-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, jgrubs@voxbox.norden1.com writes:

jamiel@sybase.com (Jamie Lawrence) writes:

...

It does amaze me that what can be a victimless activity is such a hotbutton.

Drugs are victimless? What about crack babies, which cost a million dollars EACH in medical care, btw.

And just where is the requirement to support such babies graven in stone? Yes, flame bait for sure. But please remember that the only victim of the usage of drugs is the drug user. In the case of women of childbearing age, this can possibly extend to a conceived child, but that is the responsibility of the _mother_, not of society at large. Why should society choose to support a crack baby, anyway? Is the mother not responsible for her own pregnancy, and, by extension, the dependant condition of her child? So long as we, as a society, wrest personal responsibility from the person, your argument will continue to be propogated. Understand that I am an avowed Social Darwinist, so I don't even support the idea of state-sponsored welfare. In my view (and you are not required to agree), people should be free to do anything that does not adversely affect another's life. If such a person makes the choice to become addicted to noxious drugs, there should be no support from society. The loss of this person from the breeding pool will benefit future generations. Flame by email, if you must flame, and spare the list the noise. - -- Roy M. Silvernail -- roy@cybrspc.mn.org "Usenet: It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye." --Jason Kastner<jason@wagner.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLtFpdhvikii9febJAQHxrwQAkmjyYV4x/HsxHgySN6ZB3yKeYvAsQlpm //Cu+YS283iCFVFGMb04uYVtfUbVbQM58B96Cd1KnNQ5hEiT3W8SNefql1hG/aVc pgHaH+honJ8KZpQXFB8VUao++hou7UJ5ZFRpi686O8SYknDMkr0DiL+QM7592qkW Vtmp7pPjFe8= =vQMW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----