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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike P. who wrote (296)	7/1/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: Turboe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

There actually has been NO studies about illegal drug use (well one). Any studies you hear quoted are from alcohol studies. The one study at a Georgia manufacturing company found that pot smokers had lower absentee rates and higher review scores.

To: Mike P. who wrote (296)	7/1/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

poet, do you completely discount the cost of enforcing drug prohibition? You seem to assume that it would cost more if legalization were to take place, but can you not recognize that there would be another side to the balance sheet? The basic problem I see with your premise is that it's ok to infringe on the rights of peaceable people if it saves you a buck. Forced slave labor in prison would save lots of money, do you think that's ok? It is not right to punish those that do no harm. If you have to punish people who do no harm in order to punish a few that do, it is wrong. Equal protection under the law says to me that each illegal act should result in a violation of someone else's rights. You cannot argue that because someone who cost you money has a commonality with others that don't, that it's ok to punish those who don't, "for the greater good". Barb