All drugs should be legal
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
THERE IS NOTHING SO ATTRACTIVE TO A CHILD THAN A LIMIT
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
Why do we tolerate prohibition with its terrible human costs and terrible expense?
Regulation, tax and health advice seem like the smart thing to do. It would be a huge blow for organised crime.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: All drugs should be legal
Drugs, alcohol and large gatherings is recipe for trouble.
- Theboombody
- Posts: 90
- Joined: April 28th, 2010, 8:23 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Re: All drugs should be legal
Is there an age limit? Should a 20 year old be able to decide what to put in their own body? What about a 10 year old? 2 year old?pjkeeley wrote:There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.
Do I have a right to put radioactive material in my body and then go around contaminating everybody?
Why is this, "It's all about me and my rights," such a popular idea now? That's not the gist of John Locke's liberal philosophy. His liberal philosophy is that the people should give something to the state, and the state should give something back to them. It's not all one sided. It's not, "The state should give me everything." Before John Locke, cultural opinion was unbalanced in favor of the state, and now it's unbalanced in favor of the individual. Locke at least had a balance of some sort.
G-rated Shock Value - "No bad words. Just bad ideas."
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13871
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: All drugs should be legal
More and more of us live in cities and are physically dependent on each other for vital services. Liberty for a typical city dweller has therefore to be curtailed in proportion as her actions impinge upon others.
Liberty and freedom are different states.
-
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: October 18th, 2012, 5:30 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
Relative rights are no rights at all.
- Samurai
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: January 10th, 2014, 8:34 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
But it’s different in this situation because heroin is addictive not only mentally but physically as well; therefore if every drug is legal we cannot guide our loved ones or the mass to stop using drugs such as heroin just because it is legal.
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
I also asked pjkeeley a similar question, but, I checked, he has not attended this Forum since October 16th, 2012!!Theboombody wrote:Is there an age limit? Should a 20 year old be able to decide what to put in their own body? What about a 10 year old? 2 year old?pjkeeley wrote:There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.
Do I have a right to put radioactive material in my body and then go around contaminating everybody?
Why is this, "It's all about me and my rights," such a popular idea now? That's not the gist of John Locke's liberal philosophy. His liberal philosophy is that the people should give something to the state, and the state should give something back to them. It's not all one sided. It's not, "The state should give me everything." Before John Locke, cultural opinion was unbalanced in favor of the state, and now it's unbalanced in favor of the individual. Locke at least had a balance of some sort.
G-rated Shock Value - "No bad words. Just bad ideas."
So I do not think we can expect an answer.
-- Updated January 11th, 2014, 6:02 am to add the following --
It might be useful for you to distinguish between rights and freedoms, as you seem to use them interchangeably.Pastabake wrote:The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.
Relative rights are no rights at all.
In early times Man had many freedoms, but no rights at all.
The thing about rights is that they have been constructed, freedom has not. I think it is not fair to say that 'freedoms (or rights for that matter) have been constructively curtailed", when the case it that rights are a construct, that curtails freedom in the face of the wants of many. The simple fact that you can LIVE 'cheek by jowl' with neighbours is due to the fact that our freedoms to do as we might wish have been structured by rights. You are not free to enter the property of your neighbour, eat his food and rape his wife, because he now has the right to some protection under the law. RIghts give you the same, as your neighbour, the rights restrict freedoms for the protection of society in this case.
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
-
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: October 18th, 2012, 5:30 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
Pastabake wrote: The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.
Relative rights are no rights at all.
Where exactly have I done that then?Hog Rider wrote:It might be useful for you to distinguish between rights and freedoms, as you seem to use them interchangeably.
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
I've got a degree in Ancient History and Archeology, if that is any help to you. It's a bit of a no-brainer to a historian.Stormcloud wrote:"In early times man had many freedoms, but no rights at all" How would you know? Were you there?
I can give you a bit of information if you like, but if you think a moment you know its true.
-- Updated January 15th, 2014, 5:55 pm to add the following --
Exactly where I quoted you as confusing them.Pastabake wrote:Pastabake wrote: The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.
Relative rights are no rights at all.Where exactly have I done that then?Hog Rider wrote:It might be useful for you to distinguish between rights and freedoms, as you seem to use them interchangeably.
-
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: October 18th, 2012, 5:30 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13871
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: All drugs should be legal
What will happen when we are cheek by jowl with our neighbours is either individuals take a lot more responsibility for each other's welfare, and for the common good, or there will be a free for all when neighbours will be driven by fear of each other with terrible results.Pastabake wrote:The trouble that I have with this idea is that our freedoms have been constructively curtailed. Eventually we will find ourselves cheek to jowl with our neighbours and discover that in fact we have no rights at all.
Relative rights are no rights at all.
Recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol are okay for superficial fun as long as the drugs don't unduly harm vulnerable consumers or lead to mayhem. Laws are needed to protect vulnerable consumers of recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol because those who sell recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol are to variable degrees greedy grabbers with few morals. In think that the decision to legalise recreational drugs should depend upon how much social or psychological harm the unadulterated drug does, for it's unlikely that anything comes without a social, medical, or psychological downside.
-
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: October 18th, 2012, 5:30 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
The problem of rights only occurs once X decides to interact with other humans - which might be never - and would in any case last only as long as the interaction.
Hence my point is that this freedom has been constructively curtailed by those more powerful taking ownership of all the land, encouraging breeding, urbanisation and immigration etc ... to the present situation where there is no freedom just rights, because everything you do now involves some interaction with another human - even if it's just to remove your body after you've OD'd.
The obvious conclusion as to why X is not allowed to continue as before (aside from the fact that in practical terms everything is owned and there is no free space to be free in) is that X like everything else is now the property of the state.
Poor old X was delivered a fait accompli ... and while you are right that as we find ourselves in this situation we should act accordingly ... it leaves a bad taste in ones mouth because whether we want to admit it or not we have been enslaved.
No freedom, just rights and as those rights are contingent on the realities of the situation it turns out that in practical terms we have no rights at all.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023