Reward the drug user?? So someone gets rewarded when the government stops violating their rights? Someone gets rewraded when the government repeals laws that they had no authority to pass in the first place? Oh, I see now. You, nor anyone else, has ever been able to define this "societal damage" that "drug use" causes. Most of what you define as "societal damage" is either caused by their illegality or has simply occurred regardless of their illegality. And I dont understand this, "Unchecked, undiscouraged".... yadda yadda. Only with "drugs" does your type try to argue that "legality" equals promotion and encouragement. This is not so and you damn well know its not. When you demand the end of alcohol and tobacco, I will listen to you. When you state that their legality encourages abuse, I will listen.
Anyone who does not wish to "be associated" with "drug users" can simply not associate themselves with them. That costs them nothing.
Death due to hard narcotics overdose, suicide, brain damage, kidney and liver damage, lung and nasal tissue damage, mental illness, destruction of families via divorce, spousal and child abuse, pre adult abuse and addiction, incapacitation and intoxication leading to auto, home, and occupational accidents, job loss, decline in mental capacity, loss of economic productivity, moral decline, sloth, loss of sexual capacity in men, and much more, are all aspects of "societal damage" caused by drugs that have nothing whatsoever to do with illegality. There, neatly defined for you, so that you can understand why we conservatives find it hard to jump on the "just let 'em all kill themselves if they want to" libertarian bandwagon.
And I dont understand this, "Unchecked, undiscouraged".... yadda yadda. Only with "drugs" does your type try to argue that "legality" equals promotion and encouragement. This is not so and you damn well know its not.
Horsehockey. Did "legality" encourage the massive increase in the use of abortion as a form of birth control, killing millions of unborn children, effectively denying them their god given rights to life and a chance to grow up? Seems to be the case, I'm sorry to say. Liberals blind themselves to the destruction the "culture of death" has visited upon our society, so as to adhere to their creed of leftist political correctness. Do libertarian's likewise blind themselves to the destruction the "culture of drugs" had done and will do to that same society? Again, I'm sorry to say, it seems to be the case.
When you demand the end of alcohol and tobacco, I will listen to you. When you state that their legality encourages abuse, I will listen.
I do hearby demand the end of all alcohol and tobacco abuse, and the resulting death, disease and debilitation that such abuse causes. You may now listen, but the people who are the abusers doubtless will not. Do I demand legal prohibition of alcohol and tobacco? No. This is a question of individual responsibility, not unenforceable laws that lead to widespread black market activity.
"AHAH!!!!" you scream, jumping up and pointing an accusing finger at me. "You are a HYPOCRITE! You are no better than anyone else you criticize for the same kind of fraud!" you righteously pronounce. "Why is prohibition wrong for alcohol and tobacco, and yet right for all "illegal" drugs? You want to impose your morality on others selectively, which is a violation of those citizen's constitutional rights! How can you elevate yourself above the totalitarian leftists who conspire to take all our rights away? At least they are more honest in their agenda."
I'm sorry to say that you are absolutely right, correct, and therefore... you win the debate. You have rightly pointed out a glaring inconsistency in the philosophical structure of my argument. You have remained true to your principles, and I have forsaken mine. You would now pose for photographs as the Dean of the College of Polemical Knowledge presented you with your trophy, and I would resignedly offer you my handshake in congratulations for your victory.
If our lives and our society were just such a collegiate debate, that would be the end of it. But this is not the case. We have arrived at a impasse, at cross purposes. For the sake of discussion, let's pose this as a Libertarian vs Conservative argument. You strive to "liberate" citizens from the burden of an interfering and oppressive government, leaving a person's fate up to his own devices. Laws passed by a ruling elite are only a means to repress an individuals rights, seldom if ever to protect them. We strive to "conserve" what is right and healthy in our society, community, and nation by limiting the growth of government, respecting the constitutional rights of the individual, and yet protecting the members of our society from all threats, external and domestic. Drugs represent a dangerous and debilitating threat of both kinds. To be true to their principles, Libertarians must ignore and discount any threat to society that drugs pose, regardless of the resulting realities and subsequent ramifications. As Conservatives, we must realize that same threat, and attempt to defend society against it. What is the best way to do this is the argument we should be having, and not one over the absurd and tragically fraudulent contention that drug abuse is merely a "victimless crime" and most users are not so adversely affected anyway. But, the later, not the former seems to be the case, I'm sorry to say.
Anyone who does not wish to "be associated" with "drug users" can simply not associate themselves with them. That costs them nothing.
Well, again you are at least partially correct. Most do. Divorce, dismissal from employment, removal of incompetent persons to state hospitals, break ups of various kinds of personal relationships, dissolution of friendships, estrangement of families, eviction of tenants, arrest and removal of intoxicated individuals from private commercial premises and public institutions, arrest and conviction of abusers while in violation of various DUI laws, and other such methods of disassociation are commonly used by those who are burdened by people who abuse drugs. But "Anyone" means "everyone" in this case.. sadly, that is why your statement is not ultimately true. Those who are killed by someone driving in a drug induced stupor cannot disassociate themselves from the dashboards of their automobiles, just as those children who are abused by a drug addicted parent will not easily forget that abuse. So, it seems that this is not such an easy argument to win. To do so means to lose the validity and credibility that this debate is supposed to bestow on the winner. But, this is really not just a debate, it is the very future of our country in the balance. And those who ignore this dilemma, certainly have no solution or answer to the original problem.