4 ms·

I think all drugs should have licenses that can be obtained and taken away. I think it’s ok to require IDs and a certain level of test performance. Heck, I wish

I think all drugs should have licenses that can be obtained and taken away. I think it’s ok to require IDs and a certain level of test performance. Heck, I wish alcohol was the same (at least for 18-20 year olds).

sneak 3y ago
Upon what reasonable moral authority can anyone claim to control what another person does to their own body that does not harm another person? I claim an absolute, perpetual, inviolable, and inalienable moral right to my own person, and modifying it in any way I see fit: tattoos, scarification, branding, piercing, amputation, et cetera. I get to choose what medical procedures I will or will not accept. I get to choose when my life ends voluntarily. I alone choose what I will or will not eat, will or will not insert into my bloodstream. The same moral authority that tells me I cannot put a specified substance into my bloodstream must also simultaneously claim the authority to tell me that I must swallow a certain substance or food, which is ridiculous. Does looking at it in that way reveal its absurdity to you? If you don't have the moral basis to force me to eat a food I do not wish to eat, you do not have the moral basis to deny me the right to ingest a drug I do wish to ingest.
- debatem1 3y ago
  It turns out the state can restrict what you say, what you do with your body, what you ingest, and all the rest. This is demonstrably true to anyone with a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system.
  - sneak 3y ago
    Not in my experience. Nobody really agrees with the state here, and their restrictions are ignored by everyone (when it comes to their own body). The people who support these restrictions support them only when applied to the bodies of other people. https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/ https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-... My question was not what authorities the state claims - my question is about upon what moral or philosophical basis such claims would be morally justified. I am of course aware the state claims such authority. I am also aware that they further claim the authority to enslave me, arm me, ship me across the earth, and execute or imprison me if I then refuse to commit murder on their behalf. The state claiming an authority does not actually provide them with a moral basis to do so. On what reasonable moral basis could anyone claim the authority to strip someone of their rights to final disposition over their own body?
    - dr_dshiv 3y ago
      Well, a murderer is just having an experience and moving their body, right? So obviously there are restrictions in the case where one’s internal experiences lead to actions that affect others. Even for actions like suicide there are negative externalities. Hence the need for regulation.
- mark_up 3y ago
  [dead]
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  People disagree on the definition of harm, therefore there will be preferences for law. On a societal scale, if there is a 1:N chance a drug or experience will nullify your health and you will require society to bear the burden if your existence, then people in society may decide to attempt to minimize such occurrences through law. If N is 6 as in Russian Roulette, society might control what you might accidentally put in your body. If N is 1,000,000 like in driving, we might regulate the requirements of who can do that to minimize the chance of harming others and drive N higher. If N is 10,000 (for certain drugs) in terms of the chance you might overdose and harm yourself sufficiently, society might say the benefit isn’t worth the risk and ‘control what you do with your body.’

sneak 3y ago

Upon what reasonable moral authority can anyone claim to control what another person does to their own body that does not harm another person? I claim an absolute, perpetual, inviolable, and inalienable moral right to my own person, and modifying it in any way I see fit: tattoos, scarification, branding, piercing, amputation, et cetera. I get to choose what medical procedures I will or will not accept. I get to choose when my life ends voluntarily. I alone choose what I will or will not eat, will or will not insert into my bloodstream. The same moral authority that tells me I cannot put a specified substance into my bloodstream must also simultaneously claim the authority to tell me that I must swallow a certain substance or food, which is ridiculous. Does looking at it in that way reveal its absurdity to you? If you don't have the moral basis to force me to eat a food I do not wish to eat, you do not have the moral basis to deny me the right to ingest a drug I do wish to ingest.

debatem1 3y ago
It turns out the state can restrict what you say, what you do with your body, what you ingest, and all the rest. This is demonstrably true to anyone with a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system.
- sneak 3y ago
  Not in my experience. Nobody really agrees with the state here, and their restrictions are ignored by everyone (when it comes to their own body). The people who support these restrictions support them only when applied to the bodies of other people. https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/ https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-... My question was not what authorities the state claims - my question is about upon what moral or philosophical basis such claims would be morally justified. I am of course aware the state claims such authority. I am also aware that they further claim the authority to enslave me, arm me, ship me across the earth, and execute or imprison me if I then refuse to commit murder on their behalf. The state claiming an authority does not actually provide them with a moral basis to do so. On what reasonable moral basis could anyone claim the authority to strip someone of their rights to final disposition over their own body?
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    Well, a murderer is just having an experience and moving their body, right? So obviously there are restrictions in the case where one’s internal experiences lead to actions that affect others. Even for actions like suicide there are negative externalities. Hence the need for regulation.
mark_up 3y ago
[dead]
mensetmanusman 3y ago
People disagree on the definition of harm, therefore there will be preferences for law. On a societal scale, if there is a 1:N chance a drug or experience will nullify your health and you will require society to bear the burden if your existence, then people in society may decide to attempt to minimize such occurrences through law. If N is 6 as in Russian Roulette, society might control what you might accidentally put in your body. If N is 1,000,000 like in driving, we might regulate the requirements of who can do that to minimize the chance of harming others and drive N higher. If N is 10,000 (for certain drugs) in terms of the chance you might overdose and harm yourself sufficiently, society might say the benefit isn’t worth the risk and ‘control what you do with your body.’