Re: Collectivism was Re: [WAR] amazing new photo history

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 17:52:06 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: Long term risks"

    On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 Dehede011@aol.com wrote:

    > Now Rafel, as you well know "We" are the people of the US and its several
    > states. If you wish to do dope of any kind including my old favorite Scotch then
    > get the law changed but don't act indignant.

    But there isn't really a "we". The Bill of Rights and a whole bunch
    of ammendments to the Constitution had to do with protecting the
    rights of the minorities (or in some cases, e.g. prohibition,
    trying to control what was probably a majority).

    Historically government has been in large part about control (e.g. cultures
    like Burma, China, Singapore, etc. that now attempt to control speech or
    access to information). "We" largely solved that problem, i.e. you can
    speak freely, but you cannot speak freely in a way that endangers people
    (e.g. shouting "fire" in a theatre when there is none).

    That is the key thing (and the thing we do not have in "drug" legislation,
    prosecution, etc. in the U.S. at this time). I.E. The strategy should be
    that you get to exercise your rights to consume mind altering substances
    but *only* up to the point where they do not impact on my rights (esp.
    safety). Regulations regarding drunk driving seem to be slowly moving in
    that direction (WA state is one of those that has lowered the maximum
    blood alcohol level criteria for drunk driving, setup stricter rules
    regarding young people consuming alcohol, etc.) And then of course one
    has the "automatic" regulation of road speeds that seems to be developing
    in the U.K.

    So slowly we seem to be moving in the direction of regulating the
    potential consequences and not the actual actions themselves -- but that
    has *not* hit most drug legislation in the U.S. yet. Interestingly, if
    one looks at the lawsuits against the tobacco distributors, there is a
    trend that companies that produce long term negative secondary impacts on
    society (e.g. second hand smoke) may be held liable. But if selling drugs
    is illegal there is no company to sue. So how this will all play out
    remains to be seen.

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 18:02:36 MDT