A) The collective GOOD is NOT a reason to imfringe on individual rights...WE DID NOT AGREE ON THAT! I stated that when one individual pursues his rights to the detriment of another's rights, then the first individual should be penalized in some way (his band should be fined, a murderer should be jailed). Laws CAN be designed and ARE based on the concept of individual rights. Laws that claim a "collective good" immediately EXCLUDE large numbers of individuals and are oppressive. There is a very LARGE and OBVIOUS gulf between your view and the Libertarian view on this issue. I challenge you to find a law based on individual rights that excludes people. I challenge you to show me a law based on the "collective good" that doesn't exclude people.
B) More man hours and productive time is lost to cigarettes and alcohol than any other drug. I watch an average of 10-15 people stand outside smoking cigarettes outside my office building AT ANY POINT in time each day. Some go down 3 or more times each day. They are unproductive during these times. Many of them have, or will, see a doctor for respiratory or heart problems...adding to their unproductive time and ADDITIONALLY costing society $$$ for treatment (either because their behavior raises premiums or they take tax dollars for treatment). They may visit dentists to clean teeth tarred by smoking...more lost time.
Alcoholics face similar situations. I just got off the phone with a client who isn't an alcoholic, but was out drinking last night and is unable to perform his job at a satisfactory level right now...and may leave early.
Point is, just because it's legal DOESN'T make it MORE VALID.
Finally, think about the cost of the "Drug War" and if you can collect the #'s that show that there would be an increase in drug use due to legalization that would cost more the the "War" already does (combined with current lost productivity levels), then I will concede the cost issue. However, Kurt Schmoke - mayor of Baltimore - has already substantiated that there are more costs associated with outlawed drugs than there would be with legalizing them. Problem is, politicians have marginalized him. Probably because he's a black mayor of a once decrepit city (he's done a fabulous job of cleaning it up, though).
C) You made the Libertarian point valid in your sentence which stated that if you thought someone was rippin stoned, you'd walk away. That is all you can, and should do. The company, as a business institution, has the right to test its employees, because employees are an investment...they also have the right to hire and fire as they see fit. If it's drugs...that's the company's right. If it's sex, fine. Companies do business in a manner they feel is conducive to the culture they establish. They can, and do, develop rules to precipitate business. If you don't want to take a drug test, don't join the company.
D) Cigarettes ARE mildly mind altering. Ever see a person try and quit? They tend to do MANY things they wouldn't if they were smoking...eat, get jittery, talk alot....
When I first tried cigarettes, I got a buzz like I couldn't believe. It continued for the first few I tried, but I never got past my 5th or 6th cigarette. Damn stuff made me sick. Still, a buzz I got, as did my friends. It is well documented that nicotine has a mild narcotic effect.
E) I don't understand your comment on the Netherlands....
F) Voting - that's the whole point. Our cause is legitimate and valid. That is why we will prevail. |
