[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Admiral Inman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In list.cypherpunks, [email protected] writes:
> [email protected] (Jamie Lawrence) writes:
>
>> It does amaze me that what can be a victimless activity is such
>> a hotbutton.
>
> Drugs are victimless? What about crack babies, which cost a million
> dollars EACH in medical care, btw.
And just where is the requirement to support such babies graven in
stone?
Yes, flame bait for sure. But please remember that the only victim of
the usage of drugs is the drug user. In the case of women of
childbearing age, this can possibly extend to a conceived child, but
that is the responsibility of the _mother_, not of society at large.
Why should society choose to support a crack baby, anyway? Is the
mother not responsible for her own pregnancy, and, by extension, the
dependant condition of her child?
So long as we, as a society, wrest personal responsibility from the
person, your argument will continue to be propogated.
Understand that I am an avowed Social Darwinist, so I don't even support
the idea of state-sponsored welfare. In my view (and you are not
required to agree), people should be free to do anything that does not
adversely affect another's life. If such a person makes the choice to
become addicted to noxious drugs, there should be no support from
society. The loss of this person from the breeding pool will benefit
future generations.
Flame by email, if you must flame, and spare the list the noise.
- --
Roy M. Silvernail -- [email protected]
"Usenet: It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye."
--Jason Kastner<[email protected]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1
iQCVAwUBLtFpdhvikii9febJAQHxrwQAkmjyYV4x/HsxHgySN6ZB3yKeYvAsQlpm
//Cu+YS283iCFVFGMb04uYVtfUbVbQM58B96Cd1KnNQ5hEiT3W8SNefql1hG/aVc
pgHaH+honJ8KZpQXFB8VUao++hou7UJ5ZFRpi686O8SYknDMkr0DiL+QM7592qkW
Vtmp7pPjFe8=
=vQMW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----