Controll over your own body...?

Ok, I’m putting this question here because I don’t know if this is a factual question, and there’s a straightforward explanation, or if it’s completely debatable, so I thought I’d be safe and ask here.
Ok, first off, this question isn’t about abortion, but I will mention it once.
People on the pro-choice side use the argument, a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. Logically, this should apply to men as well. So if that’s true, then how come anti drug laws aren’t ruled unconstitutional, and also anti suicide laws as well?
Remember, this isn’t a debate on abortion, drug use or suicide. This is a question about the right to do with our bodies as we please, and if that right really exists or not. I just used those subjects to show conflicts in the law.

The effect of drug use extends beyond your own body.

In addition to drug use and suicide, one might also consider organ-selling.

And prostitution. And pornography for that matter. (Yes, porn is legal, but a lot of people would prolly ban it if they could. )

I think as long as you dont infringe on anyones rights, you may do what you wish with your body.
But with the abortion thing, im totally against the woman having all the say… thats just me.

Joel, under the laws of Virginia, you can be arrested for sodomy. Frikken’ stupid, but the law.
So, legally, your rights over your body suck. (Or, in Virginia, lack the freedom to suck.) Morally, I’d say that the right of self-ownership is fundamental, and needs one unholy hell of a justification to become moral.

I agree with you for the most part, although I disagree about the abortion part. As much as I would like to claim some say in the matter, it really isn’t my body.

The problem with drugs is it’s easy to go too far and to start infringing on other people’s rights. Does this mean they should be illegal on the grounds that they might infringe on someone else’s rights? No, I don’t think so. As much as I know it would be a bad idea, I think that all drugs should be legal. In order for that to happen though I think personal responsibility has to become more widely accepted.

While I’m totally opposed to legalizing drug use, let me play devil’s advocate. With drinking, there are laws against public drunkenness, but you can get drunk in the comfort of your own home. Why not with drugs?

I would say that it depends on the drugs. If it’s a “smokeable” drug then anyone around you would be subjected to it’s effects. Granted cigarettes are legal…

Illegal drugs have to be bought from somewhere, illegally. The purchase of which supports the ugliest elements of our society.
Granted, if they were all legal most of that ugliness would not exist.
Ostensibly they are deemed illegal because of their danger to the unsuspecting user and their potential medicinal value is offset by this risk. Heroin is a good example, cocaine another.

Moreover, the use of illegal drugs (let’s say crack) affects more than the body of the user. A user generally is related to people, who will be hurt by his use socially, emotionally, financially. Society is ultimately responsible for the welfare of the crack addict and will end up paying for the numerous rehabs, medical treatments, foster care for any children born, therapy for said children, so on and so forth.
I think we make a fundamental mistake when we think of ourselves as without connection to others. When we think of our actions as affecting only ourselves.

Alcohol is only legal because it has been around for so long, and has traditions attached. If it were developed and discovered today, they’d have a show about mexicans smuggling it through Ciudad Juarez on TV.
I bet if Jesus turned oregano into weed at that wedding, it would be legal too.

Hehehe, well, I don’t know about that. Although there might be a religious exception kind of like how Native Americans have exceptions for drugs in their relgious cerimonies.

To me, Greck summed up the meat of the problem with this statement,
“I think we make a fundamental mistake when we think of ourselves as without connection to others. When we think of our actions as affecting only ourselves.”

I think most, if not all, of us feel that we should have rights over our own bodies; that the government should not impose its views over what is right and wrong for one’s own body.
The problem is, that body lives in society, and in fact, probably largely because of that society. In thinking about government I can’t help but think of a draft. While I may not support a particular war, a draft can be imposed to force me to take my body out of its comfy living room chairs and go off to a place where they are in grave danger in order to support the country that presumably supports me.
I wonder what role an individual should be required to play in the whole of society. If we were completely self reliant beings then I think we would have the right to have complete control over our own bodies, as we are not, I don’t think we can expect complete control since we are also part of a larger body; that of society.

This is why I feel that illegal drugs should be illegal or at least managed (as in medicinal pot). Making seriously addictive drugs legal signs up a society to manage the consequences of their usage. Abortion is a much stickier issue to me in that it deals with so many people’s bodies and well-being. There are so many people’s rights to their own bodies at stake and no clearcut gains for the society that insists that all pregancies be seen through to the end. I guess that’s why I’m pro-choice, because I just can’t decide for anyone else since my gains as a community member from forcing them one way or another are so unclear.
This sounds a little too calculating to me since we are dealing with lives but I don’t really know of a better way to approach it.


So basically, this is what I’m hearing from everyone.
Drugs can be illegal because of the fear of the user could to do other people.
Abortion is legal because the unborn isn’t legally seen as another person, and so has no protection.
Two positions that would, legaly speaking at least, seem to support the idea that we do have the right to do with our bodies as we please. But what about anti suicide laws?

I guess I’m not sure how suicide laws are enforced. do you get sentenced to jail before you’re buried?

Suicide attempts (unsuccessful) are generally considered the mark of a psychiatric disorder and the person stands to be locked up as long as he is a suicide risk. I don’t think they’re prosecuted as criminal are they?

Assisted suicide, or death with dignity as a means of ending a painful existence, I’m ok with, as long as there is some due process. Like a psychiatric evaluation to see if the person has alternatives to misery in life before choosing death.

Laws against suicide generally prevent life insurance from paying off in those cases.

Oh, no – please tell me you’re not dredging up that “drug money supports terrorists!” line again!

Suicide laws are there to prevent assisted suicide, or even claims of such to avoid prosecution for murder/ manslaughter. They aren’t at all enforceable against those successfully committing suicide, and any fresh-out-of-law-school attorney could defend an unsuccessful person against attempted suicide charges by reason of insanity, but they prevent the murderer/ attempted murderer from claiming “I was just trying to help.”

I See.

There are of course those of us who believe that abortion sould be legal, and also believe that drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legalized as well.

Generally, no. Most insurance policies have a two-year exclusion for deaths from suicide. After two years, most policies will pay benefits for a suicide, regardless of whether the act is illegal.