Quote:
Quote:
What is the difference between the negligence of letting food be contaminated and getting so high you decide to drive a car and end up plowing right into a family car, killing everyone inside?


The difference is huge, and its right in your post. The key is the "you decide" part.
I don't understand your distinction. In both cases someone has made a decision that affects others. In the case of the contamination I will assume it is a failure to properly handle food in a safe way and determine that it is clear of contaminates. The contamination is a natural result of the irresponsibility of the provider. In the case of drugs causing suffering to others, it was the irresponsible use of mind altering drugs that caused the problem. The question is whether you'll do better dealing with the cause rather than the effect, and that's not always an easy question. It often depends on how often the cause leads to the effect. With drugs it is certainly true that some variations bring a higher degree of risk to others.

Quote:
Quote:
I understand that at that point you'd say to prosecute for the bad decision to drive while high, drug use or no, but this isn't much consolation for the loved ones of the people who died.


There is no way to stop these kinds of acts from happening, but we can hold people accountable when they do.
Yes we CAN stop these kinds of things from happening, or at least lessen them. We can make it more difficult for people to obtain substances that will cause them to act in irrational and dangerous ways. Unfortunately, doing so can create more problems than it solves, and that's why these questions get so difficult. You and I have both experienced the negative sides of this.

Quote:
You believe that people, left to their own devices, will become a "nation full of drug abusers." In other words, at your very core, you believe that without external coercion people will destroy their lives and the lives of those around them. This point of view is closely tied to religious conservatism, and has been called an "ascending view" -- people are inherently evil and must be controlled, either by the state or by the threat of eternal punishment.
Here you are right about my view of human nature- it's pretty much an impass between our worldviews. I don't believe the state should control people for their own well being, but I do think the state needs to control people for the well being of others.

Quote:
I believe this is completely ridiculous.
Such is the evaluation of most with differing viewpoints. I don't think very highly of the concept that people left to their own devices will treat each other the way they ought and make choices that are responsible toward others.

Quote:
Even if it were true, I believe it is nobody's business but my own if I choose to lead a self-destructive life.
Once again, it's not about what you might do to yourself, but what you might do to other people.

Quote:
At root, however, I think I have a much higher view of man than you do.
Correct. I believe that man is inherintly flawed, meaning my view of man's nature is quite low.

Quote:
Well, your fears do not give you the right to impose your own values (which may themselves be fear-based) on others.
My view is not to impose my values on other people through law or politics, though I do try to convince other people of the benifits to my value system. Once again, the issue is when living a destructive life affects other people. There are plenty of things that I think should be legal even though I personally hold them to be wrong and immoral.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.