From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 - 12:14:25 GMT
Hi Dan H,
> This makes me wonder many things. One is that I can understand a
> "terrorist" who supports violence to change things is always a threat to
> society...ANY society.
Happy you see you "understand" the terrorist threat.
> Drug Lords are what? Wouldn't they be more of the
> underclass that makes capital off of a product? How are they different from
> a CEO or President of a company? They differ because the drug lords
> produce a product that we feel is "against the law".
Not "we feel" is a product against the law, IS against the law.
> And then hypocrisy
> prevails as the drug lords are lawbreakers but the alcohol companies and
> tobacco companies are just average business people.
Pirsig detects a difference: "Second, there were moral codes that
established the supremacy of the social order over biological life-
conventional morals -proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft
and the like." (Lila, 13)
> So, biologically, isn't
> it wrong to produce and gain wealth from products that are harmful to the
> human body? And if so, why is it only selected products that are harmful
> wrong? Doesn't this tie into the capitalistic theory whereas
> American drug companies make billions off of drugs that counteract other
> drugs that counteract other drugs? We have US companies that physically
> control people and their health for the sake of profit. Do we need to
> restrict specifics for the better ness of our society or do we continue to
> say that some drug lords are terrorists and others are entrepreneurs?
You despise the drug companies that "make billions" but apparently have no
compunctions about drug lords profiting from their dealings. A double
standard, eh what?
If it wasn't for the social cost of treating drug addicts, I'd be all in
favor of legalizing drug use. If you want to blow your brains and end up a
blithering idiot lying in a gutter, be my guest. Just don't come running
to me for a handout to treat your suicidal behavior.
But that's me. Society has decided to care for all who are distressed,
whether self-inflicted or not. In so doing, it rightfully places certain
restrictions on behavior to reduce the direct and indirect costs of drug
use.
You do favor a democratic system to decide these matters don't you?
Platt
>
> Please explain!
>
> Dan H
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries -
> horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 14 2004 - 12:13:30 GMT