Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:37 PM

  Not correct --

  J

  A mugging by an addict not prevented by the criminal sanction has a victim.

  "The criminal sanction against mugging doesn't prevent anyone from doing it now, addict or non-addict."

  Nor would the victim magically become a non-victim if the addict's dug were legal, and the mugging occurred.

  "And the dealers we create by the black market in drugs are more than wealthy enough to buy you and I many times over."

  And pharmaceuticals are mega-wealthy from selling with legal drugs. There's a difference somewhere?

  "You seem to be buying the gummint's hype, that crime is related to drug use."

  When an addict mugs someone for money to buy drugs, that crime is related to drug use.

  "In the sense that the hungry will steal bread, I suppose it is."

  Gee: Ben Franklin was a victim of the existence of gov't and law! Then turned around and advocated for and even -- gasp! -- participated as a "statist" in the establishing of gov't and rule of law!

  "I told you he was a scary liberal."

  There's no such thing as a "victimless" action, for good or ill, in a society of more than one actor. There are two ways society can/is dealing with drug addiction: medical, paid for by taxpayers, and imprisonment, paid for by taxpayers.

  How many taxpayers, had they the power to choose, would choose to have their tax monies spent in either or both of those ways?

  —JNagarya Read JNagarya's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel