SB> DM>I am in complete agreement with you.  The sale of addicting, behavior 
al
SB>   >drugs should be closely regulated.
SB> 
SB> I am surprised at how many people are opposed to that regulating.  It's
SB> also interesting how that desire to regulate, or not regulate, makes
SB> strange political bed fellows.  In Pennsylvania, all liquor is
SB> currently sold in state stores.  Some Pennsylvania legislatures want to
SB> privatize those stores.  Opponents point out that New Jersey and
SB> Delaware, where the stores are privately owned, have a much higher
SB> percentage of the stores selling to minors than they do in Pennsylvania.
SB> The result:  the Democrats and the very conservative Republicans oppose
SB> this bill.  The moderate and liberal Republicans support it.
I think the support for regulation comes from people who vote with their 
conscience and common sense, while people who oppose that regulation do so 
because of economic or usage related beliefs.  
 
It's interesting that here in California, the state recently voted to approve 
the use of Marijuana on the advice of the Doctor.  Not the prescription, mind 
you, nor because of medical need.  (An addict has a medical need, called 
withdrawal.)  Yet opponents of the bill, for the most part wanted to make 
it a prescription drugs that are detrimental to the public at large.  
(Cocaine, Morphine, and simliar drugs are in this catagory.)
 
Here, there too is a significant problem with retailers selling both tobacco 
and alcohol to those under legal age.  The problem is that it takes a lot of 
money to enforce these laws, and the general public doesn't want to pay for 
it.  
 
I like the idea of state owned stores which sell only tobacco and alcohol for 
off premise consumption, and close, strict regulation on bars, restaurants, 
and etc. where these products can be used in-house.  
 
Dennis Martin
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------