posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 02:14 AM
The first thing I'll say is that I would not judge any of these issues on the grounds of morality or personal preference.
Prostitution That's the easy one; it's a slam dunk. Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. Why isn't selling screwing legal? Nothing tangible
happens in prostitution that doesn't happen in promiscuous sex, except of course for commerce, and last time I checked commerce was a good thing. If
there is no constitutional grounds to outlaw promiscuous sex, then there's no grounds to outlaw prostitution.
And stand by for chauvanism, but who draws the line on prostitution? I've never used a prostitute, but I've paid top dollar for sex. It must have
cost me a thousand bucks before things were stable enough in my first relationship that I could opt to stay home without losing my priviledges. And
let's no even go into what the breakup cost me. I heard in a certain movie "you don't pay a (pro) to (do) you. you pay her to leave". Well boy did
I do that.
Gambling Really another slam dunk to a certain degree. It aint against the law to throw your money away. The only possible snag is for
compulsives. If you've got bad debts or commit crimes related to gambling, you've gotta be pulled out of the game and given a good reason to stay
out, because now you're hurting others to support your obsession.
Now that I've got that out of the way, "drugs" is generally not a very useful word. Accusing someone of "doing drugs"is a lot like accusing them
of "committing crimes". Are we talking about failing to wear your seatbelt or are we talking about murder 1? Are we talking about nicotine or
It's still a tricky subject though, because it's difficult to articulate a standard that you'd never waiver from. For instance, alcohol clearly
does become addictive to certain people and is associated with many public bads ranging from severe health risks to accidents to the comission of
crime under the influence or for the purpose of obtaining. Yet for most of us, it's clear that alcohol doesn't warrant prohibition.
Yet the exact same standards would be the arguments used against meth amphedamine (the affects of which I have seen in family members and friends, and
I can assure you that meth amphedamine is a severe threat to the public in areas where it is produced and distributed in substantial amounts- having
spent a lot of time in the scene of the movie "Salton Sea" I would know a thing or two about that).
I stumbled across the answer by seting aside the standard for a minute and questioning enforcement. The costs (both financial and social) of our
prison system simply are not justified by the benefits of total enforcement.
So if we cut down enforcement to the must-catch cases, we find the standard for legality as well.
Drugs known to have lingering effects must not be consumed by drivers or operators of other dangerous equipment. I've done a lot of work around
machinery that will literally chewup up and spit you out the split second you stop respecting it- conveyor systems, bull dozers, mining trucks,
cranes, aggregate crushers, etc. I've seen sober guys dang near say good night just because they'd been putting in too much overtime, and I
definately don't want a crashing tweaker or a zoned out stoner standing near my equipment or operating equipment near me.
A person who is convicted of a drug-related crime should thereafter be subject to a prison term if they go back to using, with the penalty depending
upon the severity of the crime the individual committed in relation to that drug. For example, if you shoplift liquor, your next drink should land you
some community service. You kill somebody for crack, do 20 years, get out and go back to crack- you're going in for all day because we can't have
you killing somebody else to get crack.
But you know what, if you can smoke crack without screwing up anyone's life but your own, thats on you. Do us all a favor and OD as soon as possible,
but we don't need to waste our money putting you up at the Hotel California.
There's manufacture to consider though. Non-organic drugs have to be created in a licnsed and safe lab. No meth labs next door to my house please,
especially if it's a duplex. And of course sales. What's the point in letting the American people do anything that makes them happy unless you can
tax the holy hell out of it? Only seems fair that the companies who profit from it and the people who take the risks should cover the costs for those
who screw up. Tax the crack factory so that we can build prisons to house the pistol-packin' crackheads. Only fair really.
That being said, personally I think a lot more goes into gambling than a table and some friggin cards. I love Vegas and I don't want vegas put out of
business because every 7-11 in America has a slot machine.
I also hate most "hard drugs"- I've got some understanding for E and the VERY VERY occasional line of coke, but you know, there's seldom such a
thing as occasional, so I'm willing to live with out it so I don't have to deal with cokeheads. I've been in one too many fights with high strung
coke fiends already, and I've only been in one. I particularly hate tweakers and slammers of all breeds. I can't believe the crap they pull. It's
puts me out more than usual when the tweaker in question is a member of my immediate family though, and I've been through that two times too many
And prostitution... knock yourself out, I honestly don't care. Not my thing for a variety of reasons, some of them of a personal nature and others of
a graphic sexual nature, but suffice it to say that on many levels a pro would fall short of what I'm looking for. If you're that easy to satisfy
there must be a lot wrong with you for you to have to pay for it. That's why God invented damaged goods.