🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec14.170034.1726@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>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
>

Point 1:

	I never voted for any BAC, and neither did you.  You may have voted for
	legislator who shaped these laws (I didn't; I'm too young), but I
	doubt whether you or anyone considered their stance on BAC when
	voting.

Point 2:
	
	How about putting other abitrary limits that affect out lives up to
	vote?  Do you want the masses to decide how many parts per million
	of heavy metals are acceptable in our drinking water.  I am certainly
	unqualified to answer this, and have no desire to pick up that extra
	degree in biochemistry just to find out.

	In summary, no majoritarian opinion exists, and if it did, it would be
	unqualified.
-- 
-Tim Cuffel	Finger for PGP 2.1 

CIA, FBI, terrorism, assassination, cryptography, RSA, cocaine, DEA, Swiss bank
account.