In article <djg5u2$2u6k$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I agree that any person deserves freedom. I would like to point out, however,
> that imposition of limits is sometimes a positive thing. What for example,
> should the government tell a 15 -ear-old boy who decided that he wants to
> smoke pot and in due time develop a habit and dependency upon it?
I would tell him when he is a legal adult he can smoke all the pot he
wants. It should be legal for adults to make their own choices, ergo
booz and cigs which kill more people then all illigal drugs combined.
> Sometimes
> it is the health implications and common interest that lead to regulations
> from above. Even somebody who was once on the roids recognises the
> importance of that.
In the context of your comments, no, can't say I agree with you. Drug
laws and regulations are based on moral issues, political issues, and
financial issues, not science or logic.
"Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
"within the law" because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and
always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas
Jeferson
> Why do I raise a point which involves a youngster?
Can't say I see why you did. What kids are legally able to do vs what
consenting adults can legally do, are totally different issues.
> I see people around me
> who, in my opinion, are too young to make reasonable jugdement, which in
> turn leads to life-long implications (good or bad). I see people who lack
> confidence so in this state of vacuous self-confidence, it seems like there
> is nothing to be lost. When the wife and kids come along, priorities change.
> Why jeopardise anything in the first place?
I agree with you only in that drugs of any kind should be legal for
adults. I also would have had no problem for example with ephedrine
being legal for adults only.
>
> I recently read a small editorial, according to which in our younger days we
> work really hard at the expense of our health so that our future will be a
> healthy one as we can afford it. Ultimately, we may find that both our
> younger days and later days were damaged or wasted, so the secret is to look
> at the /whole/ picture and accommodate for health all along.
Agreed, but that is an individual choice, not something to be enforced
by a nanny government telling us what is good for us or done for our own
good.
>
> Roy
>
> PS - Will, your replies to me were extremely rude at times,
I am only rude with people that show extreme ignorance over a topic and
lose my patience with them. I am the model of civility with people that
make an honest effort to add to the debate. When someone says "Lyle
Alzado is all the proof we need that steroids are bad for your health"
this person is firmly in the former group over the latter, and thus will
be called an idiot etc.
>though I admit
> that my words were excruciating at the start. I hope to keep this discussion
> on a 'small fire' this time around. Let's avoid declining to a flamewar that
> is filled with personal insults.
Works for me....
--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
|
|
