| | Children should not have the same freedom to purchase drugs as adults; they are under the custody of their parents, and parents must ultimately have the authority to restrain their children's drug consumption. Rather than have a one-size-fits-all restriction on children, however, it should be up to the parents whether to allow a 14-year-old a glass of wine, for instance.
This sounds fine, though I wonder what the objectivist stance is on removing childrens' rights. Is there an article nearby that addresses questions of, say, how a parent's control can be justified, what rights children have and by what standards they have those rights, and at what age or by what standards does parental control stop? If I'm going to publicly insist that drugs should be legalized, I should have coherent answers for questions like these; similarly, if anyone is serious about anti-anti-drug legislation, such details should be worked out. I suppose these questions of rights would relate to those of the rights of the mentally retarded, old people, the comatose, etc. A URL that points the way to something insightful, anyone?
Oh yeah, and what an excellent article. Indeed, a prime argument for the illegalization of drugs is to protect our youngsters. But I've spoken to those hip with the drug crowd in high school, and they think that no more or fewer people would use drugs if they were legal! I'd like to see a wider survey, but the idea is intriguing.
Michael Allen Yarbrough
(Edited by Mike Yarbrough
on 5/25, 10:25am)
|
|
