3 ms·
>Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? Weren't you just saying how you don't want the state legislating what you put in your body and mind? That's why.
by oarabbus_ 5y ago
>Why not outlaw the societal harm instead?
Weren't you just saying how you don't want the state legislating what you put in your body and mind? That's why.
- parineum 5y agoI want the state to not outlaw hurting myself when it doesn't hurt others. The state's role is to prevent individuals from hurting others.
- oarabbus_ 5y agoUnfortunately it's not so simple. An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason. Another example is driving a car, which results in thousands of fatalities and many more injuries daily. Not to mention environmental impacts which affect others. The state chooses to require drivers to have insurance and their cars to pass smog tests, rather than outlawing driving.
- parineum 5y ago> An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason. Smoking and alcohol use can also not harm others. Should those who smoke and drink responsibly be held responsible for those who don't? How does the tax ameliorate those harms?
- Talanes 5y agoThe substance is not the harm. Outlawing the harm is not outlawing the substance.