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.

[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.

Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by cleaning his AR-15 in the garage?

Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by baking out his house with opium, crack-cocaine, and weed smoke, intoxicating his children with the second-hand smoke?

Do you believe the Government should intervene in cases where parents are harmfully negligent to their children?

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by cleaning his AR-15 in the garage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. In fact, he is probably doing them a great service if he takes the time to educate them about guns and how to respect them.

[ QUOTE ]
Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by baking out his house with opium, crack-cocaine, and weed smoke, intoxicating his children with the second-hand smoke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely different scenario. Here the father is being negligent by "intoxicating" his children.



[ QUOTE ]


Do you believe the Government should intervene in cases where parents are harmfully negligent to their children?

[/ QUOTE ]

One role of government is to protect individuals and property from each other. Few would argue against the sexually abusive parent being dealt with harshly by authorities. In your drug example, it could be reasonably argued that the children are being harmed and thus the government should intervene.

[theweatherman]

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

[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?

[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]

Alcohol doesn't result in so many deaths. It is a poor substitute.

So what is the justification for legalization knowing that it will likely result in many people forfieting thier most important right, the right to live?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Alcohol doesn't result in so many deaths. It is a poor substitute.

So what is the justification for legalization knowing that it will likely result in many people forfieting thier most important right, the right to live?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read your post you mentioned the words 'violent reaction', if killing was mentioned I ignored it and concentrated on the aforementioned phrase. Alcohol is a fairly good example of that in my honest opinion, a percentage of people overindulge, and feel the positive benefits and then go on to have a 'violent reaction'. I am not suggesting everyone does this, I am just putting it across as an example of the type of drug you mentioned, also I believe alcohol is much more abused and over indulged in, in Europe than in America.

I wouldn't say there is any particularly important reason to allow it that overrides the importance of the right to live, however I would argue that alcohol is a good substitute, I don't know for sure but I would guess alcohol results in the deaths of more people than any other drug, even if a lot are accidental and not violently motivated killings.

Regards Mack