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