Walking down the street has the potential to cause death, but I think you have a higher chance of dying if you stand in the middle of a railroad track as a train is coming.

Clearly we must differentiate from those substances which are known to cause great, often immediate, harm on the body, and those which do not (and this is for starters). It is not just a matter of potential, at least not the loose sense of the word you seem to be employing. That everything has a miniscule chance of killing us, is no reason to consider all consumption equal.



Of course the sale of drugs can have to do with morals. Would you feel right selling heroine to a twelve-year-old?

But which is it, collective or individual? Something can be bad for the community, but still right overall, the individualist would argue.

How about high calorie and high cholesterol causing food?.

I personally believe cigarettes shoud be bannned, what purpose do they serve?

I can eat fast food and not become addicted because it does not have the same addictive properties as nicotine.

I can eat fast food and not become addicted because it does not have the same addictive properties as nicotine.

I can eat fast food and not become addicted because it does not have the same addictive properties as nicotine.

Ask a cigarette smoker what purpose it serves. I think it's a called a nicotine fix. I personally enjoy a good cigar every now and then. There are plenty of things that we use for recreational purposes. Should we also ban candy because it serves no purpose (whatever that means)? I loathe moral tyranny (moral securitarianism).

Candy is a treat wich should be eaten in moderation to avoid diabetes and I'm addicted to the nicotine fix myself and wish I wasn't, if they weren't sold in the first place I woudn't be facing the high possibilty of dying of lung cancer.

Candy is a treat wich should be eaten in moderation to avoid diabetes and I'm addicted to the nicotine fix myself and wish I wasn't, if they weren't sold in the first place I woudn't be facing the high possibilty of dying of lung cancer.

Candy is a treat wich should be eaten in moderation to avoid diabetes and I'm addicted to the nicotine fix myself and wish I wasn't, if they weren't sold in the first place I woudn't be facing the high possibilty of dying of lung cancer.

So should it be legal to use heroin, if I use it sparingly?

An cigarettes are a treat, which shouldn't be smoked on a regular basis if you care about you're concerned for your health. If you didn't smoke them you wouldn't be facing the high possibility of dying of lung cancer. You're a grown up, so you have to take personal responsibility for your actions.

An cigarettes are a treat, which shouldn't be smoked on a regular basis if you care about you're concerned for your health. If you didn't smoke them you wouldn't be facing the high possibility of dying of lung cancer. You're a grown up, so you have to take personal responsibility for your actions.

Yes if control over the use is limited but you have to take into account that a lot of people can't use it sparingly so no and yes.

I personally believe that selling substances that can cause harm to a person is morally permissible as long as the consumer is aware of the potential risks.

I cant see them bringing out a law that recommends the daily intake of heroine.

It goes beyond a treat when you physically need it and I started smoking when I was a kid due to peer pressure, not a grown up but by then I was well and truly dependent.

Well you're a grown up now, so take some responsibility and quit if that's what you want to do. I use to smoke those things when I was a teen, too, but I stopped completely roughly six years ago.