From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: So what's a religion ?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:15:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov27.183523.29411@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>   As an example, consider proposals to legalize drugs.  "It's my
>body, I'll do what I want with it, provided I don't hurt anyone
>else," is typical of the arguments I have seen favoring legalization.
>But it really is based on a false premise.  If I ruin myself on
>drugs, I hurt my employer,

Exactly what do you owe your employer other than work in exchange for money?

What if I take drugs but don't "ruin myself"?  Is it my employer's business
if I engage in off-duty activities, whether legal or illegal, if my employer
must engage in intrusive methods to discover them?

Is it my employer's business if I don't get enough sleep, eat too much
cholesterol, don't get enough exercise, or anything else as long as it
doesn't affect my work performance?

If it affects my work performance, my employer has cause to try to get me
to rectify it, or s/he can let me go, without ever having to know the cause
of the poor performance, be it marital problems or substance abuse.

If it does not affect my work performance sufficiently so that my employer
is aware, what business is it of my employer's?

And what about people who are self-employed, not "officially" employed (house
spouses), or independently wealthy?

>cause my family intense distress, and

Lots of things that are legal can cause your family intense distress.  Why
should certain drugs be given special treatment?

>eventually may require emergency medical treatment, which might have

People who drive and ride in cars, ride bicycles, climb rocks, ice skate,
roller skate, ski, etc., etc., etc., may eventually require emergency
medical treatment.  Should we then outlaw cars, bicycles, rock climbing, ice
and roller skating, skiing, etc., etc., etc.?

>   On the other hand, consider alcohol consumption.  If someone gets
>drunk, who is most likely to be affected?  I think his family and
>perhaps town; if he drives, his state should be concerned because
>they issued him the license.  So the affects can reach various levels.
>But personally, I don't think it should be an issue of federal concern.
>Thanks to some serious arm-twisting, the feds did get the states to
>change their laws, and I think this was wrong.  Drinking laws, I think,
>should be left primarily to municipalities and to states.

So why shouldn't other drug laws be left primarily to municipalities and
states?  Alcohol is demonstrably one of the most harmful recreational drugs
currently used.

>   So, in sum: I'm not in favor of oppression of the individual. But
>if other people are likely to be affected, then they have a legitimate
>concern as to what ought to be allowed or not.

This is the same argument used to argue for racial discrimination: "Why
shouldn't we be able to ban blacks from our neighborhoods because it causes
our property values to drop?"

Someone else's drug use or nonuse is NOYFB unless and until that drug use or
nonuse directly impacts you.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"I'd love to go out with you, but I have to stay home and see if I snore."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution