originally posted in:Liberty Hub
On a side note, I want to get your stance on something.
Somebody was saying that government regulating drugs is a good thing because it keeps people safe.
My argument was that the government had no right regulating what we do with our bodies.
Also, that many people don't do illegal drugs because they're dangerous to our health, not purely because they're illegal. However, it should be our choice to make if we want to take the risk or not.
I also brought up that even now, while they are illegal, people still do them without thinking of the consequences. And that these people would use them no matter what. Law abiding citizens would still refrain from them even if they were legal, because they'd know of the consequences.
When somebody using a dangerous drug uses it, the first thing that comes to their mind is not, "is this legal?"
However, he blatantly shot down my argument by saying millions of people would start using these drugs, despite knowing of their dangers, and that it's the governments responsibility to save our lives.
I already think I know your stance, but I thought I'd share it with you anyways.
English
-
[quote]However, he blatantly shot down my argument by saying millions of people would start using these drugs, despite knowing of their dangers, and that it's the governments responsibility to save our lives.[/quote] That guy is full of shit. It's clear that the law alone is not an absolute deterrent against using illicit substances. In fact, it's hardly a deterrent at all. In pragmatic terms (talking about "what works"), there's no evidence to suggest that decriminalization of illicit substances will lead to mass-addiction. In principled terms (talking about what's morally right), it is immoral to use the state's guns to force people to behave in a certain way. Unless a person has violated the rights of another, there's no moral reason to violate their ownership of their body, labor, speech, or property.