Quote:
Originally posted by narwhal
Reread, Mike. I stated in my post that my term was recreational, I didn't mean to imply any meaning you attach to the word, but was creating a distinction, where obviously one exists. Are kids harmed when their single father od's on oxycontin and dies in front of them. You are arguing this point just to argument's sake now. You take the position that the government can't tell someone not to do certain drugs, but can tell Thrillbilly not to steal your music off of the internet? 
|
OK, I missed this one earlier.
Kids are harmed when a father dies of ANYTHING...does that mean we're not going to allow fathers to ever leave the house? It's more idiot-proofing again, and I am VEHEMENTLY against such things. We can't protect EVERYONE from EVERYTHING, including themselves!
Yes, the government should not tell you what you may put or not put into your body. It's your body, your life, your health, your morals, your decision. There is ALWAYS a DEFINITE, individually identifiable victim--the OWNER--when you steal music, or anything else. There is NOT a victim when you simply ingest a substance. The act of taking a substance, ANY substance, should not be criminalized. The two are not comparable in that way at all.
Mike