A truly free person....

Has the absolute right to put whatever substance they like into their own body. Regardless of what you think about it.

 

as long as they're also free from any protection, sure.

Won't catch me crying over an employer's right to exclude/terminate.

 

Yep. Glad we all got this settled.

 

So long as they are free to lose their family/career and/or sanity, lose everything and not have the taxpayer foot the bill for treatment programs and/or welfare.

I absolutely agree that these are the conditions of a truly free person who wishes to ingest harmful narcotics into their own body. I also understand that you don't agree with this for whatever stupid reason you can muster up and it's highly hypocritical and inconsistent.

 

Even bodily fluids of an under-age girl?

 

Oh clearly people who make choices society doesn't agree with should not have equal access to health care. Lets get rid of drunks, smokes, sports players, fast food eaters, hell I'm sure we can come up with more! Lets take their money and not provide to them what we will provide to those who remain.

 

You weren't listening. The subject is about a truly free person. I was describing the circumstances of such in relationship to the topic of this thread.

 

This is one of the basic liberal fallacies. It's a loop that goes like this:

1. Government should protect access to something that can cause people problems.
2. Government should provide treatment for those problems.

#1 feeds into #2 which itself lets them go back to #1 again. This creates an endless loop in which no amount of money could resolve the dilemma.

Isn't it easier to say "drugs are bad and we don't condone their use; if you use them it's your problem?" Problem solved. Instead of "using drugs is OK and we will pay for your rehab or other treatment, after which, you are free to go back onto drugs again." Why are we subsidizing stupidity?

 

You make a valid argument and I agree 100% with what you are saying. But I think you missed the OP's point (which is equally stupid as the one you illustrated).

What she is saying is that drugs need to be legal because that's what would happen in a truly free society. But when the drug addicts fall we should pick them back up because we don't really want to live in a truly free society but one which we are coddled from cradle to grave and can do whatever we want causing society to suffer the consequences of our poor actions.

As you can see it is an equally mindless way of stringing thoughts together.

 

No. First off as individuals if we want to use drugs then that is our right; we own our bodies not society. Second if we pay for health care then why should we not get equal access to it? Why should health care be regimented based on personal choice? I don't see the pro "let them die" crowd saying that the people who do things they don't agree with shouldn't have to pay for government services they will not receive. I'm also curious as to how gung-ho you would be if one of your choices were on the list. Would you want to pay for a service you will not receive and be told by society that you deserve to die?

- - - Updated - - -

The truly free person deserves services they paid for.

 

First off I'm a he, second it's not coddling, it's getting services paid for. Drug users pay taxes the same as everyone else. Even if you want to entirely disregard paying by saying that drug users pay no taxes they still deserve the same services as everyone else.

 

Again you are failing to listen, one of the many side effects of cannabis. What many lefties argue for are rehab programs fully paid for by the taxpayer.

 

But what amount did they pay for? Are you saying that paying taxes entitles them to all the rehab they can use, aka unlimited services, even when they got themselves into the mess and other people, paying the same amount, get far less service?

The problem is that, in condoning their drug use even though it's harmful to them, government is now morally obligated to provide the most destructive people in society with unlimited services even though the odds are they are the ones paying no taxes because drug addicts tend to be below the poverty line.

Ergo, I see two major problems with your argument here. The first problem is that you haven't acknowledged the proportional reality and the second problem is that the drug addicts probably aren't paying any federal tax to begin with so saying "they paid for it" doesn't make sense even if the proportion they paid for wasn't an issue.

 

To add to your post, let's look at those people who can afford and do attend rehab. The vast majority of them fail and relapse so we know before getting into this whole thing that almost all of the money we invest into these people will go down the toilet.

 

tax the drugs.

 

Excecute the pushers.

 

Maybe, but if you tax the drugs beyond a certain amount they just go underground again. It is unlikely that you can pay for doctors and the law enforcement against black market drugs with the amount of money which can be raised off of the drugs.

 

Then don't tax them beyond a certain amount.

 

And then we are back to square one, it's a self-replicating taxpayer money pyre.

 

To which I go back to my previous suggestion.

 

a happy medium is possible.

 

"True" freedom in our society is a myth. A stoners fantasy to rationalize freedom from consequences.

 

I do seriously think people should have the right to do as they see fit. The prohibition on pot is completely idiotic, and has created more negative consequences than any problem it's ever solved.

But lets not sit around and pretend that if all narcotics are legalized, that everything is just gonna be hunky dory. Because it's not. Take ten minutes out of your day, and watch how a gaggle of meth heads go about their day. Their actions don't just affect them, and themselves alone.

 

Sure, I guess. If you could somehow obtain the bodily fluids without violating the girl. For instance, if you were bat**** insane you could rummage through rubbish tips looking for sanitary napkins and the like. Perhaps you could jump into an outdoor drop toilet at some camping lodge and eat all the contents. Point is, the problem isn't the ingestion of fluids, it's the sexual act.

Similar to how drinking the semen from a used condom you found in the park isn't sexual assault or anything - it's just disgusting and likely to get you HIV.

[hr][/hr]

As for the OP, yeah I agree. Ingesting substances is never in itself wrong. Indirect consequences might be wrong - for instance, robbing people to pay for heroin, or going psychotic on bath salts and waking up in a bathtub filled with the skulls of all the neighborhood's dogs.

But if you use heroin and never rob someone then you've not done anything wrong. If you take bath salts and just trip balls, you've done nothing wrong. If you drink a lot and don't glass someone in the face, you've done nothing wrong. If you smoke cannabis and don't... sit on the couch? Then you've done nothing wrong.

 

First off Id hardly call drug users "the most destructive people in our society." They didnt bring down the economy. They dont pass needless regulation which hinders competition and makes products more expensive. They are really nothing more than alcohol users who use a drug that society doesnt like rather than alcohol.

To the finances argument Inwould say money for rehab should be raised by taxes on drugs (all drugs including booze and smokes). This would help a great deal at mitigating the cost. Of course it wont happen because just like with smokers the government will see a social pariah that they can tax for any pet project they have without consequence.

Id also say that potential costs are a bad reason to limit freedom, and certainly not a reason to say people should be left to die if they choose to do something you dont agree with.