Posted on 12/03/2001 11:53:17 PM PST by FF578
It never fails to amuze me utterly how some people here will throw in the most asinine non sequitur to try to associate something they disapprove of (drugs) with something that every sane person would disapprove of (child molestation). When someone has to resort to this kind of specious nexus, it's apparent that they have no credibility and no merit to their own argument.
Sexual exploitation of children is no different from exposing them to hashish/heroin fumes in the home.
Respectfully, sir/madam, there is no similarity whatsoever and you do a grave injustice to the victims of child sexual abuse to say there is. Beyond that ill twist of logic, I would presume that most people who may be doing drugs are doing it out of the view of their children, rather than grabbing them by the throat and blowing the smoke in their faces.
Enough with the Reefer Madness nonsense.
Nope, you're wrong. I've seen it smoked. And hash is a close variant of weed. And it would be more widely used if there were non limits on drug use.
See, there are TWO PEOPLE involved in your scenario. See where you have gone wrong?
Wrong again. When one uses drugs, others are affected unwillingly. But, you know, I wouldn't be against enclosed isolated places where the drug users could do it to their heart's content. JUST NOT AMONG UNWILLING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY!
What!? Reefer Madness isn't the truth? How can that be? Wasn't it put out by the all-mighty, all-knowing gubmint? That means it must be true!
First of all, that is not my principle. I believe the consequences for one's actions should be punished harshly. If the initial action has no consequences that go beyond the user, than the action's shouldn't be punished. However, to compare second hand smoke/fumes to the sexual explotiation of a child is so asinine that it boggles the mind. It's like comparing jaywalking to rape.
The Constitution limits the power of government, and only deliniates certain rights which are "God Given." It is not the purpose of the document to list every right held by man.
I am wrong that it takes two people to constitute sexual abuse, but only one to ingest "drugs"? Ok. You are right.
When one uses drugs, others are affected unwillingly.
No one is unwillingly affected. You willingly put up with a spouse, child, family member or friend who abuses drugs. You let others abuse affect you. People have OPTIONS, and they are not always easy.
But, you know, I wouldn't be against enclosed isolated places where the drug users could do it to their heart's content. JUST NOT AMONG UNWILLING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY!
When are people forced to be around drug use? You have CHOICES!! If you are being held down and forced to inhale something, that is a crime. Your scenario sounds a whole lot like the way alcohol is treated. You know, it is illegal to be PUBLICALLY DRUNK!?!?
Secondly, regarding your argument, you are again dictating legality of the possession of an object based upon only your desires.
And again, you started by making a silly, illogical argument comparing "child abuse" and "voluntary drugs use". You are not getting any further with, "let me dictate where possession is legal".
Thats not the point.
"SOCIETY" has a "right" to defend itself?
The VILLAGE will rule our life, eh Hillary?
So you apparently approve of taking my money and using it to control the peaceful, consensual actions of others all in the name of the state.
That makes you a thief, socialist and and marxist.
Your true colors are showing
By your reasoning, society should permit the sexual abuse of children because it is your desire. Sexual exploitation of children is no different from exposing them to hashish/heroin fumes in the home.
So sorry dear, that is your faulty reasoning trying to equate consensual activities of adults with child abuse...It is quite crazy the lengths some will go to defend thier pet projects.
And whose to say all 3 arent "Hopped Up" on alcohol right now ?
After all this time I can't believe people still use that intelectually bankrupt argument. The Constitution does not enumerate all of your rights. It mainly deals with restricting the power of government.
While I dont exactly agree with the libertarian mind set on drugs, I will say this reasoning is flawed. Does the constitution guarantee your right to flush a toilet, sneeze on a train, wear revealing clothing, etc ?
you mean like the privacy of their own home ?
interesting idea
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.