To: goldstategop
I don't know if they would jump for it or not. It would also introduce the concept (maybe) of consequence free drug use- especially if it is affordable. Even if it does cure the addiction to a drug, who's to say it won't create a culture of people who will go on some sort of weird drug binge, then clean up (consequence free) for their own entertainment? Just a thought, though unlikely.
19 posted on
02/22/2005 1:39:21 PM PST by
musical_airman
(If you are a single southern gal in her 20's that doesn't have kids, please say so.........)
To: musical_airman
It would also introduce the concept (maybe) of consequence free drug use- especially if it is affordable. Even if it does cure the addiction to a drug, who's to say it won't create a culture of people who will go on some sort of weird drug binge, then clean up (consequence free) for their own entertainment? Not necessarily a bad thing. It could lead to the eventual decriminalization of drugs, which otherwise takes up way too much time, effort, taxpayer money, and Constitutional freedoms.
20 posted on
02/22/2005 1:42:28 PM PST by
kevkrom
(If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
To: musical_airman
I don't know if they would jump for it or not. It would also introduce the concept (maybe) of consequence free drug use- especially if it is affordable. Even if it does cure the addiction to a drug, who's to say it won't create a culture of people who will go on some sort of weird drug binge, then clean up (consequence free) for their own entertainment? Just a thought, though unlikely.You could say the same about a cure for lung cancer. I'm sure some people would take up smoking/smoke more because the consequences would be less. But that wouldn't mean a lung cancer cure was bad.
29 posted on
02/22/2005 1:49:27 PM PST by
ellery
(Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. - Ronald Reagan)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson