Keeping Heroin Users Safe From The Police

Bush Country ^ | 07/01/03 | Paul Walfield

[MrLeRoy]

How can Johnny put in a full week's work to pay for his drugs if he is DRUNK? How can he then be an employable, productive worker?

Shouldn't businesses have the right to have non-drug addicted and non-alcoholic employees if they wish?

Yes, but a general ban on alcohol or other drugs is not needed to recognize that right.

I could almost see legalizing drugs if abusers couldn't get free medical care, food stamps, housing, disability pay, SSI or workplace protections.

Using one violation of rights (taxpayer-funded health care) as an excuse for another violation of rights (the War On Some Drugs) is not a conservative argument. Should we ban alcohol because abusers can get free medical care, food stamps, housing, disability pay, SSI or workplace protections?

[cjshapi]

Actually I don't. The only drunk I know is a divorced self employed person whose settlement and income provide just enough for her to be happy on when both on and off the wagon. And I keep my distance from her.

I've distanced myself from those who have self destructive habits, because I see no positive gains from them. That does not mean I don't enjoy an adult beverage now and again, but keep it to a minimum.

[sweet_diane]

--providing a living for their families, giving them rehab, emergency care for their overdoses and whatever else.

Why would they do that for drug addicts when they don't for alcoholics? When my Husband's alocholism escalated to the point where he had 3 DUI's on his driving record and became a felon, no one was there to help us avoid forclosure on our home, pay legal fees and fines, pay for rehab or help feed our kids... except our church who helped me with the light bill and food while he was in jail and rehab. Every urine test (for an alcoholic..go figure) we paid for, every visit to the court referral officer we paid for, every visit to the probation officer we still pay for. So if he was arrested for a drug related crime Uncle Sam would have paid for all of that???

He's coming up on 3 years sober & we survived without a single government hand-out. Owning up to ones responsibilities is a key step in sobriety and any right living whether your drug of choice is legal, taxed, and commonly used & abused or not.

[bc2]

Of course we distance ourselves from those people, it is only natural. But do they not exist? To say they don't is foolish.

There is actually a name for these people: "functional addict", i.e. people who do not have to commit crimes to fund drug/alcohol habits and are able to maintain some semblance of normality. I would say 99% of marijuana users and 85% of cocaine users fall into the category of drug users, who do not have to commit crimes to support their lifestyles. Are they as productive as they would be if they did not go home and do drugs? Probably not.

Are they committing crimes? Absolutely not! They are engaging in acts that are (temporarily) illegal. Big difference! It is not a "crime" to own an "illegal" firearm any more than it is to posses an "illegal" plant.

Crimes are actions which are the result of initiation of force or fraud. You cannot defraud yourself, or initiate force against yourself (one poster suggested suicide, which is the only possible example of one initiating force against oneself that I can think of). They also suggested arson as a crime against yourself, but burning your car is not a crime unless you are DEFRAUDING the insurance company (in which case you go from stupid to criminal).

I hope you see my point.

[FITZ]

I know of alchoholics who are on SSI, Medicaid, get food stamps and are living in housing projects.

[jmc813]

In recorded history no civilization has ever opted for the legitimization and legalization of narcotics.

Completely false. The US did not have narcotics laws until the early 20th century.

[gcruse]

If you are a Christian or Jew you are not "free" to do with yourself or your person as you choose. This was answered in the first book of the Old Testament which resolved the issue of the inherant social contract with a few choice words: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Wow.  A theological justification for the total
suspension of individual liberty.  I'd be interested
to see how other religionists feel about that, but
it's too dark pit to lower myself into.  Good
luck to you.

[gaspar]

Only a complete dunce would see the quote as the "total suspension of individual liberty", as you put it. Rather, it is a primordial understanding that there is a social contract that exists between people, and that contract is based on morality not coercion. Thus, I am no more free to do as I will with my person or my property than you are, or that anyone has been since time began.

[gaspar]

Only a complete dunce would see the quote as the "total suspension of individual liberty", as you put it. Rather, it is a primordial understanding that there is a social contract that exists between people, and that contract is based on morality not coercion. Thus, I am no more free to do as I will with my person or my property than you are, or that anyone has been since time began.

[gcruse]

Only a complete dunce would see the quote as the "total suspension of individual liberty", as you put it.

You said it yourself.  "You are not free to do with yourself as you choose."
What else do you call yielding up your autonomy?

[gaspar]

Joining society?

[MrLeRoy]

Society is a web of VOLUNTARY relations; the initiation of force is a pustule on society.

[gaspar]

Thanks for the post. You started off my day with a good laugh.

[MrLeRoy]

No substantive rebuttal, I see.

[gaspar]

I have found that debating with Libertarians is a waste of my time.

[MrLeRoy]

But posting snide static like #53 is not a waste of your time? Right.

[MrLeRoy]

I thought the entire FR community might enjoy gaspar's retort (via FReepmail):

'"Snide"? I'm surprised a doper like you can still remember how to spell the word. Look, buddy, you are an asshole. Get used to it. End of give and take. Sayonara.'