From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:33:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr14.121421.15745@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
> OK, bear with me for a moment before you start reacting. As a hardcore
> libertarian I do take exception to so-called 'victimless' crimes. However, to
> answer your question, the fact is that MANY MANY people are harmed by
> individuals who do recreational drugs. People who abuse (note I said -abuse-)
> drugs (like those who abuse alcohol) are irresponsible (in my opinion, by
> definition, ie: abuse equates with irresponsibility). As such, many of these
> people just don't sit around at home, in their houses, stoned or drunk. They
> get out of their houses and participate in society while stoned or drunk. The
> worst offenders are those who drive while in this state. Look to statistics
> about the number of people killed by drunk or stoned drivers v/s the number of
> people killed by guns. The numbers are staggering.

Very good, I believe we agree.  NOW.  Of the two, which is the unethical act:

1) Taking drugs or alcohol; or
2) Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

> The law is attempting to protect us from those individuals who would inflict
> themselves upon us while in a stoned or intoxicated state.

Ah, no, BZZZZT.  The law is sitting on ALL members of a class because SOME
of those members do irresponsible things.  Do you consider this fair?

If a person beats his children, drives to endanger, or craps on the chairs
at McDonalds, he is breaking the law.  I don't care if he does these things
while drunk or while sober.  Should I be forbidden to take a drink because
of what he does when HE drinks?

> >I think we should legalize recreational drugs and treat them the
> >way we treat the alcohol and tobacco industries.  Tax them.  The
> >government is missing out on a great source of revenue here.
> 
> How does this get the drunk driver off the road? It does not! 

It's the government's job to get drivers off the road who are drunk, dangerous, 
incompetent, blind, or senile.  It's not their job to persecute people who use
alcohol, have violent fantasies, are autistic, farsighted, or elderly just 
because they MIGHT get behind the wheel of a car in the wrong frame of mind or
body someday.

Are you SURE you're a hardcore Libertarian?

> help quite a bit. In the last decade, the MADD, SADD an other organizations
> along with a public outcry has made significant strides in reducing these
> statistics,

Agreed.  How?  Not be making booze illegal, you bet.  By educating children
and offenders and the general public that doing booze behind the wheel is
stupid, bad for you, and bad for others.  The same way smoking has been
cut to the bone in the US -- by teaching people that smoking kills you.
Not by making tobacco illegal.

> Drinking and driving
> is illegal, but that doesn't seem to be the final deterrent. Maybe if killing
> someone with your car while drunk were a felony punishible by a mandatory
> prison sentence, it would at least get THAT drunk driver off the street.

Exactly.  Maybe even some others, but I'd settle for that ONE person.  We
don't even get that today.  I say, second and subsequent offenders (with no
injuries to their credit) deserve a small taste of prison, and people who 
cause injuries or deaths deserve more than a small taste.

By the way, the government doesn't have a whole lot of funds allocated to
getting dangerous drivers (who kill people and destroy property) off the
streets.  They have a whole shitload of money for pursuing otherwise
harmless drug users, however.  What does this say about the government's 
priorities?  Not to mention that they do a shitty job in BOTH areas...

> >The citizens of this country have the right to choose for themselves
> >what they will and will not consume.  Just because its bad for you
> >is not enough for the government to ban it.  Do they ban tobacco?
> >Do they ban animal fat? 
> 
> Tobacco has been banned in many/most public places in many/most states.  Most
> restaurants have isolated smoking sections. So, yes, in effect, tobacco is
> being banned from use in certain places to protect the rights of non-smokers to
> breathe clean air. 

Right, pay attention now.  You cannot smoke tobacco WHERE IT WILL OFFEND 
OTHERS.  You cannot drink or take drugs WHERE YOU CAN INJURE OTHERS.  Do
you see a pattern here?

Private and (where all concerned agree) public use of tobacco is allowed.
Private and public use of alcohol is allowed.  Private and public use
of drugs is NOT allowed.  Do you see a pattern HERE?

I'm a rabid tobacco-hater, but I don't give a damn if you smoke in your own
house.  I think anyone who takes drugs is being stupid and needlessly
complicating their own lives, but I don't give a damn if that's what you
really want to do in your own house.

> It is not neccessarily a matter of 'protecting you from yourself', it is a
> matter of protecting others from what you are doing.

Right,  DOING.  What are you DOING?  DRIVING on drugs.  BEATING your children.
SLEEPING at the switch.  Not SMOKING a joint.  Your smoking a joint doesn't
hurt me or anybody else.

> The governments rights derive from the people. The fact that the government is
> able to enforce such rules indicates that they have the support of a majority
> of people. 

Demonstrably false.  The abortion gag rule.  Prohibition.  The 55 MPH speed
limit.  The defeat of the ERA.  School busing.  Gun control.  Insert your 
favorite bugaboo here.

> As with your prohibition example, when there is such an uproar from
> the people against certain rules/laws, then the government must capitulate and
> change.

But the people will uproar in an organized fashion only about rules that 
affect THEM.  It's one thing to say, "item X, affecting people other than you,
is on the ballot, do you approve or disapprove?" and to say, "law X affecting
people other than you is already on the books; will you become an activist
opposing it?"  Many people will do the first; not many will do the second.

> Personally I do believe that laws against 'victimless' crimes are attempts to
> resolve a problem by treating the symptom, not the cause. 

Worse.  They are laws against an innocent CLASS of people because a SUBSET
of that CLASS are guilty of some social offense.

> People should have a right to destroy themselves (whether by drug abuse,
> alcohol or even by putting a gun to their own heads). That is their business.
> However, once their activity endangers someone else, that is where their rights
> end. Period. The penalties should be severe for such abuse. 

Absolutely.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17705 rec.autos:11121 sci.econ:3660