Oh, this thread amuses me. I'm really just commenting so this will show up under the new replies section. I'm too tired to contribute much, but Axel and others, you need to go look at what drugs like meth and heroin actually do to people and those around them. You also need to drop the black and white, all or nothing mentality, but that has been said by many others more eloquently than I can muster at this hour.
See, the thing is, I KNOW what they do. I've seen the pictures, watched the videos, and seen lives ruined by drugs. I've also seen lives ruined because they've been driven underground. It's a horrible thing. I've seen people suffer from alcohol abuse and so on.
It was still their choice to take the drug in the first place.
The logic is black and white here because it involves the restriction of personal freedoms due to societal beliefs, socialist goals, or some similar ideals. Once you do this, you have entered the dark state where you can change the law "for people's own good" and that is a dark path to walk.
What's to stop people from banning fatty foods? (And some have tried and succeeded to various degrees in places) There are people who want to ban cupcakes from school birthday parties. Well, their goal might be well and good but all it is going to do is take away one happy memory from these children's childhood and take away their parent's choice of what to feed them.
You might be willing to give up your choices and freedoms to other people, but I'm not. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't even touch coffee. These are my choices. If people want to ruin their lives with other drugs, that's their choice. At the very least stop things like meth addicts cooking highly toxic stews in someone's basement and poisoning themselves further.
Please explain to me how in any way that holds water from a logical perspective. How does "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as a philosophical tenet logically necessarily and sufficiently lead to the rights to life and freedom of choice? You either have no understanding of what I'm asking you to justify, or you can't do it.
Very simply. You do not try and kill me, I won't try and kill you. Same with rape, murder, arson, theft, etc. Modern law is based on protecting people from each other. It's only too recently that things like protecting people from the real world or protecting people from themselves have come into play (I.E. Seat belt laws).
I'm going to keep quoting this until you at some point decide to actually read it.
And I'm going to keep saying what I've said before, Daxx. You might not care, but you have to. You can't address the restriction of one substance without addressing others of the same kind. I'd love to see you say something about why we can ban one and not the other. Or would you like to ignore my point?
Back up your normative statement that welfare maximisation shouldn't be a goal in social planning.
Well, aside from the term being too broad, the simple answer is that while it should be a consideration, you shouldn't baby people. I'm all for the government sprucing up a public park, make people happy that way. Treating people like babies and saying "We don't trust you to make the right decisions" is pathetic. They're grown adults. If they choose to ruin their lives, then they can. Make outreach programs, teach kids the dangers of drugs, they're not stupid. It doesn't mean you treat them like they shouldn't have control over THEIR life.
QED. Stop it with the black and white logic Axel.
What exactly has been demonstrated, Brandon? The fact is, you have to justify what your point is. If we wish to address the issue of car emissions and say "We will only be applying these measures to Fords" and then not stating any reason for it, you can imagine people starting to question it.
I can't find a quote right now, but suffice it to say that it would be one of the many pointing out how you ignore what the other person actually says. Stop playing tennis and start debating.
.... What have I ignored? It's Daxx who is ignoring things, I have asked him why he can suggest a ban on one thing and then so blatantly ignore others, especially things like alcohol, which more people kill under the influence of than any other drug.
A blog that, currently, has some interesting statistics on drunk drivingWhy is it okay to ban these things and not alcohol? When Daxx says that it is okay to ban alcohol, I'll drop this point.
Have i got it right in stating Axel seems to take any concept to it's logical exteme. If so then really all his ideas are doomed to fail Freedom might be good but you can actually have too much of a good thing.
It's not an extreme to think people shouldn't be treated like children. Being gay used to be illegal because people believed it was a corrupting, addicting thing and totally immoral, but it was made legal because it was wrong to take away that choice from people and wrong to send them to jail for committing an act that ultimately harmed no-one but those who gave consent to doing so.
It's wrong to lock people away or take away their choices simply because they might hurt themselves doing so. Otherwise, there is no end to the things we could ban. It's this sort of high-and-mighty moralizing "I know better than you" attitude that led to Prohibition, the illegality of prostitution, and the illegality of homosexuality in the first place. We all know the kind of suffering that has come from each of these things....
