Going back to the original statement:
I think we've modified this, removing "is aware" and replacing it with "knows". I think regardless of age, you don't sell something to someone that they could hurt themselves with unless you have reason to believe they can handle it; that they know what they're getting into.
How does that hold up to the examples provided?
- Drugs to a 12 year old--too young to really make decisions based on risk
- Suicide--euthanasia vs teenage depressive seems to be drawn down the "know what they're doing" line, yes?
- Mildly harmful/recreational--warning labels and education suffice
- addictive--how does anyone know before hand what the addiction will be like? I think a strong argument could be made for not selling highly addictive drugs to someone who isn't addicted.
Of course, the "is it morally permissible for you to personally sell" is different from "what drugs should be illegal", because that has to keep matters of practicality in mind.
Yeah I know, I'm trying.
What it shows is that being dangerous is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition of legality, since there seem to be other necessary conditions. That doesn't make the laws "insane", though.
I presume you mean:
[INDENT][INDENT]What it shows is that being dangerous is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition of illegality, since there seem to be other necessary conditions. That doesn't make the laws "insane", though.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
The explanation that is typically given for why illegal drugs are illegal is that they are harmful, addictive, and serve no useful purpose. If that were the real motivation for making them illegal, the first thing that should be made illegal would be tobacco, because it is involved in more deaths, is about as addictive as anything, and serves no useful purpose (unlike some illegal drugs, that do have some useful purposes).
Yum Yum..Has the sale of drugs got anything to do with morals or the expedient necessity to control the consumption of it. Moral justification must be tempered with knowing that prohibition creates more moral dilemmas and crime ridden streets.
It's not the same situation at all. Nearly every edible product has the potential to cause harm or even kill a person. Should I not sell candy because it can cause diabetes? Should I not sell water because the person could potentially become water intoxicated?
And we are talking about morality, not law. They are quite different after all.
You can sell candy, fine, but it would be morally wrong for you to continue selling candy to a person who is clearly hurting themselves through over consumption.
Imagine a kid who continually scarfs down candy all day long. If I continue to sell the kid candy, I am facilitating his health problems. I am an accomplice to his self destruction. And I am morally responsible for my actions.
I am talking about moral responsibility, if a man has a desire, my refusal to provide, by my moral standards, may cause more harm than my moral standards considered.
Prohibition is a moral stand point , it does not solve humanities problems it just makes you feel morally superior.
Well, let's be clear: I oppose the prohibition of drugs.
Studies indicate that alcohol in moderation can be good for your cardiovascular system. (The amount is about one or two drinks per day, which cannot be saved up for a weekend binge for health benefits.) See:
Alcohol and cardiovascular disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, if you are an ordinary adult (i.e., if you have no special health problems), and if you wanted optimum health, you would probably want to drink one or two drinks every day; no more, and no less. This makes it like other things that are good for you in moderation, but bad for you if taken in excess.
However, I have no problems with the idea that adults should be allowed to buy and use substances that can cause harm to them, provided that there are appropriate warning labels on them. If we followed this idea to its logical implications, illegal drugs would be made legal for adults. As things are, the laws are insane, as tobacco products are associated with more deaths than all illegal drugs combined (in the U.S.), which shows that the dangerousness of something does not determine whether something is legal or not.
Given that those are very broad categories, encompassing a wide range of views, one would likely be able to argue either way with any of those theories.
As I tried to indicate, I think this is part of the motivation, so that they would not be made illegal unless they were dangerous. But, of course, there are further motivations involved. Many drugs have useful purposes, but they are not sold indiscriminately. For instance, prescription heart medicines.
How about the prohibition of beta-blockers for people without heart disease.
Do you think those should be dispensed to whoever wants them?
I don't know enough of the details. I wasn't aware that such a market existed. Prohibition should be enacted pragmatically. Current US drug law, ie drug scheduling, is not pragmatic.
Probably not. Again, the person doing the dispensing has moral obligations much like a bartender has an obligation to cut off a patron who has had too much.
But the nature of these products are not the same as say heroin which is far more addictive due to it's physical dependencies after the first try, candy a person can give up tomorrow where as cigarettes it is not so easy, why would a person drink himself to death, cigerettes are far more addictive, thus far more dangerous leading to death, there is a difference between the two therefore responsibilty should be exercised. I personally believe cigarettes shoud be bannned, what purpose do they serve? Selling water to quench ones thirst carries little to no risk.
If drugs are legal yet heavily taxed, the same people who used to use them illegally will be inclined to steal them or grow it themselves and avoid paying more. Just a thought, I'm not sure where else to go with this.
How far do you extend that right, dosed? The government has many safety laws. Would you extend it to a right to not wear a seatbelt?
If individuals have the right to be autonomously in control of their own bodies, what about substances that remove some of that control?
I would say that it extends as far as possible. So long as one individual's expression of their autonomy doesn't infringe upon another person's autonomy, then what is the problem? What one does in the privacy of their own home and to their own bodies is of no concern to anyone else, so long as it doesn't infringe upon their rights and ability to be in control of themselves. Why would it be?
But then you would let hundreds of thousands die, just so that you don't infringe on their right to not wear a seatbelt? Don't we have a moral responsibility to look out for one another's well being?
I assume you agree that it is only after a certain age that one acquires these rights you talk of. So, there is already the implication that good judgment is required.
I think the law has to be pragmatic, and to that end talk of innate rights loses some of it's value, especially when used so broadly.
Yes. We do have a moral resposibility to look out for one another's well-being. therefore, we should do that through education. Equip people with the knowledge to make healthy decisions. If they have that knowledge, and still choose to make an unhealthy decision, so be it. it's their prerogative. How can we tell them any different? (assuming that their unhealthy decisions aren't harming another person in any way.)