🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <tarrall.724310136@qso> tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon) writes:
>>From your remarks, can I assume you support mandatory drug tests for
>>all students in public schools and colleges, or even 
>>schools that receive some government grant money? After all, you don't
>>have to attend such a school and if you are going to benefit from
>>government-funded education (by your logic) isn't it reasonable for
>>the government to require that you prove you don't use drugs?

>No, I definitely don't support such drug testing.  First, I'd want them
>to show that a positive result on a drug test means that you have
>caused someone harm (besides yourself) or endangered someone else's
>health or well-being.  A urine test shows only that you consumed the
>drug within a certain time period.

From the discussion of drunk driving, this doesn't seem necessary: All
that is required is that the majority of the voters feel the act
is harmfull. That's why driving with a BAC of 0.04 is legal while one
of 0.05 is not: The majority made an arbitrary decision about the harm done.
If the majority of the people felt drug use was harmfull (for all the
doubtfull reasons argued by the War on Drugs people), would this 
satisfy your objection? If not, how is this different from the
majoritarian decision about drunk driving and BAC levels? (Other, of course,
than logic along the lines of "repression by the majority is ok, as
long as I'm part of the majority...")

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder