[LMB] OT: legalization

Paula Lieberman paal at gis.net
Wed Jan 26 15:07:17 GMT 2011

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Judy R. Johnson" <jrj at fidalgo.net>
To: "'Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.'" 
<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [LMB] OT: legalization

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk
> [mailto:lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:02 PM
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:04 PM, William A Wenrich wrote:
>> There were references in Niven's "Gil the ARM" series to the affect
>> that smuggling is too easy with displacement booths and addictive
>> personalities tend to become wireheaders.
>> Does anyone think that pot will be legalized for 8-year-olds? There
>> were two third graders caught smoking pot in the boys room at an
>> elementary school here recently. They said they had been using for
>> years. The legal drinking age is 21. Does anyone think that pot would
>> be legal any younger? How many alcoholics or people with other drug
> problems started after 21?
> Current Western sensibilities are to protect youth more than just about 
> any
> time in history.   If we go further to single child families, this trend
> will likely continue.    It doesn't mean children don't smoke cigarettes
> though - but not nearly as much as they did a century ago.
> Maybe if "adult" drugs become as easy to acquire (via technology) as 
> "adult"
> porn.   But that won't be for a while.
> ====================================
> NEW from JRJ> Well, tobacco, alcohol, drugs - kids everywhere in the world
> acquire what they want, always, limited only by income.  Illegality is
> futile.  The real trick is to convince individual kids that  they don't 
> want
> it.*  Right?  Making it illegal has the opposite effect on rebellious 
> teens,
> especially if some of their peers have a habit to support and therefore 
> push
> it, making it look cool and adult.  If drugs were cheap because legal, the
> peers wouldn't need to push it, as they could feed their habit without
> pushing, and the domino effect would diminish.
> Anyway, there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that drugs can be 
> made
> unavailable.  Deal with it, dopes!  (Present company excepted from
> nomenclature.)
> As for addiction, there will be a tech answer for that - a biochemical 
> app.
> Scientists are getting closer all the time to Beta-style biochemical
> tweaking, focusing on disease mainly, but some directly on addiction.
> Myself, I could use the metabolism adjusting sooner, but if they learn how
> to cure addiction first, I'm willing to wait my turn.  Watching people die
> of alcoholism is no fun either (note that that's legal).  Watching the

Seeing people eat themselves into diabetes and mobility impairment and 
expensive-to-everyone-in-society attendant medical conditions, pill-popping 
for condition mitigation, special heavy person ambulance purchase expenses 
(Boston took possession of one last week or the week before, because it was 
having problems with people too massive for the existing ambulances and 
ambulance crews to maneuver out of a residence and into an ambulance and 
give first aid to...), productivity losses, etc, is also no fun.... High 
fructose corn syrup is a significant contributor, and the latest research 
report reported on by Reuters is that pancreatic cancer cells multiply very 
vigorously fed fructose, versus much less vigorous activity fed sucrose. 
(There wasn't discussion about feeding fruit or other natural foodstuff with 
glucose to the cancer cells, to see what differences may happen with that--  
e.g., blueberrys and black raspberries seem to have anti-cancer properties, 
even though they contain fructose.... but clearly -pure- fructose, 
encourages pancreatic cancer cells to multiply... I  wonder what sucralose 
and aspartame do....)

> perversion of legal justice systems, alarming.
> It would be such a shame if Organized Crime had to make do without the 
> vast
> income they derive from the supply of illegal drugs.  I've always believed

If people didn't buy/use, the market wouldn't be there.  For that matter, 
Sweden or Norway once had a horrible problem with alcoholism and drunk 
drivers, hard labor for drink  drivers changed perceptions enough to effect 
social climate and condition changed and mindset which  -stopped- the 
problem (that is, much as people automatically almost stay to the right when 
walking in the USA, Scandinavians stopped the combination of drinking to 
drunkeness and then driving...)

> they deliberately lobbied to achieve a War on Drugs, once deprived of
> alcohol bootlegging.  And Organized Religion drank the Kool-Aid right 
> down.
> * ...which is happening to some degree with tobacco

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list