On the Sale and Consumption of Drugs

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

prothero
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 12:51 am
@hue-man,
I really do not like the whole nanny state philosophy.
The government job is to supply accurate information not to protect people from themselves.

If a person using drugs commits a crime against another person or someone elses property then they should be restrained or prosecuted for that act but it is not the governments role to decide for the indiviudal on the basis of this might lead to some undesirable consequence.

Children who are unable to make reasonalb decisions of risk versus benefit are a special case as always.

At heart I am a libertarian, with government of limited scope and powers and a maximum of personal freedom. With such freedom comes acceptance of the consequences and responsiblity for the choices you make. If you want to take drugs it is not the governments business unless you commit some other crime against another person or someone elses property.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 01:00 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124973 wrote:
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.



Paternalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 01:47 am
@kennethamy,


That's a good article thanks. It seems like the overzealousness of the current drug policy stems in part from "moral paternalism", and the discussion here is what kinds of paternalism are justified. The soft and weak variations seem relatively uncontroversial.
 
Emil
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:13 am
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;125029 wrote:
That's a good article thanks. It seems like the overzealousness of the current drug policy stems in part from "moral paternalism", and the discussion here is what kinds of paternalism are justified. The soft and weak variations seem relatively uncontroversial.


That is a good link, yes. It was user Fast who first linked me to it here.
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 05:57 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124430 wrote:
Presumably it is argued that they are not aware of the potential risks. Although I think you would have to modify it for a more specific definition of "awareness". A 14 year old can be taught the facts, but the "risk taking" part of the brain is still developing in teenagers (supposedly), so one would argue that they aren't well equipped to deal with risk.


Me thinks we need to apply this same standard to politicians & bankers ?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 12:41 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;124591 wrote:
Is it morally permissible to aid a person in suicide, as long as the potential suicide victim is aware of the consequences of his actions?


In the Netherlands and Swiss it is permitted under limitations by law. We then don't call it aiding suicide but euthanasia.
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 11:15 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;124432 wrote:
Whether or not any collection of people decide to allow or prohibit such a thing should depend on the extent such would damage or enhance the individual the larger community - it's all up to them and what they collectively decide.

... and that would come down to a question of how much and what kind of damage do these pose. The more destructive to the community, the greater one should be prohibitive.

... or so I think


Hmmmmmm
Inherent in an assumption like this even is a definition of "harm" (damage).
This proves an interesting discussion in itself once we define "harm" beyond physical harm.

GS
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 11:23 am
@hue-man,
The selling of recreational drugs that have a high instance of causing harm to the user may be a moral wrong (in some utilitarian or deontological view), but it's an economic good. Which one should be preferred over the other is a good question.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 12:21 pm
@groundedspirit,
groundedspirit;125286 wrote:
Me thinks we need to apply this same standard to politicians & bankers ?


And to the medical industry. Might make public health insurance possible. :shifty:
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 03:39 pm
@hue-man,
[QUOTE=hue-man;124416]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. Do you think that it's ethical to sell drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol even though it could harm a person's physiological and psychological health? Can the sale of these substances be justified or condemned by any of the three most common ethical systems, such as deontology, utilitarianism or virtue theory?[/quote]

As it is with me on many controversial issues, I find myself trapped with indecisiveness, as I try and cling to opposing views. I too want to be free to do as I please (so long as I harm no other), and if I should decide to pick up another pack, then I think I should be able to do so, and if I am restrained from being able to do such things, I am upset and left with a feeling that I have been wronged. However, as time marches on, I find that I question how important our freedom to smoke is.

Our freedoms are precious, and fight for them we most certainly should, but a true freedom to do as we please comes not without it's own misery. When I see the anguish on the faces of those that have suffered a fate by their own choices, I can't help but think we ought to have stopped it from happening. Yes, people can do stupid things, but calling them stupid doesn't help them or take away the suffering they wouldn't have had if we had the backbone to take away their freedom by force.

We need to be free to do as we please, but to do as we please without limitation doesn't strike me as the makings for a better world. There needs to be limitations, and though we may all never agree on where that limit should be, for me, it seems that it's sometimes ethical (and sometimes not) to sell such things as drug-containing cigarettes.
 
ArthBH
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 07:30 pm
@hue-man,
I can only agree with this post.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/27/2021 at 03:20:51