Drug Prohibitions

I was unaware that Tanneries cause heavy pollution.

But someone using drugs in their home without neglecting their dependents or harming others is not violating the rights of any and therefore untouchable.

I was under the assumption that drug prohibition supporters knew that drug usage does not in and of itself violate anyone's rights, and therefore they only wish to control the percieved wrong behavior of another. Like a parent in partial ownership of their child.

Ivory Fury wrote:

I was unaware that Tanneries cause heavy pollution.

They also smell really bad. You need to get out more.

Ivory Fury wrote:

But someone using drugs in their home without neglecting their dependents or harming others is not violating the rights of any and therefore untouchable.

You think that the only justifiable regulation is one that prevents someone from violating another's rights? What about traffic laws? Is if justifiable for the state to require a driver to stop at a red light?

Ivory Fury wrote:

I was under the assumption that drug prohibition supporters knew that drug usage does not in and of itself violate anyone's rights, and therefore they only wish to control the percieved wrong behavior of another. Like a parent in partial ownership of their child.

A parent doesn't even partially own a child. A parent has zero ownership interest in a child. We gave up ownership of other humans back in the 1860s.

I agree in principle on the matter that one can injest or inject what one chooses to. My grown up self has seen so many messed up lives from meth, a few from cocaine, dozens from alcohol, enough to give my pause regarding my own demand for complete freedom sans regulation.

Lots of people making meth in their trailers have explosions occur, with deep messes following. I've had a guy on meth - or more correctly, trying to stay off of meth, or maybe he was back on, chase me around my own house. Er, thanks anyway. People who drink, and I am one, sometimes endanger others in their own homes and on the streets. (I don't drive with alcohol in my system, and I don't attack others in my home, but some people on alcohol sure do.)

So, my answer to myself is that the ingesting is people's own business but the aggression or lack of motor control thereafter is prohibited when it affects other people/public safety..and even public space. And that is hard to separate as the aggression, etc. is a function, to some extent, of the nature of some drugs. OK, take roids for example.

I agree that prohibition has brought undertable sales, giant gang distribution networks with concommitant criminality, and sometimes dilution of goods with some poisons.
But... easily gotten goods have wrecked some communities or at least decimated the fragile - crack cocaine, for example.

And what one chooses as an adult is one thing, and chooses at age eleven when mad at one's parents, is another.

I would like to see drugs decriminalized, would vote for it, unless the particular wording struck me as wrong, but think it is not all so easy to just decriminalize wisely. I'd also like to see helper facilities to treat people who can't handle availability.

I'd like to see the world (sigh) rearranged so so many people weren't needing to obliterate themselves in drug use - but instead knew how to use it smartly. Oh, say, like italians and wine.

In any case, I don't think fury and slavery assertions are all so useful for change-making. Simple hard work to get out the vote among people who don't vote because they are disenchanted seems a better bet to me.

I need to get out more??? Because I haven't seen or smelled a Tannery? Ok.

Two reasons you've got to stop at a red light. One, by blowing through it, you pose an active threat to the lives of well being of driver's around you, violation of their rights.

Two, public roads are State property, if they own it, you have to abide by their safety regulations when you're on their property.

For all intents and purposes, parents are in partial ownership of their children until they reach adulthood. If a child runs away, the guardians can ask the Police to get them back. A Parent can force a child to go to their room for bad behavior, or eat certain food, or do their homework, etc... Certain things that a child does require permission from the parents first. If that doesn't show ownership, what does?