[tikler]

I dont really care what habits anyone has and dont want anyone concerned about mine. My only issue with the "legislating morality" arguement is that I know eventually some group or judge or legislature is going to come after me for more "revenue" because someone drank, gambled, smoked, screwed or shot up all of thier assets and "we need to help them". So yeah, sometimes I go against my own principles and vote or write against something I normally would view as personal choices because i KNOW that someone, sometime, is going to come after me for the money to waste on lost causes or at least prolong a situation that would shortly work itself out. Now, before anyone assumes things about me, I do believe that sometimes people do need help.

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by tikler

.....Now, before anyone assumes things about me, I do believe that sometimes people do need help.

Of course people sometimes need help, that's why there are legions of people that work for both religious and non-religious NGOs that offer help to people with a wide variety of issues.

Your other point regarding legislating morality has one fatal flaw. It assumes that because various vices are illegal that the activities cease to exist. This is the same mistake that every do-googind law maker makes. It is the mistake that was made when the constitution was amended to make alcohol illegal. However, we have the benefit of hindsight to tell us what happened. Not only did the consumption of alcohol continue, it also gave drinking an aura of being "naughty." It became titillating to sneak around in speakeasies and drink. Of course it also had the unintended consequence of giving rise to organized crime in America, which continues to this day.

There is a reason for the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

Andrew