|
| Chris - 6/21/2018 12:05 Ran across this blog on reddit.com, You might skip ahead to the">John Stuart Mill and the Role of the State" part of the article. I think the emphasis on personal harm and state interest is incorrect. Because we rely on each individual to produce for the benefit of the community, having one individual not producing harms the community. Proof is quite simple, welfare recipients generally only take from the well being of producers. That lowers the standard of living for everybody.
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2018/06/should-all-drugs-be-legalised.html
I'm going to politely call BS on that assertion. We aren't a socialist society where everyone has to pull the same weight. I don't agree with welfare, but to act like they're dragging us down and holding us back is a fallacy. How, exactly, would your life benefit if one person who is a dead weight started working? Would you even notice? Your assertion (regarding drugs = laziness) implies that drugs are the reason said users are not contributing to society. How do you know their drug use is the cause of laziness? What if their down time is the REASON for drug use? Painting with a broad brush on this topic doesn't do anyone any good. I'd like to refer you to FBI statistics on what drug criminalization actually costs us. With legal fees, state resources and jail costs, imprisoning a non-violent person costs us WAY more than the loss of whatever taxes or production output that one person would contribute. Freedom and liberty to do as one pleases aside, I'd think the anti-drug and small government "conservatives" would rather not spend taxpayer money on these people and just let them do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else. But then again, I've noticed these "conservatives" are only small government and pro-freedom when it's convenient for them.
Edited by Desk Jockey 6/21/2018 12:08
| |
|
if you want to waste some time re:legalizing drugs
