Re: Drug Czar's plea to downgrade 'E'
On May 21, 3:40 am, "Aidy" wrote:
> > So it's not selling drugs that endangers others, it's selling drugs of
> > unknown strength. Which is an argument for legalization and regulation.
>
> Is it not also an argument for
"Also"? So you concede that it is in fact an argument for legalization
and regulation?
> not taking drugs and obeying the laws of the land?
Definitely ... but since many people are not persuaded by that
argument, we need to proceed with legalization and regulation.
date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
author: M_P
|
Re: Drug Czar's plea to downgrade 'E'
>> Definitely ... but since many people are not persuaded by that
>> argument, we need to proceed with legalization and regulation.
In article "Aidy" writes:
>Not everyone is persuaded that you shouldn't rape and murder yet many still
>do. Should we proceed to legalise and regulate rape and murder?
>
>BTW feel free to ignore the point of the above analogy and instead focus on
>how taking drugs and killing people are not the same thing.
Rape and murder are crimes against other people. You are violating someone
else's rights.
Producing, buying, selling and/or using drugs are not crimes against other
people. If they were, then most people would agree that tobacco, tea, coffee,
alcohol, etc., should also be illegal.
It is one's inherent right to choose what to ingest. One has an inherent
right to control one's own body. As long as I don't force or require someone
else to use the drugs, use of drugs does not violate anyone else's rights, and
therefore should be legal.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he'll invite himself over for dinner."
-Calvin Keegan
date: 22 May 2008 13:31:26 -0800
author: (Pete nospam Zakel)
|
