From: shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
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 12:56:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.

>Comparing the illegality of drugs and murder is like comparing
>apples and oranges. Murder is illegal in order to protect a person's 
>right to live. Why are recreational drugs illegal?  What right is that
>law protecting?

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.

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

>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! Stiffer penalties
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, however, it is still an epidemic proportion. Heck, just this past
weekend we lost Sam Kinison to a drunk 17 year old driver. 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. But I
digress...to continue.

>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. 

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

>I agree that there should be laws to protect minors, but adults have
>to be allowed to make there own choices and mistakes.

Event to the point where their 'mistake' (or irresponsibiity) endangers or
harms someone else? What about that other persons rights?

>The government is not our parent, it is our servant.  

I totally agree.

>Unfortunately, so many people
>have forgotten that that the government is getting away with enforcing
>more rules than they have a right to.

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. 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.

So much for devil's advocate and an alternative point of view. 

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

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. 

Guns are readily available in most states. Yet there is nowhere near the number
of people killing each other with these weapons intended for death as there are
people killing each other with motor vehicles while drunk or stoned.

When killing someone in this manner is treated the same as if they shot
someone, then and only then will we start to resolve the problem.

Regards,
Steve.

/*********************************************************************
*                               *                                    *
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed   *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and do not neccessarily *
* Specializing in:              * reflect those of my clients,       *
* DEC/VAX/VMS/ULTRIX, Unix & PC * employers or employees             *
*                               *                                    *
**********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org                             *
* FidoNet 1:101/440 (508) 664-6354                                   *
* The Contract Professional BBS, North Reading, MA                   *
*********************************************************************/