on the issue of the band we absolutely agree, when the pursuit of happiness by one individual hampers the pursuit of happiness of many others....collective laws are created for a society to adhere too. that is what i stated and if i read it correctly, you concur so lets not argue for the sake that you dont want to come to grips with the fact you agree with my analysis. you say it still lays its foundation in individual rights, i say some laws are necessary that fly directly in the face of individual rights. well, it depends on whether your trying to sleep or your the singer for the band but nevertheless there are times when laws are created that directly oppose an individuals pursuit of happiness. so maybe we both have a point, when you first posted to me you gave me the impression an individual rights is the sole determining factor of all law but i dont believe that. you say they are protecting my rights so its still individual rights, but i say they must hamper someone elses to achieve that. now what if we are the only two houses for ten miles and its just me being aggravated, and yet there are five band members. if its strictly an individuals right issue than they play because its five of their rights to just one of mine. nope. the law does not make the judgement of amount of individual rights, if the law was truly based solely in individual rights, i dont sleep that night. that, fortunately however, is not the case. I see your point and I honestly think we have just reached a point where we will not agree regardless of anything and if this is so, so it will be.........now how this carries over to the original drug thing.
there is a very real substantial financial cost to drug use to everyone in this country right now. It is clear drug use in the country has created a large amount of work days lost, higher workmans comp. cost, disability insurance, and unemployment costs, as well as drug testing costs now in most industries. These are real physical costs to the employer which obviously are passed mainly to the employees in the form of lower wages or higher benefit costs, but are also passed along to consumers in the price of the product. It is basic economics, cost of doing business increases, the costs are passed along to employees and consumers. This effects me, and every other working person in this country. There are also safety issues and such but costs on something like that is more intangible and open to too much speculation and I dont want to argue this with you for the next week. Im afraid your next message is going to address this and tell me point blank that drugs in no way impair a persons ability to do a job and poses no safety threat. I worked in a mill for a while during college, large paper mill, chippers, machines the size of shopping malls, loud, hot, many deadly chemicals etc, very dangerous and if I thought someone next to me was rippin stoned, I would have simply walked because at any minute your life could be in there hands. this is no exaggeration at all. this is why they have on site nurses and random drug tests etc, its dangerous and does cost money, real money, real people, real lives. as far as alcohol in that situation, very easy to tell if someone is crazy enough to go in there hammered, smell, stagger, and such. touch of visine or a new handerkerchief and a pack of tic tacs and alot of people might just not realize if the person working next to them in a situation like that was wired for sound or fried, until maybe you need a split second decision or reaction and the person isnt in the proper state of mind to act appropriately, bit late than.
far as cigarettes, they are in no way mind altering, case had been made for second hand smoke with no real verification but its enough to ban from inside most buildings so as to not put others at risk. fair evolution, i dont particularly have a problem with that turn of events, i just go outside to smoke. the one thing that bothers me with cigarettes is the hypocrisy of dc as usual, they sit there and shed tear after tear about how they are going to save children from cigarettes in an attempt to raise taxes and fill their coffers. I would rather see a ban of cigarettes, they are costing this society huge amounts of money in medical costs and again, they have no benefit to anyone really, except the tax collectors. if they are so bad, ban them, instead of the constant hypocrisy and political football and cash cow and incremental infringement on rights. if they did that I would be happy to quit, I would not have a problem with them being outlawed quite honestly. I know your not going to like that, but it may just be better for our collective society. some things are. we can continue to agree to disagree.
quickly, as far as the netherlands or any other country. nope. If you can build your cause, to the point of getting your proposition on a ballot or getting your elected leaders into a position of power, and the people vote in your favor....all the power to you, you will not hear one argument from me. poet. ps: im working on the writing style thing because i understand its not appreciated. the reason i do this is because i spend a lot of time writing personally, stories and such and its just a hell of a lot easier and faster for me to get things down quickly, if you ever saw any of my first draft writings im sure you would find it fairly offensive. no punctuation, no caps, horrible spelling, and sentences that chop up and run and run, before i can go back and analyze and profread it. if you write at all you know what i mean about brainstorming and a bunch of ideas coming to you all at once and you need to get them down in whatever fashion necessary. its not real pretty but its habit, im trying to pay more attention when i post here....believe it or not, im not here for the sole reason to offend, far from it. |
