Well, I believe people generally act in their self-interest. Is our economic system not proof? If you believe that people all have death wishes and it's the government preventing mass suicide and all, well then we'll just have to disagree on that point.
I haven't commented on whether I think any particular harmful substances should be banned. I'm just pointing out the fault in your reasoning. People will do things that are harmful to them, and we will all pay a price for it.
True, but it's a big jump from smoking cigarettes to doing meth (to get back to the topic). Even if the latter were legal, I doubt many people would do it. Lots of people have vices, as long as it doesn't get out of control I'm not too worried. I have faith in people. I'm willing to have them make decisions for themselves, and I believe the vast majority won't do all that badly.
Bad example. Is crippling debt in anyone's best self-interest? Oddly, people--and not just dumb people--still amass crippling debt.
Matt, you've just been faced with two solid examples of ways that people cause harm to themselves willingly and voluntarily. What makes you think that these examples are exceptional? Can you provide counter-examples in which people, free from legal constraints on their behavior, behave in their own self interest and eschew that which is against their self-interest? You have asserted that the population at large will behave that way, but you haven't provided anything other than a "gut feeling" to support that assertion.
Not to mention that every single person who has ever lived can list decisions they've made in their past that worked against their self-interest.
Obviously people do go against their self-interest sometimes. But for the most part, people don't. Having money is in my self-interest. Thus, I don't quit my job when I have no other main source of income. I don't do this because the government forces me, I do it of my own free will. I also eat daily and avoid shooting myself and overdosing on cocaine. Do I have vices? Of course, everyone does. Do I do stupid stuff sometimes? Of course, everyone does. Do I need the government to tell me how to live my life? No, not really. I think I know better than George W. Bush what's best for me. You all can agree with that, right?
I'll give this one last try. Your analogies are poor. Working for income, eating daily and failing to shoot oneself don't compare to drug use nor to accumulating excessive debt, because none of the things you listed has a positive side. They also have very direct, immediate negative consequences which keep most people from doing them (e.g. When you don't work you can't pay the bills, and have no food, television, phone, place to live, etc. When you don't eat you get very hungry. When you shoot yourself it is painful and usually deadly). The types of laws we're talking about prevent behaviors which are much more appealing in the short term and have less immediate, although often equally disastrous, consequences. So there is a difference.
Do you have any idea how many people have far more debt than they can handle? Look up stats on debt in American and bankruptcy claims. Then move on to the number of smokers in the US, how many people die from cigarette-related complications. People do not act in their best interest at all times, and that's fine...until their actions affect others. The bitch of it is that a majority of actions that are harmful to an idividual can also prove harmful to others. I'm sure exactly what your point is here. Do your vices endanger or threaten to adversely affect the lives of others? Again, we all [most of us] agree that excessive government intervention into everyday lives is a bad thing, but it's not a black and white issue.
Let's try a different tack. Do you believe that people should go to jail or be fined if they sell "too much" (as defined by George W. Bush and the Congress) Sudafed to one person in a single month, or fail to properly record such sales? Do you believe people should be forced to provide ID to purchase Sudafed? Is this a legitimate use of tax dollars?
Actually it is "as defined by the FDA and DEA." The amount that can be purchased in a month is relative to the amount that could realistically be consumed for a legitimate purpose by a single person. And I believe that a person should face punishment of some kind for knowingly exceeding this predetermined number. If it's a minor miscalculation, a fine should work. If it's gross negligence or complete disreguard for the law, then I'm not against jail time. It's that or stick a RFID chip up their ass to track the purchase of the drug that way. Better than some current uses.
Right, but that applies to the government, not an individual. I'm all for restricting government, not so much on restricting individuals.
So, Matt, people should be able to purchase prescription drugs in any quantities they desire, without providing ID nor a prescription from a licensed physician?
Thank goodness another transparent concept, self-interest, has entered the discussion! Matt, it is in your self-interest to have someone tell you how to act, for without knowledge you cannot have liberty. Zoinks!
I would support that yes. Now personally, I would ask a physician in most circumstances before taking prescription strength drugs, but I believe that should be my choice. Now, if a store refused to sell to me without a prescription, that would be that store's right.
This is why I'm glad you'll never have a say in such matters. Antiobiotic resistance is on the verge of becoming a global problem because lay people attempt to cure themselves with antibiotics or don't take the complete recommended regimen. The consequences are staggering, and in countries that can't afford more-expensive alternative antibiotics (if they even exist for that particular sickness), the consquences are lethal. These substances need to be strictly controlled. Your desire to take a handful of penicillin pills any time you feel under the weather doesn't trump the public's right to not be infected with penicillin-resistant organisms.
If you admit its not, why do you keep trying to say that we have rights because of it? It can no more grant you rights than the Magna Carta can.
feeding antibiotics to farm animals to make them grow quicker isn't exactly helping the situation either. on other news, has anyone posting in this thread ever taken sudafed?
I'm on it right now. (well, not "Sudafed" the brand, but the active ingrediant that everyone is refering to as "sudafed)