02-01-2005, 09:17 AM
kandrathe,Feb 1 2005, 02:26 AM Wrote:>Shudder<
Using your example; would it be better for the kids to be raised in a household where daddy gets high, or where daddy is locked away for 5-10 for drug use?
would be better than no daddy at all.
[right][snapback]66793[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, I'm not sure where you got that from.
Protecting those that cannot protect themselves was a reference to:
a ) Children living in households with substance abuse (alcohol, smoking, drugs) etc. Or even not abuse but increased exposure. Decriminalisation will increase usage (or is this disputed?), increasing the number of children that will be exposed within the home.
b ) Protecting non-users from the users. Just like the drug testing example showed. 1/100 drivers in that sample were under the influence of drugs. That's bad enough, but do you really want the numbers to increase?
As to your example, again I'll state that it is just my opinion, but I would prefer the person locked up. Better no influence than a harmful one.
As to asking you to pay for it, I'm not sure where I said that either.