[OWK]

You are setting up a staw man. So unless eternal perfection is achieved it is not worth trying? Laws against murder have yet to stop murder completely. Should we give up on that too?

The difference of course being that murder violates the rights of another human being, whereas drug use in and of itself does not.

Government exists to defend rights. If a drug user violates rights, then by all means hold him accountable, and punish him harshly. Otherwise, leave him the hell alone.

It is your kind of argument (that government should attempt to prohibit inanimate objects which are not criminal in themselves, but might be associated with crimes) that is used by anti-gun activists, anti-alcohol activists, etc.

It's the road to tyranny.

[Texaggie79]

Strawman eh? A nuke is an inanimate object. Want to make it legal to sell them at k-mart? Or does the mere fact of owning a nuke endanger your neighbors to the point where their rights are being violated?

[Bush2000]

The difference of course being that murder violates the rights of another human being, whereas drug use in and of itself does not.

Perhaps you need to reread this article and think over your statement a bit more...

[Zack Nguyen]

My example stands. I was pointing out that the idea that to be effective the WOD must "make it impossible to obtain methamphetamine." It does not. Whether murder violates rights as compared to drug use is really irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Of course murder violates someone's rights to a greater extent than drug use does. It is a valid point and worth discussing. But again, that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.