I’m thinking in terms of drug usage, but I suppose it could apply to other potentially personally dangerous activities as well.
In the US, our drug laws aren’t really based on any objective measures, but if we were to re-design our laws from the ground up, where do you draw the line?
Some would say taking any drug is a matter of personal freedom, and in general I agree with that principle, but I’m also conflicted when I think about some of the really hard drugs out there.
I can’t remember who said it first, but when the harm of the illegality of the drug is worse than the drug itself, it makes no sense to outlaw it. I think this was said by Jimmy Carter wrt Marijuana, but there are a few other currently illegal drugs (in the US) that I could see that applying to.
Does the state have a responsibility to protect its citizens from themselves in some cases?
Opinions?