> [Mermaid]Hello Walpurgis. I hope you wont mind if I butt in and share
> a few thoughts on this subject.(which I suspect is the most popular
> topic for recurring discussions)
Hello :) I don't mind at all! This is a public mailing list after all. Your
thoughts are valuable, thanks.
> [Walpurgis]At what point can you, I or the state step in and say
> "no/wrong"?
>
> [Mermaid]When one's drug/alcohol/"any other individual choice of
> behaviour" use/abuse/dependency begins to affect/endanger/threaten
> another's life/property/peace of mind or have an adverse impact on the
> social/economic/material/emotional spheres of their daily lives.
The impact will be adverse to some degree - unavoidably. I think
the problem is the *extent* of the negative effect. If other drugs
prove to be just as negative (or less so, but not more so) as
tobacco/alcohol then they are justified. Unless you want to
reform/ban these two drugs themselves of course. Otherwise, the
position would be hypocritical.
> [Mermaid]Substance abuse cannot be avoided,
Neither can substance *use*. Lets remember not all use of drugs is
abuse, just like not all sex is abusive.
> b.age limit for the purchase of tobacco/alcohol/drugs.
Should other mind-altering substances like junk-food and chocolate
have an age-limit too/ Why ask such a question when the interests
of the companies that sell these products are so entrenched as to
be inmoveable anyway....?
> c.statutory warnings wrt general and expected health risks and other
> side effects on the label.
Any everything else too.
> d.when the tax payer is not burdened with the cost of treatement
> programs for substance abusers.
Or junkfood abusers. Or people that don't exercise. Or... Or...
Perhaps the tax payer shouldn't pay for anything they don't agree
with? I don't want to fund the military for example.
Fairness would require a radical overhaul of our political system.
Otherwise we could fudge what we have. The taxpayer will pay for
my treatment when my organs fuck-up, but I'd have paid more than
them for the pleasure, because my drugs would have been taxed.
It pays for itself.
> same applies with insurance companies
> that takes the money out of the average joe's pockets and pays for the
> addict to swagger on his road to recovery.
See above.
Not all users are addicts.
Not all average joes are fit, healthy non-substance ab/users
> Treatment programs should
> not be subsidised. If one wants to die, one can spend one's own money.
Drug use is not about wanting to die, it is about a great deal of other
things.
The people so concerned about health effects of drugs might do
better to direct their attentions against pollution caused by the cars
they drive/packaging they throw away/energy they pay for/etcetcetc
Pollution is everyones concern, with a great health impact than
5000 LSD tabs.
> etc etc..One word. Responsibility. individual and personal
> responsibility for actions that one may permit to occur while under
> the influence of drugs/alcohol...
Agian, this rule must be implemented to influence the behaviour of
ALL, not just drugs ab/users.
Walpurgis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.noumenal.net/exiles
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the government police
and other authorities can, with out a court order, demand that phone
companies, internet service providers and postal operators hand over
detailed information on individuals such as their name and address, phone
calls made and received, source and destination of emails, the identity of
websites visited and mobile phone location data, which is capable of
revealing the user's whereabouts at any given time and is accurate to
within a few hundred metres.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,7369,731074,00.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:15 MDT