Previous Next Index Thread
email@example.com (Thong Wei Koh) wrote: }We might be fighting a losing battle to eradicate instances of }substance abuse, but we intend to fight it until either there is }a suitable cure that neutralizes the effect of the drugs or }society has developed to the point that there is sufficient }guarantee that drugged irresponsible users (note I did not write }irresponsible drugged users instead) will not cause harm to others. }Call it naive. Heck, we've gotta believe in something. Interesting. Given that new designer drugs are cropping up all the time, I'm not sure you'll be able to keep up. What if someone develops a designer recreational drug that isn't addictive and does not cause physical harm or irresponsible behavior. Would you have a problem with that drug being sold in Singapore? If so, why? }Curious point. Could you care to tell me how you come by this bit }of information? I am seriously interested. I posted a short article earlier in the thread on the use of cannabis in ancient China. To save bandwidth, have a look at: http://www.calyx.com/~schaffer/HISTORY/history.html and http://www.paranoia.com/~foucault/Babel/ }Well, I may be wrong. Singapore MAY indeed be convinced. The problem }is that it is NOT convinced now. As long as we do not start going }on a moral crusade or to use armed force to invade another country to }impose our moral standard, the world should just leave us alone. Do you believe that there are any human rights violations that a country could impose on its people that would warrant outside intervention? Do you think it is fair for a country to impose trade restrictions on another based on human rights issues? Matt Elrod.