Originally posted by generalissimo
I agree with you, Im playing devil's advocate here.
doesn't it depend on how you define the right to pursue happiness? I mean, if you can just make it up as you go there'd be no point in having laws preventing individuals from doing harm to themselves or others.
You'd have no order in society if everytime some guy was stopped by the police he could s my right to pursue happiness!"
regardless of the fact he may have committed an offense.
My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
With drugs, the only nose involved is that of the puncher!
Laws preventing individuals from harming themselves are extremely suspicious and I am very uncomfortable with them. Having grown up aroun schizophrenics it's a difficult topic for me to make a decision on. If I'm miserable and I want to die I do NOT want to be forced to live in misery!
But for people who are insane...they generally appreciate being forced to take treatment once they're treated and become rational again in my experience.
That is a worthy topic of debate. However an employed young couple spending their hard earned money doing a few lines of coke or meth before having a sex marathon is not the same as a schizophrenic depressive trying to kill herself because the doctors won't prescribe her antidepressants.
EDIT - You'd have no order in society if everytime some guy was stopped by the police he could simply get away scot free by saying "its my right to pursue happiness!" regardless of the fact he may have committed an offense.
Likewise, if you were apprehended for vandalism and shouted "I have a right to liberty...you can't put me in prison!" wouldn't work. Laws are made to honor and protect rights; rights are not an alternative to law!
When the law comes into violation of rights, it becomes unjust law and should be resisted as happened in 1976.