: Cynic: You are correct, and as my original post states, I do not think a state usually has the right to prevent its citizens from taking drugs. There are 2 distinct problems with it: It infringes on the freedom to act as one desires so long as it does not harm others, and more importantly by my standard, enforcement of drug laws is unjustifiably expensive. attentat: it more than pays for itself with all the free (or nearly free) labor it leases out to corporations for the prison-idustrial complex
: Then again, I have difficulty giving assent to the utter legalization of drugs, because I have observed many individuals who lack the sense not to abuse alcohol or cigarettes, even though by their age the law insists that they have such faculties. True enough, Big Brother can stifle responsible citizens in many ways- but the world is also full of more than enough idiots who don't know any better. If Little Brother is an absolute cretin, Big Brother might certainly know better!
attentat: are you listening to yourself? more repressive regimes have been justified because the people under that dictatorship "just didn't know any better." the Soviet Union, Mexico, just about every colony under the English flag, your logic was also used by the US to justify their repressive policy in Central and South America, the list could go on and on. why is it any of your business if a person decides to "have too much fun" as long as the only person he might be doing any harm to is him/herself? who sets the standard for what is considered to be accepted behavior? obviously you, from the look of your post.
: I continue to believe that where one cannot or refuses to police oneself, a concerned legal system offers the next best recourse. I believe people have a right to complete autonomy until they prove themselves incapable of handling that freedom. Then I'm all for telling them what to do. That may sound contradictory, but it is how I function. Both you and I can tell the difference between one who uses drugs and one who overuses them. More often than not the latter has problems related to his or her drug use that compound the necessity for regulation. So should the state try and protect people from themselves? My answer is yes, but only if the individual in question cannot or will not bear the responsibility first. Someone should be looking out for the welfare of drug abusers, and laws are one method of dealing with the drug problem. Treatment is better.
attentat: your proposed drug policy would only serve to further marginalize the user (seperate him/her from society), and studies done independantly by the US and Dutch governments have shown that this approach only creates more problems than it solves. By driving the user farther and farther away from functional, mainstream society, you only push him towards more "undesirable" subcultures that exist in the margins.
: Regardless, however, by your own account it seems we'd agree that you should be free to do drugs if you so choose. And I bid you enjoy them, but please be careful not to enjoy them, well, too much!
attentat: again, who sets the standard? the state? (do you really have that much faith in our justice system, or should i start naming cases where it has failed miserablely?) you?
: :)
: - Cynic
