Drug politics

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Lorentzen / Nicklaus wrote: (quoting someone)

> 
>  "We build huge systems to repress the problem and - on the other side - huge 
>  helping institutions, that shall heal it. By doing so we bring more and more 
>  addiction and also more and more stress into the world. Self responsibility, 
>  freedom must be in the beginning, - otherwise we'll end up with each new 
>  solution in addiction again. That's why legalization of all drugs would be the 
>  only possible solution; everybody must know for himself, what he does. That's 
>  were to start!

Legalization might be a good idea for other reasons--namely that Sin
cannot be legislated out of existence-- but why would attempting to ban
something promote addiction to it? Is the author of these quoted words
saying that trying to repress drug taking  is the source of the stress
that makes the drugs desirable in the first place? This certainly assumes
a lot a weak-hearted pleasure seekers. Not the boys and girls I know. They
feel stress from their jobs and family situations and that is sufficient
unto the day. I never heard that American alcohol consumption of the 20s
was the result of Prohibition. In any event when Prohibition was repealed
people went right on wanting their booze. Of course I may well be wrong
about this. Very dubious however. (Let me put it another way, the small
repression of law enforcement is a drop in to bucket, the tip of the
iceberg, compared with the larger repression modern civilization puts on
us. Its the large repression that makes drugs a desirable adjunct.)

>  But this is the only thing we never try. Those in power 
>  resist, because they are intersted in addiction, because they do not really 
>  want to solve the problem. Power lives from addiction".


What does power have to do with addiction. It don't make sense too me.
P could make it make sense. There's no one like P. But what do I know.

			P.