|
|
:: 9.29.2003 ::
I'd just like to say one more thing, something I thought of last night.
Your government's main purpose is to protect you. Period. There is no other reason for it to exist. If it you are harmed, it is not fulfilling its purpose.
Our government has the directive that its citizens have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The only reason to abridge any of those rights is if one citizen interferes with the rights of another citizen.
There's an old adage, "Your freedom to swing your arms around ends at the tip of my nose."
Not before it.
Therefore, a government that arrests a man for cultivating a particular plant IS NOT DOING ITS JOB. In fact, it is acting against its own prime directive - to keep that man from harm. A felony charge means that man can no longer vote, i.e. can no longer participate in the system of government that has deprived him (and can do so again) of his most basic rights. This, to me, falls under the definition of harmful: "causing damage or injury."
The issue gets a little grayer when you're talking about self-abuse. Should the government step in to prevent someone from harming themselves? Does "step in" necessarily mean "make an arrest"? There's drug abuse, and suicide... but what about a bulemic, or someone who cuts themselves when they're upset? How about someone who smokes 3 packs a day? All of these are self-harming behaviors, but I certainly don't think the government should be interfering with them.
What do you think?
:: Deb 2:18 PM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::  
|
