Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU (08/14/86)
The list of hidden costs left off an important one: supporting survivors. If you're an orphan and a single parent with two little kids, and die of a drug overdose, guess who gets to support the kids? Taxpayers do. -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (08/18/86)
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
The list of hidden costs left off an important one: supporting
survivors. If you're an orphan and a single parent with two
little kids, and die of a drug overdose, guess who gets to support
the kids?
You are right, I forgot that one. Let me remedy the lack:
The same argument could be used against alcohol and tobacco, each of
which kill more people than all illegal drugs put together.
Does this mean you agree that drugs should be legalized for those
with no children? (Or perhaps that having children should be illegal
for those with drug addictions?)
It is not fair to penalize all taxpayers for the negligence of a few
drug users. Nor is it fair to penalize all drug users for the actions
of those who drop dead and leave children. Nor is it fair, or
possible, to punish people who drop dead. These children are screwed
over by their parents, and nothing will change that. People do use
these drugs even though they are illegal. The drugs are much deadlier
than they would be if they were legal. Also more expensive, leaving
less money for the children even when the parents are still alive.
Bad drugs are a problem. Making them illegal does not solve the
problem, but makes it worse in several ways.
...Keith
-------