"I want to keep them alive to torture them"

[tod evans]

The reality of drug laws and their proponents..

Suggest making every chemical compound on the planet cheap and easily obtained and they'll scream about people being killed..

Instead it's somehow better or more humane to deprive these people of the chemicals they want to consume and lock their suffering asses away from society.

Think of the financial benefits alone to the average Joe if he wasn't required to fund the "Just-Us" departments torture of druggies........

Within one generation the folks who overdid it would be gone and so would a large percentage of the "Just-Us" departments tax-ticks.

Maybe somebody can 'splain to me how making both the druggies and the tax-payers suffer is better than letting nature take its course?

 

[Root]

^ "It's for the children"

 

[ProIndividual]

The reality of drug laws and their proponents..

Suggest making every chemical compound on the planet cheap and easily obtained and they'll scream about people being killed..

Instead it's somehow better or more humane to deprive these people of the chemicals they want to consume and lock their suffering asses away from society.

Think of the financial benefits alone to the average Joe if he wasn't required to fund the "Just-Us" departments torture of druggies........

Within one generation the folks who overdid it would be gone and so would a large percentage of the "Just-Us" departments tax-ticks.

Maybe somebody can 'splain to me how making both the druggies and the tax-payers suffer is better than letting nature take its course?

This is why I'm against MOST (not all) charity to those who self inflict their wounds (most drug addicts, many single mothers, etc.)...it's just reverse eugenics. It's just as stupid, if not just as unethical, to prop up or create weakness, as it is to artificially destroy or sterilize it. Let nature take its course, and the strongest tend to survive. The weak we should be helping is the weak who would improve their situation by getting that charity. If the weak's situation is highly unlikely to get better (it is instead very likely to stay the same or get worse) with your charity, then your charity is easing your conscience, not actually making anyone any better off. It may sound callous, but mankind is better off to let them die off on their own with no help or hindrance, and to dedicate your charity to the weak who aren't beyond help.

It's just as bad to try and speed up what you think nature will theoretically do anyway (you could always be wrong), as it is to try and slow it down. I'm not for social Darwinism, as I am for charity for those it can help, and for rare diseases where there is little or no market incentive to cure them, and for the poor who just need temporary help, or for disasters (natural or otherwise) that are hard to prevent, etc. But I'm also not for social engineering (and that occurs through coercion, not voluntary acts like charity and receiving charity). If the people want to help the hopeless, go ahead...I wouldn't try to stop it by force. But to help people who won't help themselves is just counterproductive to solving the problems they individually face, to the species as a whole, and to ourselves individually for making a real difference with our charity.