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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (6126)	3/13/2007 1:21:37 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

But I see a couple drug legalization advocates here assuring that wouldn't be the case. I'm an advocate of legalization. I don't see any difference between legal and illegal drug use when it comes to child endangerment. It doesn't make any sense to me that the legal system would differentiate, either. The man basis for my support of legalization is my libertarian orientation. People should be able to chose what they ingest/inhale/inject. It's none of the government's business until and unless it threatens someone else. Likewise, people get to keep their kids unless the kids are sufficiently endangered that removal is called for. We should only be depriving folks of their liberties for cause. Drinking is not sufficient cause. Agencies don't go around investigating anyone unless they are informed of abuse or neglect. No, they don't. That's as it should be. But if you call your local agency and report your neighbor who you claim is endangering her kids because she drinks, you're implying that drinking is a sufficient criterion for endangerment. More appropriate, I think, is to report that she often passes out when she drinks leaving the kids insufficiently supervised.