“We don’t generally have legal obligations to our grandchildren nor our parents.”
-in some cultures we have some, regardless, we have moral obligations. I don’t need the state to tell me what to do in order to know what is right or what is wrong. If I don’t take reasonable care of grandkids/parents in need, the state does, or, they suffer or die. Not an acceptable outcome.
“No, they (our neighbors) count on us being nondangerous, which is a considerably looser standard.”
-No, I need the guy at the workplace to be sane, not nodding out or talking to people who aren’t there. I need my neighbor to tell me if my house is on fire. I need the guy on the road to flash the lights at me if there is a road hazard. I need the man camping next to me at Yosemite to treat me as a human being rather than deciding I am a vampire. And a million other scenarios.
As a society we rely upon competent adults who are sane and not retarded. We make allowances for the young, the frail aged, the retarded/damaged, and the crazy. There is not a lot of breathing room. It is criminal to deliberately retard yourself or make yourself crazy.
And no, I’m not going to wait for the nut or the retard to damage my property or me, or kill me, before I complain. I know crazy people can’t be counted on to be rational. I am not going to pretend otherwise so I can support Libertarian social theory.
“By the way, all your arguments apply to the drug alcohol - so what policies do you support regarding that drug?”
-No, they apply to drunkenness. A person who has had a drink or two or three, depending, is neither retarding himself nor making himself nuts. I support all the laws against public drunkenness and etc. If you are able to take a drug without getting “high,” then I am all for you taking it if you want. Then again, if it didn’t make you “high,” then you wouldn’t want to take it, would you?
“There’s a reason liberals are so fond of that line (no man is an island); perhaps you should ponder that before embracing their argument.”
I don’t need to ponder liberals’ thinking. I’ve had enough interaction with drug users/addicts to know that drug abuse is not normally “victimless,” and I’m not going to shut my eyes and pretend otherwise. I grant you there are times, days, even weeks when a user can use without harming anyone. So can a person driving down the wrong side of the road, they can go a long time without harming anybody. But they harm people often enough and consistently enough for me to continue to advocate for it being illegal.
in some cultures we have some, regardless, we have moral obligations. I don’t need the state to tell me what to do
The state telling people what to do is exactly what you're advocating: "for it being illegal."
No, they (our neighbors) count on us being nondangerous, which is a considerably looser standard.
No, I need the guy at the workplace to be sane, not nodding out or talking to people who aren’t there.
Your employer doesn't let him come in drunk, and wouldn't let him come in drugged.
I need my neighbor to tell me if my house is on fire. I need the guy on the road to flash the lights at me if there is a road hazard.
If you want me to work for you, pay me, don't enslave me.
I need the man camping next to me at Yosemite to treat me as a human being rather than deciding I am a vampire.
Like I said, nondangerous.
By the way, all your arguments apply to the drug alcohol - so what policies do you support regarding that drug?
No, they apply to drunkenness. A person who has had a drink or two or three, depending, is neither retarding himself nor making himself nuts. I support all the laws against public drunkenness and etc.
Unless you support laws against private drunkenness, you can't consistently support laws against private druggedness. And even public drunkenness laws don't apply to ANY degree of alcohol influence, whereas below you seem to suggest that ANY degree of drug influence is immoral and should be illegal.
If you truly believed the arguments you're advancing for the current drug laws, you'd have to support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. Do you?
If you are able to take a drug without getting “high,” then I am all for you taking it if you want. Then again, if it didn’t make you “high,” then you wouldn’t want to take it, would you?
Most of the alcohol consumed in this country is consumed for the purpose of feeling its mental effects (sometimes euphemized as "relaxing" or "unwinding").
There’s a reason liberals are so fond of that line (no man is an island); perhaps you should ponder that before embracing their argument.
I don’t need to ponder liberals’ thinking.
No, clearly you do need to - whether you will is of course up to you.