Posted on 05/31/2007 11:33:44 AM PDT by Jay777
It truly is a sad thing that he has contracted this disease, but it is a real necessity to prevent its spread. If being locked up is the price for that, then so be it. I can probably think of better places than a jail to accomplish that, though, in the long run.
Such quarantine power could be abused, but that would be easily determined through testing.
I would accept this based on the deadliness of the disease rather than the degree of its communicability, excepting, of course, those diseases that are not at all communicable.
The ACLU has fought to expose the public to murderers, drug traffickers, and child pornographers. So no one should be surprised.
So you wouldnt quarantine people with ebola or incurable TB?
Quarantine, yes. But in prison with no television and no amenities?
So since you aren’t willing to take responsibility for keeping this guy away from the public, stop whining about the government doing it.
IF the guy wont quarantine himself he IS a criminal and wannabe mass murderer at that.
There is going to be a lot more of this problem shortly.
So which side should the ACLU be on? When its individual rights they never step up like second amendment cases. They always jump on CIVIL which is communal rights, yet here the person is a threat to the Civilian population and they jump all over to protect his INDIVIDUAL rights?
Most people give up on arguing via logical fallacies after 24 hours or so, but I guess you are not most people.
Apparently, you don't care enough about your family to want to protect them from being exposed to resistant TB, et al. I do care about my family, however, and am glad that this guy was confined since he clearly is so self-centered he won't do it himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.