Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 3, 2:32 pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message

...



That's your statement above. It states categorically you're fine
with addicts doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause
harm to anyone else. What you fail to admit is that for most
addicts, the support of their habit *does* cause harm to others,
directly and indirectly. And the longer that habit lasts, the
greater chance of repercussion to others.

Everything has an effect on others. Of course it cannot be argued
that an addiction has no affect on others, but that is not the point
that was originally taken, and you are somewhat stretching this to
where it is now. I think it would be beneficial for you to clarify
your use of terms, since they are vague at the best. What do you
mean when you make the statement that their habit does cause harm to
others? The context of that statement has a lot to do with the
origin of this part of the conversation. If you can't tie it
directly to a previous assertion, then it's nothing more than a
red-herring. It might be inarguable in one context, but can equally
be irrelelevant.

--

-Mike-


If I, as a passer-by read the following:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large
prison population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug
users who are demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.
Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others.

and in particular:

If Joe Blow wants to get stoned
in the privacy of his living room, it's no business of mine or the
rest of society's. He's harming no one save possibly himself, and
there is no justification whatever for making this a crime.

*I* would think that the above paragraphs supplied their own context
and clearly state that the drug-user (even within the parameters set
by Miller) is no cost to society. IOW, keep him/her away from Miller
and all is well.
That is what I read, that is what Upscale read, and THAT is what
Miller, as per his usual self, is trying back-pedal away from. Just
another typical Miller flare-up. It seems he doesn't have much else to
do than nit-picking semantics....and...of course, back-peddling.

r

the statements

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others.

don't say miller specifically; they say 'others'. to misconstrue that into
it meaing personally affecting the poster is not semantics.