We can't really complain about the potential military uses of new technologies when assault weapons are on sale to Joe Soap in the worlds more powerful country.
I'm probably gonna lose some karma, but what the heck.
Could you define assault weapon? The US Congress has had a hard time doing it, resorting to listing specific weapons by make and model, or enumerating seemingly irrelevant features like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.
Hint: If you were going to say an assault weapon is a machine gun, then you miss the point. A military person might expect an assault weapon to be capable of fully automatic fire, but machine guns are not the target of the recent "assault weapon" furor in the US. Fully automatic firearms are already so heavily regulated in the US that it is inpractical for most citizens to own them.
I am posting this under a new account, as my old account has been ravished by people at work that were logging in as me and not knowing it.
[...]
I am the network admin for a local ISP.
Not to be a cold-hearted ass or anything, but does anyone else find it disturbing that this ISP has an admin who is a junkie, and who is careless enough to let co-workers log into his account at work?
IamJaxn, you wouldn't be scamming us, would you? If you are, then both of those were nice touches. If not, then good luck to you in your recovery.
<karma_whore> ...instead of that glorified task switcher and collection of drivers called Windows. Then they could distinguish family members by login.
</karma_whore>
If you don't want Big ISP Brother snooping your mouse twitches, then don't sign up...
ISPs already use Predictive's services to build silhouettes of Web sites visited through a person's computer. Subscribers agree to allow the tracking in exchange for low-priced Web access, and Predictive says it doesn't keep records of names or addresses.
But some privacy advocates have likened the service to unauthorized eavesdropping.
"Subscribers agree..." sounds pretty authorized to me.
Hmm...this is getting pretty far afield, but probably most readers have abandoned this thread by now, so I'll go ahead.
Government is at its most basic level, the "legitimate" use of force. Government must be coercive, or it is not government. I am not troubled by this in itself, and I am not against government. The more interesting question for me is how and when is it OK for government to coerce a person.
There are some obvious cases on which we could get almost universal agreement. If one person, with no provocation or reason, walks up and kills another, then any sane person would recognize that as murder, and agree that force should be used on the killer, at least to restrain him from further killing.
But many other cases are not so clear. In particular, I have a hard time ethically justifying using force to implement taxation. I want to justify it, because I want to pay for very basic public goods. But I haven't really come up with a good reason why someone should be able to come take some of my stuff to pay for whatever the government thinks is a good idea at the time.
Until I settle on a better answer to this question, my position is that taxes should be as limited as possible, and that they should pay for clear public goods. They should never be used to transfer wealth from one person to another.
My point is that if you and enough citizens don't like a law, you can elect those with like minds and have it repealed. If coercion can be eliminated through the same system that put it in place, then I wouldn't call it coercive in an oppressive way. It in fact is the will of the people that such coercion exists; nay, we demand it! We're masochists, not prisoners.
Democracy does not help your argument here. 51% of a group deciding to force me to obey a law does not make the law just, and does not keep it from being oppressive. If you think it does, ask the black slaves from pre-Civil-War America, or the Japanese-Americans interred during World War II.
The beauty of the US system is not that it is a democracy (though that is good too). Rather it is that it is a constitutionally limited government. And, it is a pretty good Constituion. To the extent that we have followed what is in the Constitution during our history, we have had a more just government.
LOL...no offense taken...I think we can get along.
Actually, I have a serious disagreement with this kind of logic. Whatever your feelings on the former first lady, no one's holding a gun to your head. The budget is not an a la carte affair, with tax payers selecting what they do and do not want to pay for. You affect the budget indirectly through your vote, and I for one like it this way. You are free to differ, but I disagree that the current system is coercive.
Of course the system is coercive, in the sense that physical force will be used, if necessary, to compel you to pay your taxes. Do you disagree?
No, I don't think I should have a line-item veto on the spending of my tax dollars. But I sure will holler, as well as vote, when anyone proposes taxing one person to transfer wealth to another, rather than for a clear public good. I don't want to be on the receiving end of this exchange either, because it gives the government a ready-made excuse to tell me how to conduct my affairs.
Yes, in the end, each of us is responsible for himself. But parents can increase the odds a child will want to learn. One way to make it more likely a child will want to learn to read is to read to him, a lot, from the time he is very young.
No, my comment was not the most profound and original in the world. But I know I can use an occasional nudge to do what common sense tells me I should. Maybe others can too.
Ick...I do hate to get linked with that "it takes a village" phrase. I would not completely disagree with the saying, but the truth is not quite as simple as it implies. It takes parents to raise a child, but they can sure use all the help they can get from the village.
Unlike the author of It Takes a Village, I would not extend decision-making about the child's welfare to the village, except in clear cases of abuse and neglect.
Also unlike that author, I would not force the village's help at the point of a gun. (If you think this is not what is happening, try not paying the taxes to fund programs "for the children.") Instead, I would urge folks to help those around them when they can, because it is the right thing to do.
Near the top of the article, in a list of "who would have thunk it?" examples.
Or that it would be easier to get a handgun or rifle than a fishing license?
At the very least, you have to be 18 (or is it 21?) to buy a handgun, pass a criminal background check, and possibly sit through a waiting period. In some localities, forget it...you are not going to legally buy a handgun at all.
In my state of Kansas, you can fish without a license to age 16. After that, you walk into a sporting goods place and give your in-state address, pay your fee, and walk out with your license. What, you want them to bring it out to your house? How easy can it get?
I know the author was just trying to draw interesting contrasts. But he should at least stick to subject on which he has half a clue.
<soapbox>
A child needs to learn to read, write, do math, and think clearly. Teaching these things requires books, writing materials, and a motivated person to do the teaching.
A child needs to learn morals, wisdom, and how to get along with his fellow man. Teaching these requires continuing attention, role-modeling, and exposing the child to life experiences as appropriate.
If a child gets this good foundation, then how much he uses technology and whether it makes him smarter will be a much less important concern.
Parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, family friends, please get in the faces of the kids you care about! Listen to them talk about what goes on in their lives. Play with them. Work with them. Answer their questions. Talk to them about your experiences. Challenge them to think. You can make a difference that will last the rest of their lives.
</soapbox>
Companies have the choice of protecting or relinquishing the intellectual property resulting from their research and development consistent with their particular customer and business needs.
Ok, I am not a free software guru, but isn't the whole point of the GPL's "copyleft" that you don't give up your IP? If you did, you would not be able to require users of your code to release their source.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but that depends on your age and maturity. If you are 16-18, there is probably some sense to your comment. Though, even then, there are situations where you would probably be wise to defer to your parents' wishes. If you are 10, then you are probably mistaken. (Hehe...if you are 25 and still at home, go out and get a job!)
My kids are all fairly young, 4 to 9. They are not equipped yet to make many important decisions, including things like what medical treatment to get, how (or whether) to get educated, or for my 4-year-old, even whether to eat anything other than ice cream.
Good parenting includes putting more and more decision-making and responsibility on a child as he is able to handle it. Hopefully, when he is ready to leave home, he will be making practically all his own decisions, and be well-equipped to face the world.
Of course, this all assumes a minimum level of good parenting. If you aren't getting that, then I don't know what to tell you.
First, even die-hard libertarians (I fancy myself in that category.) do not advocate putting the privilege and responsibility of complete liberty on the shoulders of children. We can disagree about the age of "adulthood," but assuming for the moment that it is above 13 in this boy's case, then I claim it is perfectly OK to intervene when he is about to make a permanent, life-altering (or ending) decision.
I would go further in this case, and claim that there is a moral obligation to intervene, but that case is harder to make.
Second, even when considering a sovereign adult, there a world of difference between persuasion and coercion. Certainly, one is morally permitted to try to dissuade someone from suicide.
Again, the case is harder to make, but I claim we should try dissuade people from committing suicide in at least most cases. We should also try to help them address the problems in their lives that are causing them to consider suicide. If you subscribe to some form of "love your neighbor"-based moral code, then the argument for this case should be obvious. If not, then this would be a longer discussion than we have space for here.
What's happened to all the positive forces in these kids lives? I'm not saying we should encourage "hacking" or any other type of malicious intent, but aren't these schools administrators, teachers, and workers professionals? Aren't they supposed to be pros in areas like child psychology?
Before I go off on my tirade, let me say that I don't know enough about the school or situation in question to comment on the handling of this specific case. (Though on the face of it, it seems a bit of a stretch to blame a school for a suicide that totally blindsided even the parents.)
Now back to my tirade...
Parents, please smother your kids with positive forces!
First, spend (quantity, not just quality) time with them yourself. You are the best expert on your child...much better than any so-called "professional." It does not take a PhD to give love and adult guidance. Use educators, medical doctors, religious counselors, etc. as you see fit, but always reserve ultimate responsibility and authority to yourself.
Be very careful who you choose an an agent of your authority for educating your child. Investigate the public school in your area. Consider private school, or even home schooling. Whatever option you choose, stay involved. In the end, it is you who are responsible for your child.
Not all parents are going to be able to check what their kids are viewing. Compare this to a parent who doesn't need to know how to fix their car to prevent their kid from driving it. Tools need to be provided to allow the parent to prevent the viewing of inappropriate material.
What parent can't walk into the room, look at what his kids is viewing, and see whether it is swastikas, tits, teletubbies, or whatever other item the parent does not approve?
Your car analogy is also off. A better one would be to consider whether a parent needs a device in the car to prevent the child from driving it to places the parent does not approve.
All that said, I have nothing against the market providing filtering software to parents or employers.
You are right that I have very little experience with violence. I grew up in a small town, and now live in a very low-crime part of Kansas City. I can't do more than listen to accounts of folks less fortunate and try to understand as best I can.
But that does not let me off the hook when it comes to making moral decisions, and whether to invoke the awesome force of law to impose our will on people is an extremely important moral decision. I'm sorry, but I can't just delegate my opinion to you because you have had experiences I have not.
The bad things you describe can all arguably be made crimes, without creating any "victimless" crimes. The concept of "criminal recklessness" I brought up earlier would apply to meth labs near populated areas.
It's a lot easier to argue about how something is a victimless crime when you dont see all the innocent people get shit on because of other peoples desire to have drugs.
It's also easy to argue about having money/sex/fame being a victimless crime when you don't see all the innocent people get sh*t on because of other people's desire to have money/sex/fame.
Should money, sex, and fame be illegal? People hurt innocent people for all kinds of reasons. Whatever the reason, hurting innocent people is a crime, and should be punished. But being a reason for crime does not make something itself a crime.
I agree, all drugs can be bad to one degree or another, including alcohol and nicotine, and legal prescription medicines. Abusing drugs is stupid. But let's take your logic to its conclusion. You mention your own recent problems with alcohol. Perhaps I should be forbidden to have the 1 or 2 beers I have in an average month. After all, some people have severe alcohol problems, and cause untold misery of innocents. Are you for alcohol prohibition in addition to the drug prohibitions we have already?
Bear with me if I am not understanding...eventually things sink in past my thick skull.
Drugs alter behavior. The altered state induces activities that the subject would not do under sobriety.
Agreed, on both points. However, sober, drunk, or high, a person is responsible for his actions, and should be punished for crimes committed.
Just the facts. Besides, I'm not emotional about it.
I won't imply you are arguing from emotion, if you don't assume that I cannot reason about crime because I haven't been assaulted. If my experience is lacking, enlighten me.
I just realize that A) I wouldnt have been assaulted by said coke-headed-fiend and B) if he would have assaulted me while being sober the blow I delivered to him (which I wouldnt have done if he was sober anyway) would have stopped him.
So, yes there is a crime. But no, it is far from victimless because people suffer *MORE* if there are drugs involved.
I don't argue that he might not have assaulted you if he had not used cocaine. However, the cocaine use was not the crime. (If he had not happened to cross your path, you would not have even known he had used cocaine.) Only because he committed a real crime, assault, did the cocaine use become an issue. He should be punished severely for the assault. If it was a particularly brutal assault, then he should be punished even more severely, whether the brutality was because he was high, or just because he was pissed that day.
Perhaps cocaine also made the fiend more "fit" for assaulting people. So what? Carrying a gun, working out with weights, and becoming a martial arts master all also make someone more fit for carrying out a successful assault. Should those things be illegal? No, because they are not in themselves the crime. Assault is the crime.
It is possible that a great many factors will make one suffer *more* from a crime. But if those factors in themselves do not create victims, then we are not justified in restricting them, whether they are guns, drugs, or weight training.
As for gun control, your sentiments on drugs mirror many people I know who advocate gun control. Most people who use your drug argument say that owning a gun is only for killing, so it is not a victimless crime. Where as, using drugs is just for the high. Which is bullshit, how many homes get broken into or people mugged so some crack headed junky can get his next fix.
Wow, you hang out with some addle-brained pro-gun-control folks. But then again, most of them are...;-)
I claim that a consistent position would be either pro-gun-control and for drug restriction, or pro-RKBA and against drug restriction. In the first case, one is claiming that restricting activities that do not have immediate victims is OK, if we think it might reduce some kind of crime. In the second case, one rejects restricting activities that do not have direct victims, whether that activity is gun ownership or drug use.
So in a way, I claim your position is as inconsistent at that of the pro-drug gun-controllers.
Do you live in Suburbia with white picket fences, and ever family having 2.3 kids?
More or less. Does that keep me from having a brain?
You brought up a person being high on coke being able to take a bat to the face without being fazed. I pointed out that there are other things that can make a person more resistant to trauma.
We can argue whether a good helmet would protect against a bat swing, but that really isn't the point. The point is that wearing the helmet is not the crime. Assault is the crime. Taking coke is not the crime. Assault is the crime.
No, I can't say I have been assaulted by someone on drugs. Does that mean I cannot reason about crime? If anything, being assaulted by someone on drugs would tend to make me more emotional about it, and less able to reach a valid conclusion.
Why would you think I advocate gun control? For the same reason that possessing drugs should not be a crime, owning firearms should not be a crime. Advocating gun control would be absolutely inconsistent with my position on drugs.
Is it moral to make something illegal just to keep it away from kids? Maybe not. But I still can't quite swallow the Libertarian line of "If it doesn't hurt anyone but me, it's OK". I haven't really decided on the alternative, but that's OK - I don't make laws, I just vote on them.
You have good points, and as a father, I worry about kids too.
It is good and proper to keep drugs (including nicotine and alcohol) away from kids until they are old enough to make an adult choice as whether to use them. I have no problem whatsoever with laws that forbid selling drugs to minors.
But is it moral to make something illegal just to keep it away from kids? I say not just maybe not, but absolutely not. Kids die in motorcycle accidents, from drowning in swimming pools, from poisoning from household products, in gun accidents, etc. Should all those things be made illegal because they can potentially harm children? I think not.
I urge you to think through whether or not the "Libertarian line" is what ought to be practiced. As a voter, you share responsibility.
Unfortunatly, there is already legal precedent that goes against your logic. How exactly does speeding/driving without your lights on at night/driving without a license victimize anyone directly? It doesn't, however it's still illegal. It increases the chances of victimizing someone though, just like drugs.
There are two answers for this.
First, one can argue that public roads are provided by taxpayers, and so, driving behavior on the roads can be regulated by the representatives of those taxpayers, namely the government.
Alernatively, one can appeal to the idea of criminal recklessness. If I am driving at 120 MPH down Main Street, then there is a clear and present danger that I will kill someone.
Now one might be able to make the case that certain kinds of drug use fall into this category. A previous poster talked about folks on meth being dangerous. One might be able to argue that using meth in public, without taking precautions to keep yourself from killing someone, should be illegal. But that is not what drug prohibitionists try to argue. They just argue for making some drugs illegal all the time, not just to use, but even to possess.
You've never met a crack baby have you?
That's a victim right there.
While it is not a slam-dunk, I think you can make a case that it should be illegal to knowingly use crack while pregnant. The same case could be made for overuse of alcohol leading to fetal alcohol syndrome. How does this apply to the general laws against drug use? How does this justify making crack use illegal for those people not pregnant?
It is a crime for some meth head to get aggressive and assault me. And I'm a victim because you obviously have never had a physical altercation with someone on meth have you?
The crime is assault, which is already illegal. How does this justify making meth use illegal for those folks who do not assault people?
Give you a hint: you can hit some guys while coked out of their head with a bat in the face and it wont phase them.
Here is a hint back at you. If a guy is wearing appropriate protective headgear, you can hit him in the face with a bat, and it won't faze him. Should protective headgear be illegal?
Slashdot Mirror
Could you define assault weapon? The US Congress has had a hard time doing it, resorting to listing specific weapons by make and model, or enumerating seemingly irrelevant features like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.
Hint: If you were going to say an assault weapon is a machine gun, then you miss the point. A military person might expect an assault weapon to be capable of fully automatic fire, but machine guns are not the target of the recent "assault weapon" furor in the US. Fully automatic firearms are already so heavily regulated in the US that it is inpractical for most citizens to own them.
IamJaxn, you wouldn't be scamming us, would you? If you are, then both of those were nice touches. If not, then good luck to you in your recovery.
Caveat emptor.
<karma_whore>
...instead of that glorified task switcher and collection of drivers called Windows. Then they could distinguish family members by login.
</karma_whore>
Not that I'm going to sign up or anything...I just don't see this as a big deal in the overall privacy picture.
Government is at its most basic level, the "legitimate" use of force. Government must be coercive, or it is not government. I am not troubled by this in itself, and I am not against government. The more interesting question for me is how and when is it OK for government to coerce a person.
There are some obvious cases on which we could get almost universal agreement. If one person, with no provocation or reason, walks up and kills another, then any sane person would recognize that as murder, and agree that force should be used on the killer, at least to restrain him from further killing.
But many other cases are not so clear. In particular, I have a hard time ethically justifying using force to implement taxation. I want to justify it, because I want to pay for very basic public goods. But I haven't really come up with a good reason why someone should be able to come take some of my stuff to pay for whatever the government thinks is a good idea at the time.
Until I settle on a better answer to this question, my position is that taxes should be as limited as possible, and that they should pay for clear public goods. They should never be used to transfer wealth from one person to another.
Democracy does not help your argument here. 51% of a group deciding to force me to obey a law does not make the law just, and does not keep it from being oppressive. If you think it does, ask the black slaves from pre-Civil-War America, or the Japanese-Americans interred during World War II.The beauty of the US system is not that it is a democracy (though that is good too). Rather it is that it is a constitutionally limited government. And, it is a pretty good Constituion. To the extent that we have followed what is in the Constitution during our history, we have had a more just government.
No, I don't think I should have a line-item veto on the spending of my tax dollars. But I sure will holler, as well as vote, when anyone proposes taxing one person to transfer wealth to another, rather than for a clear public good. I don't want to be on the receiving end of this exchange either, because it gives the government a ready-made excuse to tell me how to conduct my affairs.
Yes, in the end, each of us is responsible for himself. But parents can increase the odds a child will want to learn. One way to make it more likely a child will want to learn to read is to read to him, a lot, from the time he is very young.
Ick...I do hate to get linked with that "it takes a village" phrase. I would not completely disagree with the saying, but the truth is not quite as simple as it implies. It takes parents to raise a child, but they can sure use all the help they can get from the village.
Unlike the author of It Takes a Village, I would not extend decision-making about the child's welfare to the village, except in clear cases of abuse and neglect.
Also unlike that author, I would not force the village's help at the point of a gun. (If you think this is not what is happening, try not paying the taxes to fund programs "for the children.") Instead, I would urge folks to help those around them when they can, because it is the right thing to do.
Near the top of the article, in a list of "who would have thunk it?" examples.
At the very least, you have to be 18 (or is it 21?) to buy a handgun, pass a criminal background check, and possibly sit through a waiting period. In some localities, forget it...you are not going to legally buy a handgun at all.In my state of Kansas, you can fish without a license to age 16. After that, you walk into a sporting goods place and give your in-state address, pay your fee, and walk out with your license. What, you want them to bring it out to your house? How easy can it get?
I know the author was just trying to draw interesting contrasts. But he should at least stick to subject on which he has half a clue.
A child needs to learn to read, write, do math, and think clearly. Teaching these things requires books, writing materials, and a motivated person to do the teaching.
A child needs to learn morals, wisdom, and how to get along with his fellow man. Teaching these requires continuing attention, role-modeling, and exposing the child to life experiences as appropriate.
If a child gets this good foundation, then how much he uses technology and whether it makes him smarter will be a much less important concern.
Parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, family friends, please get in the faces of the kids you care about! Listen to them talk about what goes on in their lives. Play with them. Work with them. Answer their questions. Talk to them about your experiences. Challenge them to think. You can make a difference that will last the rest of their lives.
</soapbox>
My kids are all fairly young, 4 to 9. They are not equipped yet to make many important decisions, including things like what medical treatment to get, how (or whether) to get educated, or for my 4-year-old, even whether to eat anything other than ice cream.
Good parenting includes putting more and more decision-making and responsibility on a child as he is able to handle it. Hopefully, when he is ready to leave home, he will be making practically all his own decisions, and be well-equipped to face the world.
Of course, this all assumes a minimum level of good parenting. If you aren't getting that, then I don't know what to tell you.
I would go further in this case, and claim that there is a moral obligation to intervene, but that case is harder to make.
Second, even when considering a sovereign adult, there a world of difference between persuasion and coercion. Certainly, one is morally permitted to try to dissuade someone from suicide.
Again, the case is harder to make, but I claim we should try dissuade people from committing suicide in at least most cases. We should also try to help them address the problems in their lives that are causing them to consider suicide. If you subscribe to some form of "love your neighbor"-based moral code, then the argument for this case should be obvious. If not, then this would be a longer discussion than we have space for here.
Now back to my tirade...
Parents, please smother your kids with positive forces!
First, spend (quantity, not just quality) time with them yourself. You are the best expert on your child...much better than any so-called "professional." It does not take a PhD to give love and adult guidance. Use educators, medical doctors, religious counselors, etc. as you see fit, but always reserve ultimate responsibility and authority to yourself.
Be very careful who you choose an an agent of your authority for educating your child. Investigate the public school in your area. Consider private school, or even home schooling. Whatever option you choose, stay involved. In the end, it is you who are responsible for your child.
Your car analogy is also off. A better one would be to consider whether a parent needs a device in the car to prevent the child from driving it to places the parent does not approve.
All that said, I have nothing against the market providing filtering software to parents or employers.
...there is a postscript link too.
But that does not let me off the hook when it comes to making moral decisions, and whether to invoke the awesome force of law to impose our will on people is an extremely important moral decision. I'm sorry, but I can't just delegate my opinion to you because you have had experiences I have not.
The bad things you describe can all arguably be made crimes, without creating any "victimless" crimes. The concept of "criminal recklessness" I brought up earlier would apply to meth labs near populated areas.
It's also easy to argue about having money/sex/fame being a victimless crime when you don't see all the innocent people get sh*t on because of other people's desire to have money/sex/fame.Should money, sex, and fame be illegal? People hurt innocent people for all kinds of reasons. Whatever the reason, hurting innocent people is a crime, and should be punished. But being a reason for crime does not make something itself a crime.
I agree, all drugs can be bad to one degree or another, including alcohol and nicotine, and legal prescription medicines. Abusing drugs is stupid. But let's take your logic to its conclusion. You mention your own recent problems with alcohol. Perhaps I should be forbidden to have the 1 or 2 beers I have in an average month. After all, some people have severe alcohol problems, and cause untold misery of innocents. Are you for alcohol prohibition in addition to the drug prohibitions we have already?
Perhaps cocaine also made the fiend more "fit" for assaulting people. So what? Carrying a gun, working out with weights, and becoming a martial arts master all also make someone more fit for carrying out a successful assault. Should those things be illegal? No, because they are not in themselves the crime. Assault is the crime.
It is possible that a great many factors will make one suffer *more* from a crime. But if those factors in themselves do not create victims, then we are not justified in restricting them, whether they are guns, drugs, or weight training.
Wow, you hang out with some addle-brained pro-gun-control folks. But then again, most of them are...I claim that a consistent position would be either pro-gun-control and for drug restriction, or pro-RKBA and against drug restriction. In the first case, one is claiming that restricting activities that do not have immediate victims is OK, if we think it might reduce some kind of crime. In the second case, one rejects restricting activities that do not have direct victims, whether that activity is gun ownership or drug use.
So in a way, I claim your position is as inconsistent at that of the pro-drug gun-controllers.
More or less. Does that keep me from having a brain?You brought up a person being high on coke being able to take a bat to the face without being fazed. I pointed out that there are other things that can make a person more resistant to trauma. We can argue whether a good helmet would protect against a bat swing, but that really isn't the point. The point is that wearing the helmet is not the crime. Assault is the crime. Taking coke is not the crime. Assault is the crime.
No, I can't say I have been assaulted by someone on drugs. Does that mean I cannot reason about crime? If anything, being assaulted by someone on drugs would tend to make me more emotional about it, and less able to reach a valid conclusion.
Why would you think I advocate gun control? For the same reason that possessing drugs should not be a crime, owning firearms should not be a crime. Advocating gun control would be absolutely inconsistent with my position on drugs.
It is good and proper to keep drugs (including nicotine and alcohol) away from kids until they are old enough to make an adult choice as whether to use them. I have no problem whatsoever with laws that forbid selling drugs to minors.
But is it moral to make something illegal just to keep it away from kids? I say not just maybe not, but absolutely not. Kids die in motorcycle accidents, from drowning in swimming pools, from poisoning from household products, in gun accidents, etc. Should all those things be made illegal because they can potentially harm children? I think not.
I urge you to think through whether or not the "Libertarian line" is what ought to be practiced. As a voter, you share responsibility.
First, one can argue that public roads are provided by taxpayers, and so, driving behavior on the roads can be regulated by the representatives of those taxpayers, namely the government.
Alernatively, one can appeal to the idea of criminal recklessness. If I am driving at 120 MPH down Main Street, then there is a clear and present danger that I will kill someone.
Now one might be able to make the case that certain kinds of drug use fall into this category. A previous poster talked about folks on meth being dangerous. One might be able to argue that using meth in public, without taking precautions to keep yourself from killing someone, should be illegal. But that is not what drug prohibitionists try to argue. They just argue for making some drugs illegal all the time, not just to use, but even to possess.