Quote:
|
I'm still wondering why we all want to pick and choose what we want to be free about when everything should be legal until it is used to harm others, following the line of thinking in this debate.
|
Brother, Jeff-
Spurious argument compared to mine. I only argued for logical consistency....ie: if you find the scourge of marijuana and cocaine to be so harmful, why on earth would you not speak out for the criminalization of the more harmful substances, tobacco and alcohol?
Quote:
|
Why can't I own a nuclear device as long as I store it properly so that the radiation does not harm others?
|
I call foul on that one. It's as spurious as "Well then you must favor allowing people to operate motor vehicles while intoxicated". It begs an obvious answer: because no rational person would be willing to argue that playing with a nuclear device (or drinking and driving) can be done safely, for personal satisfaction or without harming others. OTOH, these same people
ARE willing to accept the fact that millions of Americans can take a drink or a cigar without turning into Reefer Madness baby killers; they ignore the "terrible" addiction, abuse, loss of "productivity" and family endangerment that accompanies use of alcohol and tobacco (And I still haven't started on
FAT PEOPLE).
Despite the fact that the vast majority of marijuana (and even cocaine) users are really no more addicted than the social drinker and use the drugs no differently, this same crowd demands their imprisonment based on what they "might" do.
That is neither balanced nor consistent; therefore, it is (by definition) a visceral or emotional position. In fact, it's specifically what you call "pick[ing] and choos[ing] what we want to be free about". I don't claim to want to make those decisions, either for the responsible or the irresponsible. What they do to their bodies is their business....that, at least, is consistent. And the argument that they put the rest of us "in danger" is similarly flawed....we're in danger, daily, from criminals, low lives, moving buses, aneurysms, carcinogens in our food and water, police raids, heart disease, firearms accidents, drunk drivers and people who smoke in bed.
If you can protect me from one you should, as a matter of consistency, be willing to protect me with the same vigor from all. Because, I assure you, the government IS willing; and when you justify .gov's intervention in one such behavior, it's just a question of time before they get around to your own favorite past time. History teaches this. There simply is no freedom when the watchwords of the day become "control of crimes that 'might' happen". The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (as ONE example) is doomed in our lifetime under that type of citizen demand....just ask the people of Europe or Australia.
Rich