What is "freedom"? - Page 4

jaguar · 03-11-2004, 03:33 PM

It becomes more grey than you're willing to admit. It's fairly hard to ignore the link between hard drug use and participation is various crimes. Pretending they're not linked and treating them such is to be too blinkered to see the bigger picture.

On the other hand if i follow my own logic all the way through you are, at least on a theoretical level, correct.

I need to get some thick socks, the floor just froze.

smoothmoniker · 03-11-2004, 05:22 PM

If there is a causal link between drug use and community harm, then it no longer becomes a simple case of personal freedom.

If 90% of heroin users reach a state where they do damage to someone else's person or property (theft, etc.) or to where they require the resources of the community to sustain them (welfare, medicare, emergency room care), which they cannot pay for, then their expression of freedom comes at a cost to the community. At that point the community has the right to limit the activity that leads to the violation.

-sm

Radar · 03-11-2004, 06:31 PM

The link between hard drug users and crime is almost entirely due to the fact that those drugs are prohibited. Black markets normally made up of criminals are more than happy to supply people because prohibition drives the cost of these drugs to 14,000% or more of the price they would be if they were legal. Addicts can't afford these prices and commit crimes so they can pay for what they need.

If drugs were legal, the criminal element would be removed, drugs would be safer, and the price of drugs would be so cheap that those addicted to them would be able to afford them without stealing or committing crimes against others.

So any link between drug use that might exist is irrelevant because it would be gone were drugs legal. And as far as medical costs, treatment, etc. go, I'm against the government forcing anyone to provide healthcare. Healthcare is not a right. Nobody has a right to any product or service they don't pay for. But even if we did have government treat addicts, it would cost probably less than 10% of what we pay currently to jail them.

Griff · 03-11-2004, 06:37 PM

We are also skipping over the fact that inexpensive to produce, relatively benign drugs get replaced by dangerous crap when the benign stuff gets hard to find because it's illegal.

Troubleshooter · 03-11-2004, 08:21 PM

Quote:

quote:One component people leave out of freedom is the freedom to suffer the consequences of their actions.

You'll note I didn't leave that out. I specifically mentioned it because there is no freedom without responsibility.

I wasn't speaking of you in particular, just in general. It's a major element of many of todays ideas leave out personal responsibilty for blind causality.

03-11-2004, 03:33 PM	#46
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	It becomes more grey than you're willing to admit. It's fairly hard to ignore the link between hard drug use and participation is various crimes. Pretending they're not linked and treating them such is to be too blinkered to see the bigger picture. On the other hand if i follow my own logic all the way through you are, at least on a theoretical level, correct. I need to get some thick socks, the floor just froze. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-11-2004, 06:31 PM	#48
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	The link between hard drug users and crime is almost entirely due to the fact that those drugs are prohibited. Black markets normally made up of criminals are more than happy to supply people because prohibition drives the cost of these drugs to 14,000% or more of the price they would be if they were legal. Addicts can't afford these prices and commit crimes so they can pay for what they need. If drugs were legal, the criminal element would be removed, drugs would be safer, and the price of drugs would be so cheap that those addicted to them would be able to afford them without stealing or committing crimes against others. So any link between drug use that might exist is irrelevant because it would be gone were drugs legal. And as far as medical costs, treatment, etc. go, I'm against the government forcing anyone to provide healthcare. Healthcare is not a right. Nobody has a right to any product or service they don't pay for. But even if we did have government treat addicts, it would cost probably less than 10% of what we pay currently to jail them. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin Last edited by Radar; 03-11-2004 at 06:34 PM.

03-11-2004, 06:37 PM	#49
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	We are also skipping over the fact that inexpensive to produce, relatively benign drugs get replaced by dangerous crap when the benign stuff gets hard to find because it's illegal. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

03-11-2004, 05:22 PM	#47
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	If there is a causal link between drug use and community harm, then it no longer becomes a simple case of personal freedom. If 90% of heroin users reach a state where they do damage to someone else's person or property (theft, etc.) or to where they require the resources of the community to sustain them (welfare, medicare, emergency room care), which they cannot pay for, then their expression of freedom comes at a cost to the community. At that point the community has the right to limit the activity that leads to the violation. -sm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)