: You are free to take a very clean approach to life it you want. I have derived pleasure from some drugs. I've derived insight. I've hurt myself too. I also dive deep into the ocean, knowing each time that I may not return alive. Cynic: It sounds like you live an interesting life, and I make no presumption to judge you for the occasional indulgence in psychoactive substances. I stand in principle against those for whom drug use has become a staple of existence.
: Life is risky, full of pleasure and pain, and one ought to have the FREEDOM to choose from which plate one will dine. I do not criticize you or others for not using drugs or doing the things which I do, but I insist on the freedom to do what I want, as long as I do not harm others. I am an adult and a free agent, and neither you nor the state have the right to dictate how I will treat my body and my life.
Cynic: You are correct, and as my original post states, I do not think a state usually has the right to prevent its citizens from taking drugs. There are 2 distinct problems with it: It infringes on the freedom to act as one desires so long as it does not harm others, and more importantly by my standard, enforcement of drug laws is unjustifiably expensive.
Then again, I have difficulty giving assent to the utter legalization of drugs, because I have observed many individuals who lack the sense not to abuse alcohol or cigarettes, even though by their age the law insists that they have such faculties. True enough, Big Brother can stifle responsible citizens in many ways- but the world is also full of more than enough idiots who don't know any better. If Little Brother is an absolute cretin, Big Brother might certainly know better!
I continue to believe that where one cannot or refuses to police oneself, a concerned legal system offers the next best recourse. I believe people have a right to complete autonomy until they prove themselves incapable of handling that freedom. Then I'm all for telling them what to do. That may sound contradictory, but it is how I function. Both you and I can tell the difference between one who uses drugs and one who overuses them. More often than not the latter has problems related to his or her drug use that compound the necessity for regulation. So should the state try and protect people from themselves? My answer is yes, but only if the individual in question cannot or will not bear the responsibility first. Someone should be looking out for the welfare of drug abusers, and laws are one method of dealing with the drug problem. Treatment is better.
It is beyond ridiculous that our prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders. It's clear we need to distinguish between "use" and "responsible use."
So you see... my ideas regarding the legalization of drugs still need refinement. I believe when I find my answer it will be on a slippery slope by any philosopher's account--but towards that criticism I will little care. These are hard lines to walk, but I'd rather try to walk them than pick a side in error or fence-sit.
Regardless, however, by your own account it seems we'd agree that you should be free to do drugs if you so choose. And I bid you enjoy them, but please be careful not to enjoy them, well, too much!
:)
- Cynic
