>You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. It was an assumption posed by then original commenter. "IF I know they'll use the money on drugs, THEN a

>You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. It was an assumption posed by then original commenter. "IF I know they'll use the money on drugs, THEN all the more reason to give it to them." That they'll commit crimes if they can't get the money is an additional assumption that needs to be justified. >you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument No, what I'm doing is taking your argument and following it to its necessary implications. You say "X", I say "X implies Y, do you also hold Y?" Well, do you? If I'm causing a crime to happen by not giving money to a drug addict, because he is not in control of his actions, then it follows that no crime has a perpetrator, because no one is truly in control of their actions. Crime is merely a consequence of a complex system that has interactions beyond anyone's control. Therefore it's wrong to punish criminals beyond merely preventing them from doing crime, because ultimately they have no more control over it than a rock following its trajectory after it's been thrown. They've just been unlucky enough to be born into the life path of a criminal, instead of that of a law-abiding citizen. So, is that what you think? Maybe you do, I don't know. Most people seem to feel uncomfortable thinking about themselves and other people in these terms.