🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2epvuo$hp2@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> fchloupe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Frank R Chloupek) writes:
>In article <1993Dec16.143125.27570@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>I do not want violent criminals out on the streets.  Those who favor
>>drug legalization do not want to remove laws on violent crimes.  We just
>>want to have a principled approach to what is lawful and what is
>>illegal.  If you initiate force against another person, or use fraud, it
>>should be against the law.  The government should be held to these same
>>principles and therefore should not be allowed to initiate force against
>>peaceful individuals using an illegal intoxicant in a manner that harms
>>no one else.  If you abandon the principle of initiation of force to
>>make laws then everything can be made illegal just because 51% think it
>>should be.
>
>BY such a rationale, one should be allowed to...
>
>Own any and all weaponry:  guns, explosives, etc.
>Possess any form of pornography (not to produce, but to own)
>Operate cars or other machinery while intoxicated (so long as no one is hurt)
>Drive at whatever speed they want to.

Not the same.  Every one of the above examples can be shown to be dangerous
to someone *other* the the user/possesor.  Drug use, in and of itself, can
not be shown to be dangerous.  Certainly, it can not be shown to be more
dangerous than acohol usage.

In at least three of the above examples, a person would be presenting
an immediate and present danger to those around them.  This is, in some
sense, initiating force against a person, and a dangerous force at that.

>Frank R. Chloupek   fchloupe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Sean.

---
Sean L. Gilley
sean.l.gilley@att.com
614 236 5031 (h), 614 860 5743 (w)