> ^This. Instead of making an argument, I'll just leave an example...
>
> I have a nephew that abuses meth. His mother (my sister) can't stand to see him the
> way he is, she fears for her grand-kids, and (I'm sure) has good reason to be afraid
> of him, since he threatens to do things to her.
>
> So, while I get the idea of 'let people do what they want', to not consider that
> those choices could affect others around them just seems foolish to me.
The point is that if it were legalized and regulated, there would be a robust, government-funded support network. There would be no stigma attached to getting help for addiction, but moreover, there would actually be a viable support network for getting help, rather than the cataclysmic shit-show that currently exists for such things. People that can handle a given recreational chemical would be free to do so. People who can't would have the support they need to throw off that burden. Your situation would simply not be a thing that happens.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support legalizing hard drugs unless such a system were already in-place. You should understand that the libertarian perspective is one of ideals. In practice - where the rubber meets the road, so to speak - it doesn't work quite so well. But it's important to always keep in mind how things could be, rather than always accepting things as they are.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: As of this past Monday I'm now a permanent resident of Sweden.
Reply
