When Can You Infringe On Others Choices?

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet. Will you also roll back the $2-$4 per pack taxes on a pack of cigarettes then?

[SheetWise]

Does the drug have any effect on the users spelling?

[lehighguy]

Crack destroys lifes, I've never seen cigs do it. But let's get away from just those two examples.

The ferocity of the drug matters to some. In fact, the scope of the negative effect appears to be the driving force behind why most things in society (not just drugs) are outlawed or regulated.

If it doesn't matter to you that's fine, but it is possible for someone to have differing answers to the two questions.

[warlockjd]

allow

allow

allow

[lehighguy]

I'm curious to here the explanation for three.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious to here the explanation for three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking a substance does not infringe others' rights. The actions that a person takes after taking that drug *might* infringe others' rights. Legislating based on what "might" happen or even what is "likely" to happen is oppression.

[lehighguy]

If the person kills someone else its the greatest infringment on thier rights possible. Instead of likely what if I replaced it with 99.999% chance everytime you take the drug. Does society recieve a net freedom/rights benefit by outlawing the drug?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If the person kills someone else its the greatest infringment on thier rights possible. Instead of likely what if I replaced it with 99.999% chance everytime you take the drug. Does society recieve a net freedom/rights benefit by outlawing the drug?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another "edge case" that is really no more than a fantasyland hypothetical. Why would anyone take such a drug to begin with? Are users somehow ignorant of the effects? Only legislators know what it does?

Look at reality - lots of drugs are already illegal, and people still obtain and use them. We can safely assume that if your fantasy murderdrug is A) actually used by people and B) outlawed that people will still get it and use it and kill people.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow, and the percentages don't matter in my opinion, otherwise ban alcohol.

Mack

[lehighguy]

Are you going to answer the hypothetical, or simply ignore it because it would force you to alter an absolutist axiom in the face of a possible exception.

Acknowledging the possibility of government intervention increases the overall freedom/rights doesn't mean you have to believe it in all cases. It doesn't even mean you have to do it in 99.99999999% of the time. It is merely the acknowledgement of the possibility and the rejection of the absolutist axiom.