trying to burn anyone in the notesfile but I just don't
    see the larger issues being looked at. A lot of people seem bent
    on punishing the woman. By the way, where's the heated notefile on
    men who beat, rape or kill women (their loved ones)? I hope we can
    get beyond the woman bashing to look at the larger issues.
    
    Thanks, I'll get off my soapbox now.

   PERNICIOUS ?- Yes, DEADLY !!    ...what is this thing called "ICE" ?
   NEWSWEEK: The Koreans call it *hiroppon, the Japanese call it *shabu. 
   To American addicts just discovering its intense highs and hellish lows,
   this drug is simply "ICE" after the clear crystal form it takes in the manu-
   -facturing process. As addictive as crack cocaine but far more *pernicious.
   Ice - a type of methamphetamine, or speed - is a drug that seems to be 
   from the pages of sci-fiction. In contrast to the fleeting 20 minute high of
   crack, an ice buzz lasts anywhere from eight to twenty-four hours. Unlike
   cocaine, which comes from a plant indigenous to the Andes mountain areas of
   South-America, ice can be cooked up in a laboratory using easily obtained 
   chemicals. ( That eliminates the South-American farmer - connection )
      Hiroppon/shabu's side effects are *devastating. Prolonged use can cause 
   fatal LUNG & KIDNEY disorders as well as long lasting psychological damage.
   Earlene Piko director of Comm. Health Center in Hawaii says:
   "We are seeing people with dysfunctions TWO and HALF years after they've
   stopped using this stuff. That's scary."  Hawaii is the first American state
   to be afflicted by the drug.  The drug also tends to make users violent.
   The Honolulu Police Dept. estimates that ice was a factor in 70% of spouse
   abuse cases the force handled last month. Ice is not a new drug, BUT a more
   powerful form of a substance that has been common in the Pacific states for
   several years. Purer and more crystalline than "meth" or "crank" (not crack)
   manufactured in cities like San Diego, ice comes mainly from Asia. So far the
   spread to the US has been largely confined to the Hawaiian Islands. But the
   quickness with which it has overtaken that state is startling. In just over
   four years, ice has surpassed marijuana and cocaine as Hawaii's No. 1 drug
   problem. Hawaii's ice trail goes back to South Korea, which - along with 
   Taiwan - leads the world in the manufacture and export of the drug. 
   The Koreans learned about hiroppon/ice from the Japanese, who "developed" the
   drug in 1893. During World War II Japan's military leaders supplied it in 
   liquid form to weary soldiers and munitions-plant workers. Japan banned the
   drug shabu after the war - in the 50s' but many labs that produced them 
   simply relocated to South Korea and smuggled the drug across the Sea of Japan
   and Japan remains the drug's largest market. Korea's once negligible 
   domestic consumption has boomed, spreading from prostitutes, students,
   entertainers, housewives to businessmen; 130,000 Koreans are addicted to the
   ice, medical experts believe. 
       The link between Korea and Hawaii was forged in the early 1980s through
   someone named as Paciano Sonny of Hawaii. "Sonny was selling mainly to 
   Koreans and Filipinos, but it quickly spread. And it's spreading - right 
   into middle-class high schools" says a DEA agent in Honolulu.

                The alarming effects on "Ice Babies".
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
   "If you thought crack cocaine dependency was bad, that's in the minor leagues
   compared to ice" ..These ice babies tend to be asocial and incapable of 
   bonding. Some have tremors and cry 24 hours without stopping.  Daniel
   Bent, US attorney in Hawaii says: "We are now producing 200,000 cocaine 
   babies a year, and nurses tell us ice babies are worse.." 
   Side effects: Hallucination, aggressive behavior, fatal kidney failure and 
   possible brain damage.
   (Newsweek: Nov.27th 1989 - under National Affairs, sub-title: A devastating
drug from Asia has triggered a crises in Hawaii and now threatens the mainland).

    re: .56 (Mike)
    
          REally?  
    
          If someone sticks a gun in your face for whatever of value
    you have, perhaps you'll see a more pervasive side of the problem.
    Similar to alcohol?  You've got to be kidding, Mike.  Winos seldom
    commit serious, uncalculated crimes.  Crack and ice addicts will
    stop at nothing for their fix and killing has no import to them.
          And every other characteristic of those drugs is similar to
    alcohol, too?  Wow!  I *REALLY* hope you never get tempted by one
    of those drugs, Mike!  I have never heard of anyone becoming addicted
    to alcohol after one use.  The same is not even close to either
    crack or ice.  ONE CANNOT EXPERIMENT WITH EITHER CRACK OR ICE!!!
    Perhaps one could experiment with other drugs, including marijuana,
    alcohol, LSD or XTC (with trepidation) but, believe me, one of the
    worse things I can think of is having any loved person in my life
    making an attempt to experiment with those two drugs.  
           Media hype?  Hardly enough media coverage, if you ask me.
    If we don't continue to push to eliminate these scourges, we may
    be the first global peoples since Moses that witnesses the loss
    of an entire generation.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Frederick,
    
    When do we draw the line between hype and coverage? How do we draw it?
    In a college journalism class I was told BY MY PROFESSOR that the first
    page stories were the dramatic overzealous stories. In the following
    pages were less dramatic more newsy stuff.
    
    I don't have aproblem with someone writing an article about how "ice"
    is affecting new borns. I don't mind at all. What does burn my biscuits
    is when they picture a small child who has eighty tubes sticking out of
    them in a pre-natal care ward with the story line written up next to it
    in the old "it could happen to you" format.
    
    If they have case studies great. Don't start feeding me about a child
    and addict mother stuff. I have enugh sympathy for the situation
    without all of the personal stuff. If there there are cases put a
    pointer there so that people can find them - if they want to. I am an
    intelligent person and can figure out what the main point is without
    all the fluff.
    
    Debbi
    
    
    
    Until it stops selling papers I

    
    Unfortunately, until it stops selling newspapers - yellow journalism
    will always be with us.
    
    Debbi
    
    PS. Pet gripe is when it cuts me out before I am ready!!!!

    re: .60
    
        Mike, I will never hold SCIENCE up to be the god you hold it
    up to be.  I will probably forever doubt anything I read and the
    quoting from all your "learned" sources does more to turn me off
    than excite me.  Of course, I could say the same about the news
    media.  Of course they play things up to sell or attract attention.
    Comparing humans to animals is very weak, no matter how similar
    our genes may be.  The proof of the pie is in the eating, not in
    comparing the crusts.  
        Being a person who is not inclined to be addicted to things,
    it is often hard for me to personally relate.  Yes, I have known
    a couple of heroin addicts and one of them has told me that they
    were able to get off heroin but unable to get off cigarettes, which
    supports that particular belief.  Yes, I have seen alcoholics who
    have devestated their own realities and often the realities of those
    around them.  I am aware of the deaths *caused* by alcohol and by
    nicotine.  I am also aware of deaths *caused* by life.  So what?
    The two drugs in question are new or relatively new.  If we were
    to change our laws and make them readily available it would be hard
    to say what the immediate outcome would be.  Ultimately those
    individuals would die, probably sooner than those who abstain. 
    BUt meanwhile, back at this ranch, the drugs are contributing
    heavily towards social upheaval, contributing towards violence
    in a big way.  I find defending the drugs, to the extent you have,
    to be fairly irresponsible and I also find the cavalier attitude you hold to
    be dangerous and insensitive.  Perhaps that is what I rebel against
    most.  Too bad you seem to insist on the written word more than
    on real emotions.  If this were a trial, I'd be considered a hostile
    witness against you, Mike.  I add this caveat simply to explain
    the "aggressiveness" of my two replies.  
        This year will doubtlessly see some horrible stories of
    drug-induced violence.  Children murdering parents for the sake
    of satisfying their own out-of-control addictions, for example.
    Perhaps not until some "prestigious" magazine writes about enough
    of these types of things will you decide to see things differently.
    In the meantime it would behoove you to not minimize the very real
    danger these drugs hold--
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    All right time out!!!
    
    Both of you are driving me absolutely bonkers....
    
    The point I believe Mike was trying to make is that the press goes
    through fads.
    
    This week the big fad to publicize is "ice" last year at this time it
    was "AIDS" next year it will be something completely different.
    
    ALL OF THIS HYPE IS TO SELL PAPERS. Sometimes it is actually quite
    factual but the press corps no matter what publication they represent
    hypes the popular problem of the week and pushes out to the reading
    public.
    
    Science has made great leaps and bounds. Frederick realize cures for
    diseases exist because science has pursued them to find an answer.
    Science is not perfect and will always have flaws but respect those who
    work hard to make a difference in this world.  It isn't easy trying to
    work when you have picketers pushing you and people who doubt that what
    you are doing is even worthwhile.
    
    Debbi

    I've got to agree with the basics of what MikeZ is saying. The media
    is solely responsible for the "concern of the day". This is not to
    say that the problem does not exist, but it is at the whim of the
    press as to weather it gets elevated to epidemic level.
    
    If our society was so caring about protecting all the people, why
    are cigarettes still sold? Why wasn't AIDS research started earlier?
    Why do drug offenders get slaps on the hand? The answers aren't simple
    they are political. 
    
    We, as a society, pick and choose what we want to beleive to be
    an epidemic. We decide what is so life threatening that it must be
    resolved now. Crack/Ice/Coke are all "popular" causes. 
    
    Remember the week that ALAR was popular? (apple pesticide). Not so
    popular a cause now. The average American has something like a 100%
    better chance of getting killed on the way to the supermarket because
    they weren't wearing their seatbelt then they do of dying as a result
    of eating apples, but where does the attention go? To the new "threat".

    Yes, crack is a bigger problem than alar but the millions dying
    from cigarettes year after year is bigger than the whole lot.
    
    Gail

    
    
    
                      I don't feel the "epidemic" is at all exaggerated.
    
             The use of this one drug can destroy entire neighborhoods.
    
    
             I think it is all too easy to give an opinion of this latest
             scourge from the comfort of an easy chair.
    
    
             Get up off your rump and out on the street, if you expect
             anyone who really knows to place any weight on these weak
             and unrealistic perspectives.
    
                     I know what you are going to say......"Well it's
             my opinion and that's how I feel."  
    
                     But you won't KNOW absolutely just by getting
             second and third hand information.  (press and reports)    
    
             I have seen junkies and drunks and "losers" of many sorts.
             I am not claiming to be an expert.  BUT if you have ever
             seen the crazed, glazed and wild eyes of a crack addict
             trying to do ANYTHING, you too know the complete lack
             of control, abandon and maniacle tendencies which, quite
             frankly, scare the hell out of me.  It's too bad that 
             more people don't realize the actual seriousness of the
             drug.
                                  
    
    
                                               CMD

    re: .65 (CMD)
    
    > I think it is all too easy to give an opinion of this latest
    > scourge from the comfort of an easy chair.
    
    Unfortunately, you're right.  Yes I know this isn't what you meant
    by "latest scourge" but I can tell you there's no need to go out 
    into the street.  I sat in a recliner (does this qualify as an 
    "easy chair"?) in the living room of a suburban home and watched 
    in terror as an alcoholic father in a vicious frenzy shoved, 
    slapped, punched, and kicked his 13 year old son into a corner for 
    no reasons known to anyone else in the immediate vicinity.  This 
    son recently died at age 30-something -- the official cause listed 
    as <something like> "ingestion of mixed drug subtances".   He was 
    discovered by his younger sister, also an addict.  Lucky for me, 
    I was old enough to bail out of that boat, but 20 years later, 
    I'm still feeling the affects.
    
    Alcohol is deadlier by far.
    
    also re: .57 (Frederick)

    > Winos seldom commit serious, uncalculated crimes.

    This doesn't mean anything.  First of all, alcohol encompasses a
    much larger population than the small percentage represented by the
    stereotypical wino, camped out on "skid row".  And, what difference 
    does it make if the crimes are calculated or not?  I don't think my 
    stepfather meant to abuse his children into oblivion but that's 
    where they ended up.

    re: .54 (AMES)

    > Until we tell all people in this country that they are worth more 
    > than flipping burgers ($4.90/hr), until we look beyound our 
    > priviledge, we will not extend hope to the rest of this country.
    
    I didn't seriously disagree with anything you said in your note but
    I do have a problem with your statement above.  I think we would all
    benefit greatly, "privileged" or not, if we valued everyone and the
    contribution they make, no matter what they do.  What's _wrong_ with
    flipping burgers (or sweeping floors)?  Now that I've said that, I 
    don't think I'm disagreeing with you... just looking at it from a 
    different angle, perhaps.

    Anyway, for anyone who wants to make a difference, volunteer at your 
    local hospital as a "baby cuddler", a provider of life-giving touch 
    and attention to abandoned, sick babies.  

    CQ    

       
    
    
                      I am not saying alcohol is not a problem.  I know
              it is, first hand.  I am not trying to compare crack and
              alcohol.  It doesn't make sense to try, especially when
              alcohol isn't the topic.
    
    
                      To Mike Z. :   You have a lot of nerve using the
              word "IF" in your rebuttal.  
    
                      I'm not talking about hypothetical situations.
              This is real.  This Crack problem.  I hope people wake
              up before the majority of our American society is directly
              effected.
    
    
                      It IS crack which causes the violent crime and
              death.  People are using it as a defense*****  in our
              court system and being exhonerated because they were under the
              influence.  So, I know I am not the only one who feels
              this way.  
                       
    
                      We need to keep it off our streets and out of
              our neighborhoods.  At least we can make it very difficult
              to "score".  All these young people wasting their time
              effort, money, their very lives.  Not caring about themselves
              and their families, much less education and the future.
    
                      This can only lead, eventually, to a generation
              of relatively unproductive people.  The warning signs
              are already here.   Should we ignore them, tomorrow will only
              be worse.
    
    
                      We have had drugs in this country (publicly) for
              quite some time now.  A lot of folks say:  " it's a fad,
              it will pass" or "they're just experimenting, having a
              little fun just like you taking a hit of whiskey"
    
                              BULL!!!
    
    
                      It's different now.  This crack cocaine.  It is
              NOT a fad.  IT IS A WAY OF LIFE.  The only way of life
              for many thousands of people.  So much money going down
              the drain.  It's no wonder there is a "sub"under-class.
    
                      The crack houses, junkies, and addicts??  Some
              of them would sell a child or just as quickly stab YOU
              in the back for a quick high.  Sounds like a problem to
    
                         me. 
                            

    Mike,
    
    	"The answer is not to make it hard to score, the answer is to
    make it something that isn't desired."
    
    I agree and do you have any means to effect making drugs less
    desirable?  Especially in a society in which delay of gratification
    becomes more and more difficult.  Drugs happen to be a quick and
    in some areas, relatively easily accessable means of self gratification. 
    In my area, I have been trying to organize a youth club as an
    alternative activity to drug use.  This will direct a large number
    of youth to activities other than substance abuse, but what about
    those who are not group oriented?  
    
    Ernie
    

RE,: .70

>    	"The answer is not to make it hard to score, the answer is to
>    make it something that isn't desired."
>    
>    I agree and do you have any means to effect making drugs less
>    desirable?

I think this is the wrong question. Whether we do or do not have the 
means to make drugs less desirable, THE ANSWER IS NOT PROHIBITION. 
Simply, because it does nothing to solve the problem, but generates 
a multitude of other problems, some of which are more serious that 
drug abuse itself.

By the simple expedient of decriminalizing possession of small 
amounts of drugs, you, --in one fell swoop-- solve many of the 
problems associated with drugs.

Then, and only then, should you look into other solutions, which (we 
are told) are neither as easy to implement, nor as effective.

-- Ron

    I'm not sure if my question was totally wrong.  It might have been
    presented more appropriately in light of what I think is the underlying
    problem:  Not being able to delay gratification.  What I was trying
    to say was that if a persons means to self gratification is replaced
    with something less destructive or teach that person to delay self 
    gratification through various means, the problem of whether drugs are 
    decriminalized will not be relevant.  The only short term effect
    of making drugs "more" legal is to reduce penalties for using them;
    I don't see that as reducing their usage even in the long run. I
    myself would like to see drugs decriminalized primarily because keeping
    them illicit is enhancing their value to a large group of people.
    As long as people need immediate gratification, The number of users
    and sellers probably will not change.  If decriminalizing drugs
    creates new revenues, I'm not sure if this in itself will be
    benificial.  Theoretically it would, but in actual practice, I'm
    not so sure, what with prevailing political and social-economic
    attitudes.
   
    Never-the-less the bottom line for both pushers and users of substances
    is the inability to delay gratification. I can't see how either
    decriminalizing or increasing penalties for substance use is going
    to change this bottom line one bit because neither one will change
    a person's desire for immediate gratification.  Substituting one
    means for immediate gratification for another means just might. 
                                                  
    

    RE: 72

    I believe the problem is not one of immediate gratification needs but
    rather one of the need to escape. We are also lumping at least two
    categories of users together that may need to be delt with in
    different manners.

    One user is the cronically poor street user. They live in a world of
    poverty and NO gratification. Drugs provide an escape from a reality
    of ugliness and hopelessness. They see every day that hard work will
    not lift them up as they can't make enough to save anything so they
    blow what they have on anything to make reality go away for awhile.

    The other user is the middle to upper class person. They worked hard
    and went to school and have decent jobs but something is missing in
    life. They use drugs to help them pretend that they are happy.

    There are probably other reasons also. My point is that no one plan
    will address the needs of such various users. Legalising and
    controling drugs will make the crime rate diminish and then perhaps
    we can concentrate on treatment. liesl

    .37 liesl
    
    	"Drugs provide an escape from a reality of ugliness and
    hopelessness."  
    
    I think you and I concur with this statement.
    
    
    They (the middle and upper class) use drugs to help them pretend
    to be happy."  
                    
    you used the word 'pretend.' I believe that being happy is subjective
    and that if they beleive the feelings they get from using drugs is
    good and that makes them happy, then they,in their own ignorance,
    probably are.  This to me is an attempt to hurry along the happiness
    they could find by other less hedonistic means. They refuse to believe
    that they might have failed in reaching a satisfactory goal, or
    that drug use is the end result of their being middle and upper
    class. 
    Concentrating on treatment instead of punishment is good and along
    with that there might be some PRO-ACTIVE (preventative) programs
    that might steer young non- users toward long term, responsible
    goals instead of getting satisfaction from substances.  Boys/Girls
    clubs make a significant positive impact on youth in areas where
    they are established.
    
    Ernie
     

    
    
    
    
                      Education is the key.   BUT, I don't believe anyone
                high on drugs of any kind can make an "informed decision"
    
                      A person can't decide if (in their own world)
                there are no alternatives.  If cocaine were eliminated
                or more difficult to aquire,  I believe it would have
                a direct affect on the number of junkies.  It would
                eventually lesson demand for the drug as people found
                other alternatives for escaping.  Hopefully these other
                alternatives would have a less detrimental effect on
                the individual as well as their environment.
    
                      It is a battle held on two fronts,  
    
                                     the source and destination, or
               if you will, supply and demand.
    
                    
                      I believe the current administration is doing
               quite well in addressing the issue from all perspectives.
               
    
                      There will always be people who demonstrate
               irresponsible and wanton behavior.  It is up to the rest
               of to limit the weapons with which they cry out.  Maybe
               then subsequent generations will have a better chance
               of "doing the right thing" and making informed decisions.
    
                      It imagine it would be very difficult to be 
    
                                            BORN A JUNKIE! 
    
    
                                                        CMD
    
                      

>                      I believe the current administration is doing
>               quite well in addressing the issue from all perspectives.

 And failing. In spades.

 I personally do not feel it is a legitimate function of government to intrude
into personal lives and regulate private behaviors that do not affect anyone
else. You may feel otherwise.

 What you cannot dispute is that drug related crime continues to climb despite
the increasingly desparate measures adopted and abridgements of freedom
proffered.

 The Doctah

    
    Here's a thought for allof you to chew on.
    
    Bush has gone out and gotten Noriega, a kingpin in a major drug ring.
    Granted there will be a successor but in the menatime things will get
    kind of nasty while a new controller is taking over.
    
    Looking at the pyramid of drug kingpin, distributor, down to pusher.
    
    It seems that the logical step would be nail the highest guy on the
    totem pole and go after the small folks afterwards. Kind of a shock
    therapy of sorts for the drug world.
    
    Thoughts? Comments?
    D.

    
    
    
                     Ah, but this drug does affect innocent people.
    
              The store owner who gets robbed.  The couple gunned
              down in their own car and the many school children who
              try to learn but have a twinge of fear when the bell rings.
    
                     Then of course the parents who fear their own
              children may be caught up in the drug culture.  
    
                     Let us not forget others all over the world who
              can only guess as to the long term affects of having
              thousands of people living and multipying while addicted
              to cocaine.  
    
                     I don't see this as an evolutionary step forward.
                                                 
                     It is more of a social catastrophe.
                                                        
    
                     I don't know what "failing in spades" means.  Is
              that like failing miserably?
    
                     Dear doctah,  Please tell me, How do you feel
              they (Bush and Co.) are failing and what would you do
              to improve the situation.  
    
    
    
                                                  CMD

RE: .72


>    I'm not sure if my question was totally wrong .... What I was
>    trying to say was that if a persons means to self gratification
>    is replaced with something less destructive or teach that
>    person to delay self gratification through various means, the
>    problem of whether drugs are decriminalized will not be relevant. 

That's true. But, you are looking at a single aspect of the drug 
problem, which is not the most severe, from society's view point.
All addicts are doing, is harming themselves. I feel we should try 
to help them understand what they are doing, but ultimately, it is 
--and should be-- **their** choice

Drug prohibition promotes the crimes that harm society and forces
addicts into harming society. In other words, drug prohibition, in 
itself, is a problem; probably, more deadly than the problem 
presented by drug addiction.

I quite agree with you that decriminalization of drugs WILL NOT
help addicts. It may even increase their number slightly (I doubt
that, but there is no proof it will not). But, the rest of society
will no longer be harmed.

I believe that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. In
other words, if there is no victim, there should be no crime. I also
believe government has no business telling us how to conduct
ourselves when we are not infringing on others' rights. This means
that suicide (which is what addicts are committing) should also be
perfectly legal. 

-- Ron

    
    
    
                         Which brings us right back to the topic!!
    
                Addicts are forcing their will and habits upon potential
                members of our community who, at the time, have no choice
                as to becoming addicted or not.
    
                         Society as a whole will suffer if we cannot
                find a way to eliminate/decrease the desire/need for
                cocaine. 
    
                         Decriminalization will lead to the increase
                in addicts.  That is the very nature of the drug.
    
                         More people now abstain from it's use because of
                the legal and social stigmas that come along with it.
    
                         If we were to remove these barriers, how many
                more people would become addicted?  By the way,  addiction
                is usually an involuntary affliction.
              
                         What would happen to general productivity?
                Moral values?  Standards of living? 
    
                         Is that what we really want?  Not me.  
    
                         It reminds me of the AIDS problem.  Should
                we O.K. the spreading of that disease?
    
                         Granted, AIDS' devastation is more directly
                attributable to the disease itself,  but can we really
                measure the effects that cocaine addiction has had so
                far on the U.S.........the world?? 
                                                   
                        
                                                      CMD
    
                                                    

>                     Ah, but this drug does affect innocent people.

 In what way?

 All of the examples you cite are direct results of the prohibition of drugs.
Those of us that learn from history remember a completely analogous situation
that occurred during the beginning of this century- the prohibition of
alcohol.

 You can blame your government for the increased crime- they guarantee the
profit motive by forcing consumers to turn to the black market. As long as
drugs are illegal, they will remain very costly and very profitable. Marijuana
related crime could be eradicated in a single summer just by making it legal
to cultivate your own. 

 The benefits to legalization, financial and otherwise, so overwhelmingly
outweigh the drawbacks, it is staggering that we continue down the same
deadend path.

>                     Dear doctah,  Please tell me, How do you feel
>              they (Bush and Co.) are failing and what would you do
>              to improve the situation.  

 1. They ensure a ready flow of cash into the hands of organized criminals by
    retaining the failed policy of prohibition.
 2. They have failed utterly to make a dent in the crime problem associated
    with the black market they have created.
 3. They copntinue to hack away at individual freedoms despite the diminishing 
    returns.
 4. They continue to strain our law enforcement and judicial systems by 
    penalizing people who are not hurting others.
 5. They are wasting billions of dollars on a failed policy that shows a
    horrible return on investment.

 What to do:

 1. Eliminate the money going to the drug lords (or at least severely reduce 
it).
 2. Tax the goods being transferred at a reasonable rate, thus ensuring an
end to the profit motive of black marketeers.
 3. Use the taxes reaped to A) reduce the debt
                            B) pay for drug education and rehabilitation
                            C) pay for whatever regulation is necessary
                            D) reduce the tax burden on Americans while 
                               increasing services.
 4. End the policy of criminalizing people who are not harming others
 5. Eliminate the strain on our judicial system.

 That's a start.

 The Doctah

    
    
                        I'm sorry,  I cannot agree with statements 3
                    and 4, no matter how open minded I try to be.
    
                        What you are saying, in essence, is that those
                    who use cocaine and those who would like to use
                    it regularly can be relied on to use it responsibly?
    
    
                        Is it possible?   We made liguor legal, and
                    I'm all for it but,  do you want a nation of air-heads
                    and psychotic desparatos driving on the same roads
                    as you?  Along side all the drunks?  C'mon, it couldn't
                    possibly make things any better
                        
                        Imagine the "coke" lines (no pun intended) at
                    the package stores on a saturday night.  Which line
                    do you think would be longer.....booze or crack?
    
                        Are you saying there wouldn't be drug lords?
                    Less violent to be sure, but none-the-less ruthless
                    in the venture to reap the potential staggering
                    profits. 
    
                        What about the effect on society and the economy?
    
                    We would gain advantages through taxes but those
                    benefits would surely be overwhelmed by the decrease
                    in productivity, increase in medical treatment costs
                    and ultimately the state of mind of the average
                    human.  Say.....150 years from now.
    
                        I just don't see this stuff as having any good
                    in it at all.  Maybe we should all quit our jobs,
                    and live in a crack house to forget about the world
                    and where it will take us.
    
                         It does effect innocent people.
    
                         The children.  The parents.  The businesses.
    
                         The police.  You, me, and most others reading
                    this stuff.
    
                         I don't want my children being taking drugs
                   and then doing something they otherwise wouldn't.
    
                         Like dealing more drugs to other kids so they
                   could keep some for themselves and get high again!
    
                         How about your kids.  
    
    
                         
                    
    

    What do you think the drug lords would do if all drugs were legally
    available in this country?  Would they sit back and say, "Oh darn.  My
    illegal drug racket has just been foiled.  Now I have to get an honest
    job and live on a much smaller salary."  Would they all become model
    citizens overnight?  Or would they start killing the people who were
    distributing these now legal drugs thereby making sure no one wanted to
    step on their business?  I'm not sure what they would do but I don't
    think the drug lords in Colombia would be very happy about seeing their
    livelihood taken away. 

RE: .82


>	Decriminalization will lead to the increase in addicts. 
>       That is the very nature of the drug.

How do you know? Does lawful availability of knives increase
incidence of knifings? Booze prohibition did not reduce alcoholism,
just as it's removal did not increase it. Bottom line is, drug
prohibition IS NOT WORKING.

But, even if your premise is correct, removal of the horrendous
problems drug prohibition causes directly is more important than
forcing a section of the population to be good to themselves.

    
>	More people now abstain from it's use because of the legal
>	and social stigmas that come along with it.

Let's separate 'legal' from 'social stigma'.

Legal: I doubt it. If drugs were legal, would you become a druggie?
I assume your answer is "no". Me neither. Why do you think people
will decide to abuse their bodies just because it's legal? It's
legal to ingest kerosene. Do you see many people doing that? 

Social stigma: this is a very strong force. Fact is, it has managed 
to dramatically reduce the number of smokers (a section of the drug 
addicted population). However, it has nothing to do with
decriminalization of drugs. By all means, we should educate addicts -
not make criminals out of them. 


>	If we were to remove these barriers, how many more people
>	would become addicted?

Quite possibly, none.


>	What would happen to general productivity? Moral values? 
>	Standards of living?

This is irrelevant. I don't want government to dictate (as in 
'dictatorship') how people should lead their lives, even if this 
increased productivity.

    
>	Is that what we really want?  Not me.

Then work for it by convincing people, not by trying to force them
to be good (as it turns out, in vain).
    

>	It reminds me of the AIDS problem.  Should we O.K. the
>	spreading of that disease?

I fail to see the relevance. No, we should not OK spreading AIDS. 
Transmitting AIDS is not a 'victimless' act.
    
-- Ron                                                    

    
    
    
    
                           Oh yeah, one more thing:
    
    
                               The prohibition of alcohol, a drug comsumed
                           as drink virtually worldwide for all of recorded
                           time,  is NOT analogous to prohibition of crack;
                           a relatively new and more addicting substance 
                           developed specifically to addict people thus,
                           creating a stronger drug market.
    
                               They say "guns don't kill people, people
                           kill people."  But if you remove the guns,
                           there would be fewer deaths.  Probably caused
                           by stick beatings.  
    
                               We need guns to protect ourselves.
    
                               But, we don't need crack for anything.
    
                               If you remove the crack it is bound to
                           lessen the bad effects of the drug.
    
    
    
                                              make sense?

Folks, could we somehow get back to the subject from the base note?  Arguments
about the success or failure of "the war against drugs" probably don't belong
here.

And if you feel you must continue that discussion here, please speak your
piece.  Once.

Thank you.

			Steve

RE.: .87

>	The prohibition of alcohol ... is NOT analogous to
>	prohibition of crack;

It's an example where prohibition of a drug did little to lessen its
use, but did cause vast social harm.

I do not see how age of the drug, why it was developed or it's
popularity are relevant (BTW, if, indeed, it was developed by drug
kings, then illegality of drugs was THE DIRECT CAUSE of crack. Think
about it). 

    
>	They say "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  But
>	if you remove the guns, there would be fewer deaths.

This is false. Unless you believe a killer says "Oh, darn... I was
going to kill you, but since all I have here is this knife and not a
gun, you just lucked out"  :-). 

    
>	If you remove the crack it is bound to lessen the bad
>	effects of the drug.

I fully agree with you. The problem is that outlawing the drug does
not remove it. It simply increases the drug's price and causes more
damage than the drug itself. 
    
    
>	make sense?

Hmmm.... Er... not really.  :-).

-- Ron

    
    
                        First of all, you can't totally separate
           legal from social.  We as a society make and break the laws
           which govern us.
    
                        If it were legalized, more people would be apt
           to experiment with it.  Then the numbers take over.  What
           was it?  3 out of every 10 become addicted.  
    
    
                        I don't want a dictator to run my life.
           Unless you are from some other country than the U.S.A. or
           you are very naive, you must realize that we, the people, govern
           ourselves.  We cannot effectively do this if we do not consider
           ALL the people and what is best for the majority.  That is
           the essence of democracy. 
    
                        How legalization would effect our society as
           a whole is the epitomy of relevance.   I don't understand
           how you could see this problem as being so remote.
    
                        How can you say this is a "victimless crime"??
    
                        Every addict is a victim.  Every family member
           is a victim.  Every death because of cocaine, (whether a business
           decision or random homicide) has a multitude of victims. 
    
    
                                   
    
    
                        If you like it, fine, but don't let me catch
           you feeding this stuff to my kids, cause I'll.....
    
                                                

    
    
                         My apologies to the moderator and base noter
                   for straying.
    
                         The crack babies are one of the victims.
                     
                         Anyone who can turn their back on these children
                   for the sake of "liberation" sounds more like a drug
                   kingpin than Noriega himself.
    
                         I hope all you people in favor of legalizing
                   crack have a run-in with reality.
    
    
                         

    As I see it, there are two pieces of "the drug problem", which seem to
    be blurring together.  
    
    1.  People are using various addictive substances to escape from their
    lives.  There are a large number of inner-city poor people (to pick on
    just one of many groups) who became regular drug users because the drugs
    provided a pleasurable experience heretofore lacking in their
    environment. Becoming a drug addict doesn't solve any problems, but
    sometimes all you want to do is get away! I (personally) think that it
    is very important to point out that (in my opinion), the majority of
    drug USERS are not "doing drugs" just because it is illegal!  I believe
    that it is more likely that the illegality of drug-taking (the one act
    that brings pleasure to a miserable world) adds to the anguish and loss
    of self-worth for these poor people. And, since drug TAKING is illegal
    anyway, it is easier for these people to justify committing other
    crimes to support their addictions.
    
    2. Drug taking and drug dealing is illegal.  This means that the risks
    are high, and so are the rewards.  Many people living in poor
    communities are dealing drugs (from a very early age) because of the
    very large sums of money involved.  Hey, if I can make $50,000/year for 
    selling little packets of powder, or $3.59/hour at the local
    MacDonalds, which one an I going to choose???  By dealing drugs, I can
    earn enough money to escape my miserable surroundings!  And since
    people become addicted to the product, I can jack up my prices anytime
    I am short of money!! 
    
     So what would de-criminalizing "street drugs" (crack, cocaine,
    marijuana, etc) do?  Let us assume that you could buy phials of
    <whatever> from your corner package store for about the cost of a
    bottle of whiskey, and that the product would be of a guaranteed purity
    and standard.
    
     By and large, piece (2) above goes away.  Since you can buy the stuff
    legally, there would be no (very little) illegal market for the stuff
    (cf alcohol and tobacco sales).  The drug dealers either go out of
    business, or move on to other areas of crime, but the net result would
    be safer streets (after a period of stabilization). I believe that the
    experiences in America after the repeal of Prohibition are directly
    relevant to this issue.
    
     We still have piece (1); a poor "underclass" who are taking drugs as
    an escape from a miserable world. If you have no hope, who cares? 
    Since the Federal Government will be spending less money on the Drug
    War, there should be grants available to HELP these poor people achieve
    a better life.  Hell, if nothing else, we can bring 'em up to the
    poverty level!  Since there will be no legal stigma (and less social
    stigma) associated with taking �drug�, then programs similar to Al-Anon
    can help those people with a real problem; and people who are social
    drug users (cf "social drinkers") can sleep easy at night.
    
     I don't believe that interdiction will work; hell, the 'Iron Curtain'
    couldn't keep drugs out of the Eastern Bloc, and (by and large) their
    administrations are a hell of a lot better run than Bush's.
    
    I believe that the best solution to the problem is to improve the "lot
    in life" of the social group with the highest incidence of drug use,
    namely the "inner city poor".  When people are thoroughly miserable
    with their lives, and have NO HOPE of 'bettering' themselves, some of
    them will take drugs to escape.  If we can (through education, federal
    funding, grants, work-fare programs, etc) reduce the number of people
    who are thoroughly miserable and hopeless, then we can reduce the
    number of people who want to take drugs!
    
    
     What have the last couple of administrations done to solve the
    problems? Well, "Poppy" Bush (now there's an irony), the DEA and the
    police are working hard to interdict the flow of drugs into America.
    Given the effort (manpower, $$$$) expended, the results are negligible
    in terms of quantity.  The only real effect has been to drive up the
    price of street drugs, which is making the users poorer and the dealers
    richer!  What have the last couple of administrations done to help the
    poor, the homeless and the helpless???  NOTHING!!!  "Dutch" Reagan
    didn't believe that there were poor people in America. Bush doesn't
    believe that there are homeless people in America, when Washington DC
    has one of the highest homeless populations of any Eastern city! 
    
    
    					I know, I'm naive!
    
    						Nigel

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::HR_MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






re: 902.81

> All addicts are doing, is harming themselves.

I can't believe you really think this.  Speaking from personal experience, 
this statement is nuts!

I've tried to stay out of this discussion because this is a very emotional
topic for me.  Having been married to a junky for 3 very long years, I've
been through more sh*t than I care to remember.  Unfortunately, fighting
your husband for a butcher knife when you're 7 months pregnant isn't some-
thing you forget too easily, among other things.

Statistics show that:

- the daughter of an alcoholic father is at 2 times greater risk of becoming
  alcoholic herself than that of a non-alcoholic father;

- the son of an alcoholic father at 5 times greater risk than that of a
  non-alcoholic father; and,

- the son of a chemically dependent father at 9 times greater risk.

Addicts have little or no self-esteem.  The temporary high from drugs and
alcohol make their troubles disappear for awhile and they can feel good
about themselves for awhile.  When the high is gone, the troubles reappear
and they fill with self-hate once again.  So begins the vicious cycle
leading to drug addiction.

Unfortunately, about the only way an addict will stop abusing drugs is if 
they make the decision themselves.  That is, of course, if they don't kill
themselves first.  

I wish I had the answers.  Maybe by the time my son is older, more drug
education will be available, his father will still be sober, and the
statistics will be lower.  Today my son is at 9 times greater the risk
than the son of a non-chemically dependent father.  Not a comforting thought.
And all because his father chose to use alcohol and drugs.

Now tell me that addicts only harm themselves.

    The question was asked: 
    
    How would decriminalization create more addicts?
    
    The answer, as I see it:  
    
     o Decriminalization would, in all likelihood, mean cocaine (although
       regulated) would become more available.
       
     o With higher availability, more people would try cocaine (an
       assumption).
       
     o Because cocaine is addictive, some of those who tried cocaine
       would become addicted -- hence, more addicts.
    
    Crack is even more addicitve than cocaine -- if more people tried
    crack, then there would be many more addicts.
    
    Decriminalization doesn't seem a viable solution, in my eyes.
    
    					andrew

The nation of Canada is also searching for solutions to its infant drug problem.
The Justice Minister Doug Lewis is "confused" about which approcah to use -
"The Netherlands' Approach or the American Approach.."

In Amsterdam, Holland the govt. gives free daily shots to all the registered
heroin addicts in the city. 

Frits Korthals Altes, justice minister for the Netherlands in an interview
stated that: "Of a population of 14.7 million the country has 15,000 to 20,000
registered heroin addicts, the average age of the heroin addicts is now 30 up
from 25 several years ago. It means that younger people don't start with heroin.
We think we've suceeded(?)...Becuase it's not an underground activity it's
easier for drug users to go through the health system to get help when they need
it."  In a speech at a conference in Montreal he said Netherlands' policy of
not prosecuting users, only traffickers has stabilized(?)the number of addicts. 
 ( Reported in the Montreal Gazette Oct. 14 `89 page A-3) 

The article did not mention how the govt. of the Netherlands handles other
drug problems. Is there a noter from Amsterdam who can comment on this report?
Are there  crack and "ice" addicts in Amsterdam ? If so are those addicts
also given free daily buzz ?  Any figures on "herion/crack/ice babies" from
Holland ?  Is Holland the only nation in the region with such an approach ? 

The Montreal Gazette issue of Oct. 14 1989 briefly stated:
"American example of waiting to respond to the drugs once they're established"

Doug Lewis and Kaplan are not clearly sure which of the two approaches
should be adopted by Canada to solve its infant drug problem. So I guess the
debate about "concerns and solutions for crack/ice/heroin babies" should 
continue ? 

RE.: .90


>	Unless you are from some other country than the U.S.A. or
>	you are very naive ...

I don't see what my place of origin or the state of my naivete have
to do with the subject under discussion. 

The discussion will become more meaningful if you restrict yourself 
to relevant arguments.

There is a wealth of material on this subject in note 27 in SOAPBOX.


RE.: .91

>	I hope all you people in favor of legalizing crack have a
>	run-in with reality.

The reality is that after years and years of outlawing drugs, we
have a serious crises, where people are getting killed in broad day
light here in Dorchester, two bloody wars (Columbia and Panama),
burst out very recently and drug use and abuse is getting worse by
the day. 
    
The reality is that prohibition is not working. 

The reality is that abolishing alcohol prohibition did work.

The emotional scenario is that babies are suffering all around us
and it's heart wrenching to watch them suffer. It's easy to cry
fiercely "let's prohibit this suffering". The reality is that we
have been prohibiting drugs until we are blue in the face and we
still have those suffering babies. 

If you want to try and save the next generation, discover what we
have been doing wrong and change it. If we continue to do what we
have been doing, we will continue to get the same results. So far,
the results have been more and more crack babies. 

You want reality? start thinking with your brain, not your gut. 

-- Ron

    Re: .95
    
    Well not from Amsterdam but Holland is small enough so I guess it'll
    do. 
    
>    In Amsterdam, Holland the govt. gives free daily shots to all the
>    registered heroin addicts in the city. 

    Minor nit: this is the case in every major city in Holland. Major
    nit: we're talking about methadon here, *not* heroin. Heroin is
    not a substance that is given out by the government.
    
>    The article did not mention how the govt. of the Netherlands handles
>    other drug problems. 

    Soft drugs like marihuana are virtually legal. Possession of the
    substance is an offense, not a crime, and shops selling soft drugs
    are condoned  in just about every major city. They are not allowed
    to make much rumour about it and are closely watched by the police,
    but there's virtually no problem concerning soft drugs in Holland.
    Before this approach was taken there was an increasing appearance
    of soft drugs on schools - right now it doesn't seem 'interesting'
    any more.
         
>    Are there  crack and "ice" addicts in Amsterdam ? 

    Probably. Not enough to create a separate problem though. Basically you
    could say crack hasn't reached Amsterdam yet, and I hope it doesn't do
    so in the future either. 
        
>    Any figures on "herion/crack/ice babies" from Holland ? 

    Nowhere near any American figures, that's certain. I'll try to get
    a better indication.
        
>    Is Holland the only nation in the region with such an approach ? 

    (Unfortunately) you might say that. Especially Germany is in general
    quite unhappy about the Dutch tolerance for drug users. This creates
    another problem: due to the tolerance in Holland a lot of foreign
    drug users come over to this country, especially Amsterdam. "Drug
    tourism" from Germany has already made the local authorities in
    the southern provence Limburg ask the government permission to tighten
    the rules on soft drugs. 
    
    It's not fair to say Holland doesn't have problems with drug abuse.
    Drug related crime rate in Amsterdam is pretty high, and there is quite
    a high rate of drug related deaths. There is no sure way to get rid of
    the problem except maybe legalising the lot. That could only be done
    with cooperation of the surrounding countries to prevent all European
    junkies from coming to Holland, and it doesn't seem like our neighbours
    are very eager. 
    
    Korthals Altes is right but it isn't as simple as he states in that
    quote. BTW the government has recently changed here.
    
    Ad

 Despite the implications raised here, not everyone who ever tries drugs
becomes and addict. Not every person that uses drugs is an addict.

 The Doctah

    There was a good point made earlier: That Crack, ICE, and other
    "designer Drugs" come about precisely because of illegality of drugs.
    Those who live off selling them, try to stay one step ahead of the
    law by creating new "not yet illegal" drugs.  To stay one step ahead
    and increase profit, more potent (and potentially hazardous) drugs
    are continually being produced.  I believe that if softer drugs
    were decriminalized, The demand for these harder drugs would be
    considerably reduced.  If the demand is reduced, then there would
    be less energy put into creating new "paralegal" drugs to sidestep
    the laws.  There may or may not be much that can be done about present
    crack/cocain abusers, but providing alternate incentives and education
    to those  who have yet become serious about using those drugs, will
    provide them with possible **choices**. There may be "apparent" links
    between using marijuana and harder drugs, but I believe there are
    too many other variables to be convinced that Marijuana use leads
    directly to using more dangerous drugs.  It is the illegality and
    unavailability  of these softer drugs that provide the incentive
    to use new, not yet illegal designer drugs like Crack, and ICE.
     Perhaps if softer drugs were available, then the reduced demand
    for Crack, etc. would reduce the number of Crack babies in this
    country.  I don't see a potential danger of the increase in more
    dangerous drugs in a country like Holland that is more permissive
    about the softer drugs.
    
    ERnie