Subject:
|
Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:38:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1080 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> So _what_ exactly, _is_ someone supposed to do about doing drugs
> decades ago? Try and puke it up?
If they are not involved in any control of drugs (for example not a
politician, cop, or parent), and they aren't still doing drugs, nothing
other than perhaps acknowledge that yes, they did do drugs .
If they are a parent trying to keep their kids from doing drugs, they
should come clean, and then use their experience to explain WHY the kids
shouldn't use drugs ("sure, I smoke a joint or two as a kid, I stopped
when my best friend died because he got some bad weed from an
unscrupulous dealer" or whatever).
If they are a cop or a politician, it is hypcritical to support the
current drug laws which would put one away for a good long time for the
same thing.
Incidentally, while I in generall support the idea of legalizing drugs,
I also support the idea of doing testing of people in critical jobs
where impairment could lead to very serious accidents. In this case, I
also include Alcohol (which is abused far more than any illegal drug).
> To tell you the truth, the whole "making it up to the victims" bit is
> what creeps me out. I mean, give back $STUFF you've stolen, sure. But
> the common type of interpretation like "$VICTIM has suffered
> irreparable mental damage from this mugging, so she should be allowed
> to kick $MUGGER in the goolies", things like that.
Larry is not talking about any eye for an eye sort of things (if you
read his various posts, you will see he is in opposition to the death
penalty). Also, if you look at Larry's writings, everything comes down
to property rights, and therefore can be assigned a cost.
If a mugging really has rendered the victim psychologically incapable of
continuing to work in the same job they had previously, perhaps the
perpetrator should be liable for the difference in income. The
perpetrator should be responsible for any direct expenses (medical and
psychological). Of course not all perpetrators will be capable of
generating enough income to do this, but if the crime is bad enough,
they should be put in work programs to generate an income (and the best
skills should be used, subject to working someplace where the nature of
their crime is relavant, so if I lost control, and injured someone in a
bar, I should have my pay garnished, and perhaps have to spend my
weekends in jail, but why not let me continue to earn my >$50k salary
rather than generate a $10k or so equivalant salary by cleaning up
roadsides, on the other hand, a stock broker who has been embezelling
money and making poor or fraudulent investment choices probably should
not work off their debt as a stock broker).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| (...) I've never heard of _anyone_ dying from bad weed. Heroin, cocain, crack, XTC, yes, but not weed. (...) What's the difference between the politician and the parent? (...) Absolutely. And sleeping pills, caffeine,... (...) Hah. As if he could. (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| (...) Which I didn't ask because I don't think they're relevant. I agree with you. I wouldn't mind too much, personally, if there were at least legal ways to get the stuff under medical prescription. AT least that would be a step in the right (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
