04-15-2005, 07:07 PM
gekko,Apr 15 2005, 01:50 PM Wrote:Crack is a more pure version of cocaine. And that, actually, is the same concept behind my entire argument.
That one can become addicted to anything does not mean we should legalize everything. Some substances are much more likely to be the source of addiction and abuse. Can I tell you exactly where we should draw that line? Absolutely not. Does that mean we shouldn't bother trying? Absolutely not.
Ask someone who works in a drug rehab facility why cocaine is a hard drug, and why its effects are essentially guaranteed to be harmful to everyone involved.
I can drive faster than 90 km/h on the highway without causing an accident. Does that mean we shouldn't have a speed limit?
Our inablility to precisely define when something becomes inherently dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
gekko
[right][snapback]74084[/snapback][/right]
I think you are confusing public safety with personal responsibility.
You would decide for others what is a sufficient source of addiction and abuse for them?
Your car analogy does not hold up. You 'could' stay accident free at high speeds - until you find yourself about to hit someone who just turned onto the highway and doesn't have that 1-90 in three seconds kind of car. ;) (That was pointed out to my husband one fine day when his driving record brought him in for an interview, many years ago.)
If you take a drug, you are still responsible for your behaviour while on that drug. Our Supreme Court threw that one out the window some time ago when a rapist tried to use the 'but I was too drunk to realize' argument.
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.
From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.
From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake