Re the section quoted below:
It is not always necessary to sample something to intelligently condemn it. One may condemn it because of the consequences - not necessarily on the once carrying out the action, but on others.
For example, one may condemn drugs - at least in the current sociopolitical climate - because being illegal,
1) They are often 'pushed' by immoral, untrustworthy individuals who have no qualms about whom they get addicted, who pays them money.
2) They channel money into criminal pockets, and not just petty street thieves either, but organised crime.
One may also condemn drug use because of its effects on those around the drug user: Often, especially while out of their heads, it may seem to matter less to iv drug abusers to do things like avoid sharing needles, or tidy up used ones into safe containers. Consider now the social services worker who visits and contracts HIV or Hepatitis B from a needlestick injury. You may say this applies only in irresponsible use of drugs, but how can we have one without the other? How do we police people to ensure they only use drugs responsibly, when they have a physical addiction?
And a final example in two words:
Crack babies.
Rob (Playing the devil's advocate - after all, we have already seen that making drugs illegal hasn't made the problem go away...)
Quoted text:
---------------------
i have noted, that most inteligent people try things before they develop a strong opinion of them. so eather all these morally upright citizens who condem drugs have tryed them themselves, or they are all stupid. i dont mind that they change their mind, and in a way that they feel is for the better. you shouldnt have to always think the same thing. but at the same time, they should realize that they experimented and then decided first hand what they felt. why should they then deny me the same right? |