From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 23:17:20 MDT
Reason wrote:
> I wasn't going to say anything; really I wasn't. But guys, you're both on
> crack, to use the euphemism.
>
> --> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>>Ok, my good friend Spike has *finally* gone over the edge.
>>I knew it might happen someday, but I thought it might be
>>when he got a bit older. :-(
Hey, I *am* a bit older. {8^D
>>
>>On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, spike66 wrote:
>>>Drug laws, instance. The main reason we have
>>>them is to prevent dopers from stealing to buy dope. So
>>>if you can prevent theft by other means, there is no longer
>>>a compelling reason to have anti-drug laws...
I thought of a couple new angles on this.
First, one can argue that narcotics are already
effectively legal in the U.S. In a sense. If
one loads up a bunch of supplies, gets a mess
of drugs, hauls it all out to Darwin California
(gotta love that name) one can move into any
empty house, (plenty of them available there rent
free), and do all the drugs one wants. No one
will bother you out there, I can assure you. The
dozen or so fellow citizens of Darwin may let
you perish on the street, but they will not bother
you just for doing drugs. Darwin is the ultimate
libertarian city.
This leads to my second idea: if all drug laws
were eliminated, the welfare system would also
pretty much collapse. Reason: the drug abuser
would become the poster child for politicians
who ran on the platform of cutting welfare. They
could stir the soul of Joe Taxpayer by relating
(probaby fictional) accounts of dopers who are
collecting welfare checks and staying stoned
24-7 on now-cheap dope. JT would respond in force
to that poster child, I can assure you.
Eventually anyone who was legitimately needy,
not just unable to hold a job because of a dope
habit, would need to prove themselves drug free
in order to collect.
Come to think of it, that might not be such
a bad thing: legalize all drugs, then offer
welfare only to those who test out drug free.
The welfare collectors have fewer competitors
for a limited resource, the taxpayer's burden
is reduced, and (assume Peter Fonda voice) the
dopers are FREE to get HIGH without any HASSle
from the MAN.*
Wouldn't everyone win in that scenario?
Why should welfare dollars come with no strings
attached? We pay the bill, we should be able
to make the rules, eh?
spike
* I recently viewed a movie that I had wanted to
see for some time, called Easy Rider, the source
of the above quote. This is by far the absolute
stupidest movie I have ever endured. Even Jack
Nicholson could not save this loser. I cannot
imagine what these silly goofs were thinking, if
anything, when they wrote this script. s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST