From: nuffy@hfglobe.intel.com (John Hagler)
Subject: Re: So what's a religion ?
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:11:29 GMT

phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>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.
Well I guess it is my business then because I was nearly knowcked off the top of
a building when I was in construction by a guy operating a concrete pump
while he was loaded....I wish he had had to take a drug test before he came 
to work..and so does the guy who had his lip splitopen by that fool.
If you have ever worked in a field where your life is in someone elses hands you and have had a drug user on the job you can understand why people fear
legalization of drugs.

>-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."
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Nuffy@hfglobe.intel.com       | "The views expressed here are mine! You cant  |
|                              |  have them! Intel cant have them! They're Mine||------------------------------------------------------------------------------          
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution