[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Yet, like I said, I think it is a matter of principle and a matter of rights. I believe that it should be the right of the citizen to destroy their body in any matter they choose to, regardless of the possible outcome of public health, unless it can be explicitly shown that the only purpose of the item would be to damage public health.

And I get where you're coming from on this. But when you legalize something for sale, it becomes the responsibility of the Federal government, especially today, to regulate those drugs and make sure they're safe to the general public. The FDA is required to pull any drug off the market that has the potential to kill people. Yes, yes, cigarettes and alcohol kill people obviously. Constitutionally they can't touch alcohol, but there are limits. Absinthe, for example, is not legally sold in the United States.

Cigarettes have been immortalized in the US long before the heath effects were discovered to be disasterous. Like alcohol, the government knew that banning it in this day and age wouldn't be tolerated by society simply because it caused lung cancer after years of use. Should cigarettes have been introduced for the first time tomorrow, they would never be legally sold in the United States.

Unfortunately for most folks who do wish to consume whatever they please can not because the government feels it has an obligation to protect citizens in health by federal regulations, and in society through law enforcement. That is not just the way it is in the United States. While some other countries will allow one or two items to get by legally (marijuana, etc.), most will not endorse the legalization of self-destructive drugs.

From an irrelevant stand-point, I wouldn't either. That is where I am coming from.

I understand your position fully and I agree to some extent, but I just don't endorse self-destruction in that regard. I personally think giving it a legal OK would give a lot of folks the thumbs up that that kind of behavior is A-OK. It's just my own position that it's not.

There is just nothing benefitial to using a drug that burns holes in your brain. If a person wants to do that, that is fine. Lord knows there are means, but governments will never fully endorse that route through legal means.

For instance, your argument on sexuality is missing one key element. One participant is unwilling.

Statutory räpe is simply a 25 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Both can be consenting, but because one is a minor and therefore does not meet the age of consent, it's not technically given. Some countries, however, do not recognize that age of consent and therefore as long as the 16 year old wants it, it's legal. In the field of prostituion, obviously it's consenual between both parties as long as one gets paid compensation for their services.

I'm not going to derail this discussion that you and I are having with that analogy, but it can be tied in with the idea that a person has an individual right to do with their body what they will - including solicitation.

This is the "What if" thinking. Yet, I doubt you will promote that we ban toasters, salmon, meat, or a big mac. Why should public fear, and what if statements, be allowed to censor what the public can have in the context of drugs?

Because in this day and age, we now know what the negative health effects are of some of these foods that have been around for some time. Hamburgers are bad for your health, but they don't impair your ability to operate a motor vehicle. No one has over dosed on toaster stroodles as of yet. Aside from alcohol, the drugs that do affect you to that extent have medicinal use. That medicinal use is why some folks have access to them.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree at this point? :P