3 ms·

I have yet to meet the person who, when asked for the reason for their decision, replies "it was irrational". The truth is that people take the action they feel

by abannin 11y ago

I have yet to meet the person who, when asked for the reason for their decision, replies "it was irrational". The truth is that people take the action they feel is the most rational, and there are many factors influencing that conclusion. It's also important to consider that addiction is far more complicated than a dependance on a biochemical reactions to a stimulus. There are strong psychological issues at play as well. If we were to outlaw every addictive substance or action, surely no form of entertainment would remain legal. A person always has a decision to engage an addiction. Deciding to not be addicted is the foundation to recovery. This choice cannot be removed at any point in a person's life, be it before, during, or after an addiction. To say that an addict is not making decisions is like saying that someone you disagree with is not thinking. Just because you don't like their opinions or their behaviors does not justify denying their freedoms.

mindcrime 11y ago
I think I agree with you, but I'm willing to consider that there might be a bit more nuance to the issue. Like I said, I'd have to think about it more to be sure (that is speaking only in regards to somebody who already has an addiction). But overall, I am still for complete legalization of all drugs, as I still hold that a consenting adult has the right to put any substance in his/her body that he/she chooses. I would also oppose a law restricting the advertising of prescription drugs. But, then again, in my world, the distinction between "prescription" or not would be a lot fuzzier anyway. It might even disappear altogether.
- wpietri 11y ago
  My general way of balancing this is not the allowed/forbidden model, but more the public health model, including things like licensing and insurance. For example, I think people should be free to play all they want with explosives. But given that explosives are subtle and dangerous, I think it's reasonable to require that people using them be licensed, including extensive practical exams, and that they be properly insured, which may include insurance company inspections and the like. They're welcome to make the choice to light any given fuse, but given the potential consequences it should be an informed, responsible choice that has fully accounted for the consequences.

by abannin 11y ago

mindcrime 11y ago

I think I agree with you, but I'm willing to consider that there might be a bit more nuance to the issue. Like I said, I'd have to think about it more to be sure (that is speaking only in regards to somebody who already has an addiction). But overall, I am still for complete legalization of all drugs, as I still hold that a consenting adult has the right to put any substance in his/her body that he/she chooses. I would also oppose a law restricting the advertising of prescription drugs. But, then again, in my world, the distinction between "prescription" or not would be a lot fuzzier anyway. It might even disappear altogether.

wpietri 11y ago
My general way of balancing this is not the allowed/forbidden model, but more the public health model, including things like licensing and insurance. For example, I think people should be free to play all they want with explosives. But given that explosives are subtle and dangerous, I think it's reasonable to require that people using them be licensed, including extensive practical exams, and that they be properly insured, which may include insurance company inspections and the like. They're welcome to make the choice to light any given fuse, but given the potential consequences it should be an informed, responsible choice that has fully accounted for the consequences.