From: Mike Lorrey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 12:20:21 MST
> "Smigrodzki, Rafal" wrote:
> Mike Lorrey [mailto:email@example.com] wrote:
> Such individuals are no longer freely acting adult citizens.
> Furthermore, their acts in pursuit of the next high generally involve
> causing harm or damage or death to other people and their property:
> children and spouses, business associates, creditors, neighbors, etc..
> ### Drug addicts do damage in pursuit of the next high mainly because
> of the artificially inflated drug prices. If crack was available at
> cost+reasonable profit, they could sustain their habit by occasionally
> cutting a lawn (and they would, I am sure).
Yet why is it that both alcohol and gambling are legal activities for
adults in most jurisdictions in the US, yet many perfectly normal adults
completely ruin their lives, and the lives of others (spouse/children
going homeless/malnourished, drunk driving homicides and injuries, etc)?
If the criminality of the substance were the only factor as you claim,
then alcholics and gambling addicts should have no negative impact on
society. The fact they do have one disproves the criminality theory.
> I fully agree with Amara -
> the state should not regulate drug intake by adults, except if
> absolutely unavoidable to limit access to drugs by adolescents, who
> are at the highest risk for becoming addicted.
While I agree that the state should not regulate intake by adults (a
point which I have NEVER disputed, by the way), this does not mean that
addicts should not be held accountable for their actions just as
children and criminals are. Users should be required by their insurance
carriers (even in a libertarian setting) to adequately insure against
the externalities of their potential bad behavior while impaired and/or
addicted. If they do take care of this risk, then they can toke up with
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST