The only way to resolve this is the good old capitalist way: by requiring insurance so the risk can be pooled and hedged against before the idiots destroy others and their property. Insurance should be comprehensive, covering everything from lost worker productivity, to funding turnstile rehab centers, to replacing the property of others stolen or destroyed, to paying for lives taken (which can never be truly compensated for).
If you want to blow dope or use cocaine recreationally, you should be required to buy and maintain druggie insurance. If you can't afford the insurance and you indulge, you should go to jail--hard and long. If an insurer cannot be found who is willing to insure the risk, then that drug should be outlawed totally. After all, if a private insurer is unwilling to fund a risk, the risk by defintion is too costly for society to bear.
So there's the deal, all you pro-dope closet socialists. Put your insurance money where you bong is.
I predict there will be no takers. Instead there will be misdirection as the pro-dopers do everything but admit dopers ought to be personally responsible for the consequences of their foolish indulgence. They want the freedom to indulge while requiring the taxpayer to pay for the consequences.
Does that include the very potent and dangerous drug ethanol, which can kill a first time user?
Believe it or not, I find this to be sensible.
This seems to be to be similar in concept to state governments mandating a minimum level of liability insurance for motor vehicles. The government makes as a requirement for obtaining a license to drive on public roads a policy to cover a minimum level of fiduciary coverage for accidents that may happen.
I predict there will be no takers. Instead there will be misdirection as the pro-dopers do everything but admit dopers ought to be personally responsible for the consequences of their foolish indulgence. They want the freedom to indulge while requiring the taxpayer to pay for the consequences.
Sorry to disappoint you. I strongly believe that with the freedom to do these things comes the resonsibility in part to not pass a financial burden on to the taxpayer, or any private citizen.
Guess who's paying the costs of the WOD today? Hint: not the druggies who are thrown in prison and thereby live completely off taxpayer dollars.
And surrender all driving privileges.
And I'll agree that no one will take you up on these goofy ideas.
Anyone who uses these substances places others at unacceptable risk of harm.
You've, once again, jumped in over your head. To have an "unacceptable risk" means that there has to be an "acceptable risk", with quantifying factors for each. Your opinion alone does not qualify, and infact, can be proven wrong. My neighbor having a drink at home poses no risk to me. My neighbor smoking a joint at home poses no risk to me. My neighbor eating a twinkie at home poses no risk to me. (Risk = potential for loss.) You have to add another factor to make risk. (AND drives a car, plays with a gun, experiments with flammable liquids, etc).
Waiting until the jackasses do cause harm merely guarantees that most will get away with never paying for their foolishness. The rest of us just fork over our money in the form of taxes and increased insurance premiums to pay for their "freedom." That is socialism, pure and simple.
Wow, let's not wait until someone actually breaks a law, let's arrest them because they MIGHT!
Also, you paint with too broad a brush, combining occassional users with criminal addicts. That is like combining those who profess a belief in God with jihadists who claim to murder for God.
Then, you propose fighting socialism (government provisions for addicts) with statism, jailing and punishing people for vices. You little extremists, you! You are so cute when demanding government intervention in all our lives.
If you want to blow dope or use cocaine recreationally, you should be required to buy and maintain druggie insurance.
Again, government rule for Kevin. Why not include alcohol? Or calories? or SUV's? Or firearms? Or 5 gallon buckets?
You don't understand diddly about a free market and capitalism. If you could require 'vice insurance', what happens when the premiums get too high? Them we're right back to square one, except Kevin has a new crime for which to jail people, and that is being uninsured.
Kevin, you represent govenment oppression by supporting the continuance of the WoD. When are you going to tire of supporting the evilness of addiction, street crime, and corruption brough on by the WoD?
So there's the deal, all you pro-dope closet socialists.
When will you stop lying about those with whom you disagree? Show where I advocate any drug abuse? The fact is that I've repeated told you that I don't "do" drugs, and the fact is that you've repeated implied or stated that I do.
