Posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 3, 2000, at 10:07:34
In reply to I think it's safe here..., posted by Cass on January 2, 2000, at 20:49:52
> > > I agree with Diane. We live in a free society, and big brother should not tell us what is right or wrong for us. Besides, if drugs are legalized, they could be taxable and boost the economy. Also, people will always find ways to get drugs illegally if they are desperate enough. People either want to self-medicate or rebel with illegal drugs. Legalization gives profesionals the green-light to counsel patients about the pros and cons. Legalization also takes away the allure of rebellion. I'm open to other opinions.
> > Do you equate a free society with anarchy? In other words, should we all be allowed to do whatever we want to whomever we want whenever we want?> I absolutely don't believe in anarchy, but people are not necessarily harming others by self-medicating. I feel sorry for people who are outside of the mainstream and who are often in abusive or vulnerable circumstances. If I lived on the streets, I can tell you, I would seek out illegal drugs. Many of us have the luxury of having the counsel and medication under controlled circimstance. We are fortunate. Sometimes drugs are life savers. And if drugs are regulated, then certainly the harm factor of street drugs is decreased. I may be a semi-anarchist, in that I believe that certain acts are okay if there is no victim, for instance, in the case of prostitution. I don't like the influence of Puritanism on law. People argue that sometimes the prostitute is harmed or a wife is cheated on, but that often happens to woman in marriage. (Oooh, I am stirring a fire, aren't I? But I'm doing so with an attitude of open-mindedness not antagonism.) I feel this is a somewhat safe place to discuss the subject of politics and religion, especially in regards to drugs. I'm in the mood to debate, but my opinions are not fixed. I hope I didn't offend you.
Your hope has been fulfilled.
> I absolutely don't believe in anarchy, but people are not necessarily harming others by self-medicating.
Do you exclude those who self-medicate using drugs that induce violent behaviors in five percent of those who take them? Should such drugs remain available so that the majority for whom they produce pleasant effects can have them.
> If I lived on the streets, I can tell you, I would seek out illegal drugs
Why?
> Many of us have the luxury of having the counsel and medication under controlled circumstances.
Why spend the extra money? Just figure it out as you go along. Of course, those without the aforementioned luxury would have little choice but to do so.
> Sometimes drugs are life savers.
I agree.
> I may be a semi-anarchist, in that I believe that certain acts are okay if there is no victim…
How would YOU go about defining the word “victim”? Perhaps I would not agree with all of your choices. Perhaps a majority of individuals would not agree with all of your choices. That is why we have laws.
> …for instance, in the case of prostitution. I don't like the influence of Puritanism on law.
Vote.
> People argue that sometimes the prostitute is harmed or a wife is cheated on, but that often happens to woman in marriage. (Oooh, I am stirring a fire, aren't I?…
Perhaps for some people.
> I feel this is a somewhat safe place to discuss the subject of politics and religion, especially in regards to drugs.
I have seen people here for whom religion and politics are more than just subjects to indulge in rhetoric.
However, I agree that a focus on issues regarding drugs is important here.> I'm in the mood to debate…
I guess I was too. That can change.
> but my opinions are not fixed.
Neither are mine. Sometimes my ego resists, though. It can be a real pain in the ass sometimes.
- Scott
poster:Scott L. Schofield
thread:17775
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000101/msgs/17894.html