From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 13:21:27 MST
--- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> wrote:
> I don't think there's anyone here that would argue with you. Even the
> most militant libertarians don't approve of drunk driving, and "drunk
> parenting" is certainly a rational extension of that (though I
> wouldn't
> go so far as to require insurance, just get a babysitter while you
> party; and if you're constantly so pickled you simply can't be an
> effective parent then by all means you should lose custody).
> I think the only time you've been flamed when you talk about drugs
> is when you
> say things like Marijuana is addictive, or that it's more dangerous
> than alcohol, or that there's some difference between "legal" and
> "illegal" drugs besides stupid laws, or when you tacitly approve
> of current laws the lock people away for mere use, regardless of
> whether such use has caused external harm or not.
I've always said that marijuana should be legalized, nor have I
advocated laws which lock people away for mere use regardless of harm.
I have advocated coercive interventions by freinds and families for
those who are addicted, primarily because of my own experience with an
addicted business partner, which as I recall has not been similarly
experienced by anybody else here.
I also have a friend who is paralyzed and addicted to oxycontin, and
will be for the rest of her life, or whenever her spinal injury is
cured. She is a functioning individual, she doesn't harm anybody, but
she doesn't work either or have kids. While she is in no risk of
falling into a spiral of depression, poverty, and crime (she lives off
a nice trust funded by the insurance settlement), she is also quite
immune to rehabilitation treatment (family has put her through five
times) so long has she has this safety net, and so long as she tries to
consume only at 'maintenance' levels, since it is so hard to obtain the
drug in this regulated environment. I fear what would happen to her if
you could buy oxycontin out of vending machines.
>
> You have quite clearly supported laws against drugs themselves,
> which is no different than supporting gun bans: it's making the
> technology evil instead of the particular use it's put to. If you
> cause harm with a gun, prosecute the harm, not the gun.
I dont recall that I've ever supported, on a blanket basis, laws
against drugs, though I've had some ambivalence about some of the more
heinously addictive and impairing drugs.
Furthermore, a gun doesn't alter it's users ability to make rational
responsible judgements. It doesn't cause physiological changes creating
a dependency at the cellular level. Comparing the two is a false
analogy, though it is one that many try to make.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:46 MST