The question isn't whether or not people should be allowed to do drugs or engage in prostitution, the question is does one group of people have a right to tell another group of people who have not harmed, or initiated force against anyone else what life choices they are permitted to make. Of course the answer is no. It is either right to dictate how other people live their lives, or it is wrong. Where does it stop? If you can tell a person not to do drugs under threat of imprisonment can they tell you not to eat sugar under threat of imprisonment? The argument can certainly be made that sugar has contributed to as many, if not more premature deaths than drugs. The difference is sugars lobbyists want sugar to be legal and pharma's lobbyists want drugs to be illegal. The bottom line is locking a person in a cell for engaging in an act in which they have not committed violence against any other person is an immoral act all on its own.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hi @tomanderson, thank you for the meaningful comment! I agree with with you and have only one note: in addition to forbidding violence, I would also prevent the most harmful and dangerous nonviolent acts, such as the hardest and most addicting drugs. Although selling, buying, and using drugs such as heroin or LSD is not a direct act of violence against someone else, it too often results in ruined lives, ruined families, extremly risky behavior, criminal acts to finance the need for more drugs etc. Cheers! : )
The formation of a society should be based on morals. Of course such a statement can be used as a form of oppression when used by those who themselves lack morals. The act of initiating force against a non-violent person who has not acted against another individual or their property is certainty immoral. That is the bases in my belief that drugs and prostitution should be legal. Their is no morality in locking people in cages for engaging in harmless acts that I personally find disgusting or offensive. Locking someone away would actually make me the perpetrator who initiated the use of violence. We live in a culture where everyone attempts to control everyone else, but a moral society provides individuals the liberty to make their own choices. For me, i would even legalize the hard drugs. Drug prohibition has made people no less likely to do drugs; but it has led to gang violence and violence on the American southern border. Individual liberty is always the answer. Government almost always worsens the problems it allegedly sets out to fix.
I agree with you in almost everything except for the hardest drugs.
The thing is, I don't consider the sale and usage of the hardest drugs only personally disgusting or offensive, I also consider it extremely dangerous for people around whoever is doing it. Something like when someone is driving a car 250 km/h in a highly crowded downtown area - he is actually not committing any violence at the moment, but he should be stopped because otherwise he will most probably get himself and/or some other people killed very soon.
It is encouraging that our society has gotten to the point where we can have this discussion at all. Of course legality and morality do not always correlate with one another. Just as I commend you for drawing attention to the senselessness of criminalizing drugs like Marijuana, I hope you also draw attention to the predatory practices of big pharmaceutical companies. So many people blindly trust their doctors and become addicted to prescription pain killers. We need more pot smokers and less pill heads.
I really like this thought. Sometimes, although your intentions are not bad, you are hurting or highly risking to hurt people around you.
Of course, excessive usage of medicines like pain killers is a very real problem, too.
Cheers! : )