Posted on 04/29/2002 6:10:32 PM PDT by gcruse
Laws against murder serve to protect other people from would-be murderers. The act of murder, essentially without exception, impairs another person's right to live.
Laws against drug possession protect exactly whom from exactly what? It would seem that the essential desired protections could be provided by less restrictive laws. For example, if the goal is to protect people from the hazards that stoned drivers would pose, pass a law against driving while stoned. If the goal is to protect people from having people pushing drugs on the schoolyard, pass a law against open-air sales and sales to minors.
Nearly all of the problems "caused" by drugs are the result of overt acts. As such, laws against such acts may be enforced without the privacy violations necessary to enforce statutes restricting covert acts.
And it would be...okay to violate someone's rights? Or is it wrong? Maybe even morally wrong? ;)
Like I said, I'm not unsympathetic to the article or its goals, but this notion of attacking laws based on morality is just nonsensical. Even in the example you give, it is implicitly understood that it is morally wrong to violate another's right to live, which is what justifies a law against it.
Maybe we should help Darwin along. Everybody that gets sent to prison for a violent crime gets a liberal dose of drugs in their food every day and as much more as they want. Confine them to concrete cells for 23 hours a day and let them wash their own single set of clothes in the shower. That ought to cut down on the violent criminals and the expense of the prison system.
Governments are established by people to protect their (real and perceived) rights. Whether violation of someone's rights is morally right or wrong is irrelevant; what matters is that those in power don't want certain rights violated and are willing to use force to protect them.
Is it? That's a very interesting distinction you draw parenthetically - what, precisely, is the difference between a "real" right and a "perceived" right?
The right to own human slaves, for example?
So I want to know how we differentiate a real right from one that is only perceived to be a right. Imagine that we are presented with a claim of a new right, one that has never been encountered before. When looking at this claimed right, how do we know whether it is "real" or not? Surely there must be some standard we can apply...
These guys are employed by the WOD. They depend on our tax dollars going towards the WOD for the food they eat. And they publish this?
Kudos and a Cheer from this ANTI-WOD Man!!
No new information but it nice to hear this from an inside source.
EBUCK
Look at the numbers. 600 thousand die from alchohol and tobbacco each year. 10 thousand die from the most heinous drug available, heroin, every year. Do we have dead nicotine addicts in the streets? Do we have dead alchoholics in the streets? Well, not in my town we don't either.
And just to help you out I'll let you in on a little secret. All those celebs you named....got their drugs regardless of the WOD. That's right!!!! The WOD did nothing to save them from themselves!!! Oh the humanity. How come we didn't try harder to make sure that they were safe? Why, Oh why, didn't we do something to keep them from exercising their free will?
EBUCK
EBUCK
The only reason we don't see that very much now is DEA and BATF etc police up the bodies they lay in the streets fairly quickly. Then they burn and buldoze the sites to quickly clean up the unsightly results of their work.
We do in Phoenix. Not a large number but some none the less. And alcohol is not anywhere near as addictive as crack, meth, heroin, etc. I work with drug users daily and can tell you that there is no turning back FOR MOST. I almost never say all or none< g>.
Please understand, I am an alcoholic and getting off the stuff was easier than quitting smoking by a factor of 100:1. I am also a physicist and criminal defense lawyer. I speak from experience on this subject. Doesn't make me right but it does provide a perspective that most do not enjoy!
Doncha just hate it when that happens?
If there is no chance of turning them back why do we put them in prison? If what they are doing to themselves is in-curable without their consent why force them into treatment? You obviously know that getting forcing horeses to drink is nearly impossible so why do we continue to try?
Please understand, I am an alcoholic and getting off the stuff was easier than quitting smoking by a factor of 100:1. I am also a physicist and criminal defense lawyer. I speak from experience on this subject. Doesn't make me right but it does provide a perspective that most do not enjoy!
I don't think you are entirely wrong. I just think (especially with your experience) that you would understand the completely hopeless situation our current system is in. The current system has been built, tested, measured, revamped, measured, restructured, measured ect. and has come up short every time. It's time for a new method because the old imprison/forced treatment scheme does not work, will never work and has never worked.
I understand that you are heavily vested in the current system but you have to understand that the rest of us (as taxpayers) are just as vested if not more so. You have your job to think about but we have our entire way of life to consider. And those of us that understand the price and responsibility of freedom are willing to let the addicts die in the street if it means freedom for us.
EBUCK
Somehow I can't understand the logic behind that. But I'm sure some jackbooted jackass who supports the war on drugs will explain it to me.
This is social conservatism in a nutshell.
Most drug USERS currently in the system are also criminals in other respects. Theft, assault, burglary, and violent crimes. In AZ, since Prop 200, users are given the opportunity to take a treatment program the first couple times. Charges are dismissed and no crime shows on the record. Just how many chances to straighten out does one need.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.