Replies

Let me say upfront that I am as about as avidly anti-drug use as they come. I think the difference is how we go about achieving the goal of reducing their intake.

In your following words:

How about a list of all that have been killed by bad drugs on the street? How about a list of all the children abused by parents who enjoy the freedom of spending food money on drugs? How about a list of rehab charges submitted to insurance companies for payment?
Drugs are destructive to society. To ignore this fact and set you and your family up for the horrors of drug addiction is idiotic. Any one with any sense would stay as far away from drugs and the gateway to the drug culture as they could. It is interesting to note that once they have partaken of drugs - the realization of all the danger subsides and they walk in sprouting that drugs won't hurt me.
Someone would have to pay me big bucks to take any of that junk. Life is hard enough without that downtime.

Substitute alcohol or tobacco for the word drugs and you have similar sentiments, similar problems and similar issues.

Are we to outlaw those too? Some folks are pushing for it for sure. We tried one of them once, and it didn't work. Too many people were turned into criminals. It's happening again. (And let me add here that I also believe that those substances of alcohol and tobacco are bad and should be avoided at almost all costs too ... bit not at the cost of all of our liberties and constitutional rights). Are we to create laws that allow for abject constitutional violation in order to uphold the outlawing of those substances? You can't legislate or "buy" moral security anymore than you can phyiscal security. when you try, you tend to lose both.

To me the issue is not whether or not one should or should not partake of these substances. Clearly, one should not. But can we force the issue and say that one cannot. I believe that what an adult does in the privacy of thier own abode, that does not have an immediate harmful impact on another, should be left alone. Even if it is sinful. The "does not immediately harm another" is the key. As soon as those individuals, as a result of their addiction or stupor, go out and do something to hurt another, lower the boom on them for that specifc crime. And lower it hard.

Let the states pass their own laws accordingly (ie. don't go after consumption and regulate dissimination just like was done with alcohol), and then the Feds only role is the regulation of the interstate trade.

Hopefully then, we can keep the truly violent in jail, get the unconstitutinal laws for search and seizure, no-knock warrants, warrantless searches, assett forfeiture, annonymous witnesses and informants off the books and use our Christian principles of persuasion and teaching to help educate others away from such a lifestyle.

I know this does not sound like a good solution in the current environment, but it would not have sounded good during the prohibition days either ... but it is essentially what we ultimately came to. And it is far better IMHO, than the increasingly rapid erosion of our rights in a mistaken (and I believe in many ways contrived) attempt to "secure" us all by increasingly intrusive laws that violate us all.

I do not believe you can enforce morality of such choices that do not infringe on the rights of, or harm, others and still call it moral. Punish those who commit crimes of infringement and harm to others. In a free society as envisioned by the founders, people had to be free to make their own choices as long as they did not harm others. Vices are like that ... as much as I believe them to be morally and even individually repugnant ... we either allow people to choose, knowing that there are some who will not change ... or we create a police state trying to enforce every jot and tittle of what the majority feels is "right" at any particualr moment. Ultimately that gives the power to create a tyranny by democracy which ultimatlely leads to true tyranny and totalitariansm IMHO.

This does not mean we call it right. It isn't. It just means we try and persuade and teach people of the wrong so they can make their own choices about their own personal choices. In so doing, we should plainly call it what it is ... a vice and wrong and then try and get people to recognize this and choose the correct path. Then we lock up the ones who can't handle their choices and go out and commit crimes as a result ... and we lock them up for a long time (Note: This should also be applied to drunken drivers and the like).

Just my two cents.

As soon as those individuals, as a result of their addiction or stupor, go out and do something to hurt another, lower the boom on them for that specifc crime. And lower it hard.

I agree with your well stated points. I would not be for laws either BUT. As we have seen in this society all moral restraints have been removed. People continually seek ever lower and lower bars of respected behavior. Irresponsibility runs rampant more than ever in our culture.

This is similar to the Saddam situation. Are we to allow them to kill us before we act? Are we to pay for the costs of their drug habits and pick them up and carry them when they can't? Must we pay for all the safeguards required to insure that their entertainment does not harm us?

Your theory means that they break the law and pay the consequence. But what about the people hurt in that incidence. Is that fair to them? Was it fair for drunk drivers to be allowed over and over to have hit and run accidents and kill others so that they had their freedom? What about the freedom of those children killed by them?

Are we to allow the irresponsibility and ignorance of drug/alcohol addicts to harm us, our families, our safety? Are we willing to pay the true costs of their irresponsibility and disrespect of any besides their personal wants?

What would happen to a large oil company if the company allowed a cocaine partaking employee to be the wheelman on a oil tanker? What about the helicopter pilot picking up employees from that rig and carting them back to land? What about the drughead crewman pulling up cable that accidently hits another man pushing him overboard?

I can tell you what - lawsuits. The same if an employee is recommending stock purchases to a customer, a medical person administering medications. They are expected to be of sound mind and full capabilities or the company is at risk of lawsuits.

That is the reason they pay thousands per year for the drug screens, the rehab, the follow-up monitoring, the salaries. A single random drug screen costs a company $50 in addition to the personnel costs for all the paperwork and follow-up.

I am reminded of a sign I saw at Home Depot. "We require drug screens on new employees. Don't even bother to apply if you take drugs."