Oh, the band in the middle of the night...someone else responded first...I didn't see the need.
Look, if a band in the middle of the night plays and disturbs the peace, then they are disturbing the individual rights of other people. Remember, individual rights ARE supported - but not if other people's rights are infringed upon. While the band can assert it is their right to play (and it is), they cannot make a valid argument that other people in the neighborhood DON'T have the right to sleep in order for them to play. So, individual rights are still being upheld. Your argument is invalid...individual rights remain paramount.
Now, explain how drug use creates infringement on the rights of anyone other than the user. In the rare instances where it does, there is clear and consequential actions that can be taken (as I have already clearly pointed out). Net result is that the drug use still remains a private issue.
Again, you need to look at alcohol and cigarettes. Equally dangerous, yet we accept them as drugs that people can make an individual choice on...I am astounded that you can't understand the parallels there. You would be the first person I have discussed this with who hasn't.
As far as using any country (Russia, China, Netherlands) as an example...it just depends on the point you want to make it on. Despite their drawbacks, all these countries have certain aspects to them that we may want to draw upon - either for learning purposes or actual practical use.
As far as drug use is concerned, it matters not a whit if the Netherlands were a Fascist, a Communist, or a Socialist country. As I have stated, their enlightened views on drug use have led to dramatic reductions in drug-related crime...Why that confuses or humors you is, well, just because you don't want to look at the facts. Lots of countries that you MIGHT call Socialist are nothing of the sort, Netherlands included. Even Ayn Rand recognized the difference between the mixed economy and pure Socialism. By your standards, the US is probably a Socialist state. I would argue heartily, and win easily, that it IS NOT. It is a mixed economy (for better or worse). And DESPITE being a Socialist or a Mixed Economy, it is quite possible that they have CERTAIN enlightened views vis-a-vis personal liberties.
Example - Tony Blair's mildly Socialist Labor Party is HIGHLY enlightened with regard to age of consent for homosexuality...they are working to lower the age limit to 16 - the same as for heterosexuals. THAT is the right thing to do...Now, I DON'T agree fundamentally with Blair's economic views, but the fact is he hit the nail on the head on this one issue.
I WILL ignore the incessant, obnoxious, and irrelevant ramblings which ended what started as a reasonably intelligent post. |
