Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sendtoscott
I'm upset that we can lose our constitutional rights (asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, etc) because someone has decided others' actions are "bad enough". Somebody else ordering smack (I don't touch the stuff, even if you choose not to believe that) does not mean their basic human right to be left alone is forfeit.

Your rights end where others begin. If you are an idiot and get drunk and smash into someone with a car, then you are infringing their right to life. If you are an idiot who wants to get wasted on smack, and you cost the government money in terms of emergency health services, public disorder, and hospital treatment, you are infringing others rights to enjoy their property. Basically, by creating a nation of addicts, you people impose costs on the rest of us to clean up the mess behind. Where do you take into consideration our rights, the people who are not stupid enough to be tempted by narcotics?

Ivan
133 posted on 09/28/2001 1:44:36 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]


To: MadIvan
Your rights end where others begin. If you are an idiot and get drunk and smash into someone with a car, then you are infringing their right to life.

OK. So ban alcohol.

If you are an idiot who wants to get wasted on smack, and you cost the government money in terms of emergency health services, public disorder, and hospital treatment, you are infringing others rights to enjoy their property.

Putting aside the issue of whether the government should pay for health care . . . the "public disorder" argument sort-of works. If a high person goes and breaks a window they're infringing on the rights of others. So arrest him for vandalism. Duh.

Basically, by creating a nation of addicts,

Fallacy #1: Assumption of increased addiction due to legalization. No evidence given for this.

you people impose costs on the rest of us to clean up the mess behind.

Fallacy #2: Assumption that society must bear the costs of individual stupidity. A socialistic premise.

Where do you take into consideration our rights, the people who are not stupid enough to be tempted by narcotics?

Fallacy #3: Statement reveals a false belief that you have demonstrated how drug use itself violates the rights of others. All your examples are of someone violating rights while they are high, without even demonstrating how being high contributes to that behavior let alone how it causes said behavior.

140 posted on 09/28/2001 3:04:23 PM PDT by Entelechy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson