4 ms·

Sure, for marijuana. But the ethical imperative to allow people full control over what substances go into their own bodies seems to be as ignored as ever. Sim

Sure, for marijuana. But the ethical imperative to allow people full control over what substances go into their own bodies seems to be as ignored as ever. Simple example: I'm not legally allowed to control the levels of testosterone in my own body. That seems absurd. #MyBodyMyChoice

sliverstorm 12y ago
Because we balance it against other ethical imperatives, such as impact to the people around the user, and safety/health. Many drugs have indirect impacts. Jacking up on testosterone, for example, makes you aggressive and violent. Many people want the government to look out for them. For example, the regulatory rigor around new medicine. Many proponents of complete legalization of all substances argue that responsible users have no impact on others. However while this may be true of responsible users, empirical evidence suggests vanishingly few users are responsible, which is the major problem. You have to weight the infringement on the rights & freedoms of innocent bystanders suffering at the hands of the abusers, against the infringement of rights from outlawing the drug. Somebody must loose; which should it be? Maybe the rational conclusion is still, "make it legal", but this is the real question. It is not as simple as "my body, my choice".
- malka 12y ago
  About 23% of the people that use heroin becomes addicts[0]. Most users are responsible, but since they are responsible, they won't impact you, or anyone, and you'll never hear of them [0] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    I would argue that avoiding physical dependence (the 23% number) is not the bar for "responsible use".
    - malka 12y ago
      behavior that have a negative impact on other people, such as stealing for drugs, comes from the physical addiction. And, I took the most addictive drug to illustrate this. What is the net negative impact that MDMA users, for instance, have on other people ? Other than being nice to the point of being annoying, but, well, if we talk about this kind of negative impact, what are we waiting to make ethanol illegal ?
- icebraining 12y ago
  You have to weight the infringement on the rights & freedoms of innocent bystanders suffering at the hands of the abusers, against the infringement of rights from outlawing the drug. Somebody must loose; which should it be? This is a good question to ask in some hypothetical world where making it illegal actually stops people from consuming it. That's clearly not our world, though, so the question is actually of little relevance. Laws punishing consumption have been shown, empirically, to violate the rights and freedoms of both the users and of the innocent bystanders (by preventing users from becoming non-users).

sliverstorm 12y ago

Because we balance it against other ethical imperatives, such as impact to the people around the user, and safety/health. Many drugs have indirect impacts. Jacking up on testosterone, for example, makes you aggressive and violent. Many people want the government to look out for them. For example, the regulatory rigor around new medicine. Many proponents of complete legalization of all substances argue that responsible users have no impact on others. However while this may be true of responsible users, empirical evidence suggests vanishingly few users are responsible, which is the major problem. You have to weight the infringement on the rights & freedoms of innocent bystanders suffering at the hands of the abusers, against the infringement of rights from outlawing the drug. Somebody must loose; which should it be? Maybe the rational conclusion is still, "make it legal", but this is the real question. It is not as simple as "my body, my choice".

malka 12y ago
About 23% of the people that use heroin becomes addicts[0]. Most users are responsible, but since they are responsible, they won't impact you, or anyone, and you'll never hear of them [0] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  I would argue that avoiding physical dependence (the 23% number) is not the bar for "responsible use".
  - malka 12y ago
    behavior that have a negative impact on other people, such as stealing for drugs, comes from the physical addiction. And, I took the most addictive drug to illustrate this. What is the net negative impact that MDMA users, for instance, have on other people ? Other than being nice to the point of being annoying, but, well, if we talk about this kind of negative impact, what are we waiting to make ethanol illegal ?
icebraining 12y ago
You have to weight the infringement on the rights & freedoms of innocent bystanders suffering at the hands of the abusers, against the infringement of rights from outlawing the drug. Somebody must loose; which should it be? This is a good question to ask in some hypothetical world where making it illegal actually stops people from consuming it. That's clearly not our world, though, so the question is actually of little relevance. Laws punishing consumption have been shown, empirically, to violate the rights and freedoms of both the users and of the innocent bystanders (by preventing users from becoming non-users).