Replies

The Chinese eat aborted fetuses by the way. Yuck! And they kicked us off the UN human rights committe? Makes me wonder about that "shrimp and rice" tv dinner I just ate.

On the other hand, there is the view, which I share, that abortion is immoral, wrong, and irresponsible; however, government restriction in this matter, much like with drugs, is a worse evil because it does little to halt the practice while criminalizing a large segment of the populace for what is, after all, within their bodies. Forcing someone to bear children is a greater evil, irrespective of circumstance, than allowing them the choice.

Is forcing someone from killing another person a violation of that great civil right you just mentioned? I would ask you this. Why can't a people be free from drug users if they so please? Why should I have to put up with the cocaine addict next door when he could just move to a state where cocaine was legal and I could live in a state where it was illegal?

If drugs are legalized, should I the taxpayer take up the bill for the rehabilitation of a drug addict who figures out that what he is doing is destroying him? Should the state let people destroy themselves without intervening? I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to live in a state where drugs are legal, I'm just saying that I should also have the right to live in a state where they are illegal.

"Is forcing someone from killing another person a violation of that great civil right you just mentioned?"

In the context within which I mentioned it, in the balance of rights between the pregnant mother and the fetus...yes.

"Why can't a people be free from drug users if they so please?"

This is an argument for another thread, alas. But here goes anyway...

You are free not to do drugs. You are not free to force others to give up their drug of choice. That is an infringement of their rights with no moral or utilitarian foundation.

"when he could just move to a state where cocaine was legal"

I think this is kind of a moot point in modern federalized America. I would be all for states being able to decide this policy for themselves; at the very least it would return some of the power to the local level rather than in the hands of those that profit from waging war on otherwise law abiding citizens.

But I also think the law ought to be consistent, even at the state level. I cannot think of a single facet of drugs that does not apply in some degree to alcohol or tobacco (disclaimer, I am big fan of these latter two, and do not touch drugs); therefore, what is the law on drugs in your ideal state had better be prepared to be consistent. Myself, I think choice of drug use falls far more into the category of virtue/vice rather than crime; I agree with Montesquieu that coerced virtue is nothing but slavery.

"If drugs are legalized, should I the taxpayer take up the bill for the rehabilitation of a drug addict who figures out that what he is doing is destroying him?"

Don't be ridiculous. There is no way that this derives from what I have stated, ever. Voluntary private charity is the proper domain for this.

HOWEVER, were I am only offered the Devil's choice between imprisonment and rehab, I will choose rehab as a response (for drug use, of course) every time. It is cheaper by far, and there is no way it can be worse to give someone a slim chance of breaking a habit rather than turning them into hardened criminals with a record.
(ONCE AGAIN) I don't think either of these are good. But if I had to choose...

"Should the state let people destroy themselves without intervening? "

Yes. It does so every day, and the discrimination it practices between drug users and alcoholics is nonsense. Moreover, prohibition does not work except to create a burgeoning black market and criminals with funds, not to mention international terrorists and revolutionaries the world round.

With legalization, you have an industry, Latin America has a cash crop that can pull it into the 20th century at last (as its major destabilizing factor--the drug war--is replaced with a major industry), and so on.

Why do other people's vices bother you so much? If you have vices of your own, would you be prepared to sacrifice them for the comfort of others at their bidding? I bet that nearly everyone except the most bland individuals have some character aspect that qould be considered a vice...where do you draw the line? I draw it at where material victims other than the perpetrator can be conclusively proven to exist.