XPost: uk.politics.drugs, uk.legal
From: pxhxz@cadence.com
In article "Aidy" writes:
>"Cynic" wrote in message
>news:scl145dip13plktg8eiaf64dqh1asl7rhq@4ax.com...
>> if you want to prevent the shootings, you need to stop people from
>> *wanting* to pull triggers, and so you have to start looking at the
>> reasons they did so and see if you can remove those reasons.
>So what you're saying is that personal responsibility doesn't exist and
>no-one is to blame for what they do?
Actually, he's saying the exact opposite. He's saying you have to look at
what causes people to do the bad things they do and address those issues.
That is the epitome of personal responsibility.
Being irresponsible is ignoring the root causes of violance and allowing those
causes to fester.
>If a junkie burgles a house then drugs and prohibition are to blame, not the
>junkie? If someone is shot then the person who made that person want to
>shoot is to blame and not the person that pulled the trigger? At point *do*
>you hold someone responsible for their actions?
There are several things to blame when a junkie burgles the house. One is the
junkie, but another is the situation that leads to the junkie not being able
to hold down a job or afford his drug of choice due to prohibition.
How many people are burgling to support their tobacco addictions or alcohol
habits?
And even in the case of illegal drug users, the majority are not burgling to
support their habit or addiction.
Through prohibition you criminalize (or "criminalise", if you prefer) all of
the users, whether or not they are committing other crimes. Through
legalization (or "legalisation") you would only need to go after those who
are committing real crimes, and you could leave the others alone.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
"How wonderful opera would be if there were no singers."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
