Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (66152)	11/7/2002 11:33:59 AM
From: coug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Question CH, What does Billy Graham and the Washington Huskies foosball team have in common? Answer; Both can make 65,000 people stand up and shout "Jesus Christ".

To: The Philosopher who wrote (66152)	11/7/2002 11:49:58 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In order for your argument to work you have to do what I call encapsulation. A man has some spare time for recreation; so, in his home he is tooting some cocaine and drinking beers. He is experiencing a high for a while, then goes to sleep. When he awakens he takes care of the more mudaine aspects of his life, work, laundry, taking daughter to violin lessons etc. Fine and dandy, maybe during the rec period he bumps his head or something but as you say that could have happened while scuba diving. People do die while on drugs but they also die inevitably whether on drugs or not, whether engaging in risk taking behavior or not. None of this is a problem for me. If we can keep things in this capsule I am in total agreement with you. However, the 100 men in the domestic violence program all admit that they were using at the time (not busted for illegal use). The 100 children who never knew their fathers were the product of a couple of people getting high on the weekend. Chemical use was a factor in 97% of the fatal accidents that occured last weekend. Etc, etc, etc. "But IMO, society has no business entering the home and telling people what they can and can't do with their lives when there is no reasonable possibility of harm to other people." ...when there is no reasonable possibility of harm to other people...when there is no reasonable possibility of harm to other people...when there is no reasonable possibility of harm to other people...when there is no reasonable possibility of harm to other people Reasonable consideration and regard for other members of society would drive all of us to make choices about our behavior in such a way as to guarantee that there is no reasonable risk of harm to others. The statistics do not support the contention that just because people are at the age of adulthood they will behave reasonably. When you deny that the possibility of harm to other people due to chemical abuse in our society is a clear and present danger (to persons other than the users), you encapsulate the issue and lose the ability to apply reason based what can be readily observed as our circumstance. "But if freedom means anything, it means the right to be stupid when you only put yourself at risk." The premise is misapplied in this case since, 1)the chemical use and abuse in our society is typically a social experience that involves not only the participants, and 2) down the road, society at large. The incidental involvement is often tragically devastating to people out side of the use setting.