It could be argues that pregnancy brings about hormonal changes that also alter ‘free’ will. T
Not to nearly the same degree, usually. And the rare women who do go off the rails due to hormones with post-partum psychosis and the like are just that; rare. Addiction is the norm with heroin. Feeling a bit moody isn’t the same as feeling compelled to rob people to feed your addiction.
I had no idea someone could be addicted to heroin without choosing to first use heroin. The best way to handle heroinaddiction is probably force addicts to black market dealers and throw the in cages when caught
If you use the bodily ownership argument in favor, of legalizing abortion, legalizing drugs and anything else should follow. The problem is most people that use that argument are using it in an ad hoc fashion, and are not making a stand on that principle.
The whole business about drugs being different because they harm society is fluff. Society can’t be harmed, it is merely shorthand for the sum of voluntary interactions between individuals. Only individuals can be harmed. And the individuals harmed by them should be held responsible.
Just because they choose to use it at the start doesn’t mean they have much of a choice about continuing to use it. And in fact I understand it’s not all that unusual for heroin to be forced on women to addict them, to coerce them to cooperate as prostitutes.
:dubious: Considering that that’s exactly what we do now and it works terribly, no it’s not a good way of handling the problem.
Because picking a single principle and sticking to it no matter what the results are of doing so tends not to work out well in the real world.
It really depends on the basis for the right. In the US we do not require you to donate blood, or organs, or bone marrow, not even to save someone’s life, not even if we caused their need in the first place, not even if our acts were deliberate and criminal. If I stab you and destroy your right kidney, you don’t get to take one of mine. If I stab you in both kidneys, you still don’t get to take one of mine. If I shoot you and you’ll die from loss of blood, you don’t get my blood to survive, even if it is just a teaspoon.
I think this is the correct standard and I think that it extends logically to women and their body parts.
I am undecided about most drugs, though marijuana should be legal. In general, I think things should be legal unless there’s an incredibly compelling reason for it to be illegal, and I’m not sure many drugs meet that standard.
Ok it’s obvious that making heroin and prostitution illegal doesn’t stop that. If someone forces someone to use drugs, that should be prosecuted. Not if someone chooses to use drugs. You are conflating two different problems.
Abandoning principle in arbitrary fashion doesn’t work that well in the real world either. I’d rather err on the side of not using aggression against others.
In fact, it enables such behavior by making the women criminals.
Your position of “round up people who use drugs and put them in cages” is aggression.
Why?
I would take issue with an abortion way before I would any drug use or prostitution. Abortion effects another person. Undeveloped, unknowing person, sure, but drug use, the act of using drugs itself, only effects the person consuming the drugs. Prostitution has never bothered me and I believe it should be legal.
So, the government (i.e. other humans with their agendas, prejudices, etc.,) should make addicts criminals? But it’s even more than that - you seem to be saying that because some people will get addicted that *no one *should be allowed to access those drugs. Thank you, but I am willing to take that risk (for myself). I may not get addicted (and some people don’t).
You also start with the assumption that addiction is such a horrible development and is so intolerable that it goes without saying that its prevention pre-emptively strips me, and any other like-minded individuals, of my right of self-determination. But that’s just your value judgment; no matter how compelling you find it, it’s nothing more than your values, your judgment. No better or worse than mine or anyone else’s. Why should your values prevail? Oh, you’ll say because of the societal harm addiction engenders. I would counter that much, maybe most, and possible all the “societal” harm is a result of the drugs’ illegality - the need to resort to crime to pay for one’s habit etc.
At the end of the day, all of you who invoke the “well this is different” arguments are just attempting to justify having your values and morals become law.
There is an interesting study I saw on Freakonomics that showed how the legalization of abortion correlates with the decline of crime 20 years later. They even showed that showed how states that legalized it earlier enjoyed a sooner decline in crime than states that lagged or how states with more restrictions on abortion didn’t have as much of a decline. So maybe abortion isn’t all that bad.
Although I disagree with your implication, I think you are right. And it makes me all the more convinced that so-called “crimes” which affect no other individuals are clearly not (crimes).
I assume you are being sarcastic?
No, it doesn’t; a fetus isn’t a person. Certainly not in the sense that makes “affecting” it a legal or moral matter. There’s no one there to be affected.
No, probably not. But it should probably do something to prevent people from being addicted and to try to get people off drugs.
It strips you of the capacity for self determination, not the right.
No, addiction does (maybe). So make addiction illegal if you want to impose your view that preservation of capacity for self determination overrides one’s right of self determination. But let “drugs” remain legal.
IOW, I think you are conflating things here. And trying to impose your values on others.
My personal opinion is that the OP’s analogy is a valid one. An individual’s right to control their own person should include the right to consume whatever substances they want. If it were up to me, I’d repeal all drug laws with the exception of restricting sales to minors and keeping it illegal to do some activities while under the influence of drugs. But if you’re an adult and you want to shoot up speedballs in the privacy of your own home, have at it.
As far as prostitution goes, there are blogs by prostitutes that defend their profession. Report that the most visible are the street walker, unstable type. Also, while the heavier drugs are highly addictive there are people that use them and function, be it recreational use or addiction. Maybe the whole story isn’t there.
Arguing that heroin doesn’t strip you of free choice, addiction does is a lot like arguing that guns don’t hurt you, bullets do. OK for the punchline of a joke, but not very useful as an argument.
What should society do with a women carrying a child to term who insists on using drugs.?
Seems the larger interest would be to prevent that sort of thing.
Bit of a slippery slope, I know, I dont have an answer for that.
Am I missing something? If you made a Venn Diagram of people who are pro-choice, pro-drug, and pro-prostitution you’d get a lot of overlap.