When Can You Infringe On Others Choices?

[lehighguy]

For this hypothetical we will assume the following. Someone is abusing addictive drugs that cause them to act in a dibilitating and potentially dangerous manor. I will use a set of hypothetical substances for the polls.

We will also assume you have a 100% effective enforcement method that has no social or financial costs or side effects other then the infringment of another's freedom to use the drug (no use of the drug will be allowed at all).

[renodoc]

classic libertarian line.

I've had some great discussions with my dad comparing gun laws to drug laws. He has come to understand that the guy minding his own business doing drugs in his own house is not much different from the guy minding his own business cleaning out his AR-15 in his own garage. The government has no business bothering either of them.

Read this book.

[theweatherman]

Legalize all drigs. Fund education to stop the abuse, not lock up junkies.

[Hal 2000]

[ QUOTE ]
classic libertarian line.

I've had some great discussions with my dad comparing gun laws to drug laws. He has come to understand that the guy minding his own business doing drugs in his own house is not much different from the guy minding his own business cleaning out his AR-15 in his own garage. The government has no business bothering either of them.

Read this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those 2 people are not that different, but, if someone's pot is stolen, or 'liberated' from the evidence room, it is not likely to be used to kill someone.

[lehighguy]

To those that answered allow it to 2 and outlaw it to 3:

What if the chance of violence is not certain. Let's say 80% will have a violent reaction, but the other 20% won't. You can't determine who will be violent beforehand. Do you still outlaw it?

What is the drug is some magic drug? It gives someone a level of happiness and contentment that borders on religous. The joy you get is greater then all the other joys you experience in live put togethor and has no adverse side effects. It makes live worth living. Once again, there is an 80% chance the person will turn violent immediately afterwards (and will hurt someone no matter what precautions are taken).

Does it matter if I change the percentages? What is I flip them to 80% non violent / 20% violent? What if I exagerate them to 99.99999% either way? What if its 50/50?

I think it's safe to say an example for poll question 2 would be cigarettes. If someone wants to smoke cigarettes they can do that as long as they sign a paper refusing to accept any government funded assistance that would be required as the result of conditions caused from smoking. It's somewhat complicated to explain, but I don't want to incur any economic loss for someone's right to smoke. Also, you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public because of obvious health problems it causes via second-hand smoke.

[lehighguy]

Cigs was more the first question. When I looked at the second I was thinking more of crack except it didn't make you violent.

[ QUOTE ]
Cigs was more the first question. When I looked at the second I was thinking more of crack except it didn't make you violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crack, and cigarettes are the same thing in my book. Doesn't it really make a difference whether we are talking about crack or cigs; they both kill you.

Actually, doesn't crack make you violent or at least more violent than a person who isn't on crack? Even if it doesn't make you violent, I still think it should only be allowed under the circumstances I listed in the last post.

[lehighguy]

If you think crack and cigs are the same thing then I wonder if you've ever known anyone on crack. They are entirely different worlds.

But I don't want to get to tied down in real life drugs, I'm trying to work around hypotheticals.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think crack and cigs are the same thing then I wonder if you've ever known anyone on crack. They are entirely different worlds.

But I don't want to get to tied down in real life drugs, I'm trying to work around hypotheticals.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both destroy the life of the user, correct? So doesn't that fit the requirement in the poll? The method in which they kill the body are different, but the result is the same. Crack is more powerful and works over a shorter period of time while cigarettes are weaker and work over a long period of time.

Lets get the semantics out of the way. If you want, i'll categorize cigarettes under poll question 1, and crack under poll question 2. My answer is the same for both.