OMG drugs scare me, let's go for a drink to calm our nerves

[Dexter]

Your comment on other countries having different laws is a bit strange too. Are you arguing for a universal acceptance of the same laws, that instead of being based on societal and cultural norms, that it is an human principle that cannot be violated? So...... yeah I am a bit confused here.

I'm going to pick out this question to respond to because I can hit all your other points along the way. Call it a one-argument-fits-all arrangement.

I started this whole discussion out, way back on page 1, arguing it as a basic human principle that cannot be violated, and I remain firm on that point. How many times have I repeated the phrase "inalienable human right" in this thread? Too many, I'm sure, but it's a very deeply held conviction.

I prefer this argument in the abstract, because I'm an idealist, and an absolutist, and that's how I think and how I prefer to argue, but we've led each other on this 3-page journey to a lot of other places and I've gone along with that for argument's sake. I've argued it in the abstract and in the practical. Now, though, if you're asking for a firm stance from me, I'll go ahead and make it and sum up my argument and then give you the last word to do the same because otherwise we could be back and forth on this for months, right?

I look at it this way. There's two ways to view the question of human freedom: either we're born as totally free beings with everything permitted, and then we begin to subtract what's permitted as necessity dictates... or we're born as totally inhibited beings with nothing permitted, and we begin to add what's permitted as necessity dictates.

For example, I believe the former... that we're born totally free with everything permitted. Now, we start to remove what's permitted as necessity dictates. No rational, reasonable human being would argue that murder should be permitted, so we subtract that. No rational, reasonable human being would argue that rape should be permitted, so we subtract that. Theft, destruction of others' property, etc etc. We subtract everything that's completely indefensible. However, something like we're discussing here... drug use. A rational, reasonable human being such as myself can argue that it should be permitted, and a rational, reasonable human being such as yourself can argue that it shouldn't. Given the fact that we've established doubt on the subject, my philosophy of the innately free individual demands that we give the individual the benefit of the doubt and permit it.

Someone else, on the other hand, might argue that we're born absolutely inhibited, and freedoms are added as necessity dictates. No rational, reasonable human would argue that a person shouldn't be free to choose their own occupation, so we grant them that. We grant them every freedom that no one would argue against. However, on a topic like drug use where an argument can be made either way, the individual defaults to inhibited and so he remains in the presence of doubt.

See what I'm getting at here? In my view, once you remove those things that absolutely must NOT be freedoms, what you're left with is the most free individual you can possibly, conceivably have, and that becomes the default. Any further removal of freedom from that individual is a grievous affront not only to him, but to all of us, because the denial of a basic, inalienable right to any individual diminishes us all.

You can keep your practicality, you can keep your what-ifs, your supposed victims... none of it enters into it. Unless another innocent party is directly harmed by an act... not just potentially, but directly harmed, then it's not only permissible, but an absolutely vital right, necessary for the wholeness of the individual.

I'll give you the last word.

 

[Nitafrong]

You raise a number of interesting points Dexter. Your theory of what reasonable laws we would limit ourselves to is quite similar to a famous theory of jurisprudence. Unfortunately my faulty memory can't quite recall who wrote it- someone who's surname began with F I think.

In any case I am quite far from being an absolutist. I believe in the importance of balance, of finding the compromise or the middle way between two arguments. So yeah, there are a lot of similarities in our points I think bar this. I also believe that the laws should be less stringent- just not to the same extent as you. In my view, some rules must be placed on the use of the substances- growing more controlling the higher the potential harm that the drug could cause.

My views on freedom have been illustrated in past posts and I will only add that your theory of what necessity dictates is a fluid concept in my eyes and is quite dependant on societal and cultural norms and history. Thus it could and indeed does mean different things for different societies.

So yeah I think I have summarised the majority of my views here. I tend to be a better responder than a coagulator so I probably left out some stuff. But yeah that's my view.

(I probably can't rep you Dex but I would if I could. Good fun debate as always )

 

[Razor]

Yeah. This whole thing boils down to what right the courts have to regulate our lives. Can they regulate what we put into our bodies? Can they regulate what we do to the outside of our bodies? How about what we do? Such as ride a bike or drive a car? Or should they just step back and have no laws at all?

Now, unless you're Xfear the Anarchist, I think we can safely presume that laws are needed to protect society. Even I believe that everyone is born with a basic sense of good..but not everyone follows that code. Should we just let the douches kill and rob without recourse? No. Of course not. However...what's the line?

I either touched on this in my Art of Philosophy threads or I was going to. John Stuart Mill, a classic political theorist and philosopher, says this:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. I rather like that. Laws can be put into place that you can't shoot someone, because you'd have hurt that someone else. However, laws shouldn't be put into place telling yourself that you can't shoot yourself in the face. A law that forbids an act such as suicide or drug use is what Mill would call "paternal" laws. And Mill is uniformly against these sort of laws being in place for adults.

Now...what could possibly be the argument for protecting a sane adult from himself? What right do we have to tell FTS that he can't shoot up some smack if he wants to? How dare you tell me that I can't speed down a road because I might crash and harm myself? The mere shadow of a possibility of harming others isn't enough. You must prove that I will harm society, or the paternal majority have encroached upon my sovereign rights.