Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight
Look, I'm pro-government intervention in plenty of things, but those things are usually the ones regulating actions done by individuals which harm other individuals. Doing something that harms only yourself, as long as you have full knowledge of such a harm (and that is the government's responsibility of teaching you, through public schooling) should be perfectly fine. Whether or not you are prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions is something that the government should grant, as I said, through public schooling--as long as you know what happens with your body when you consume such a substance, you are prepared to deal with the consequences.
|
Except even when people know the possible side effects and decide to take the drug anyway, they often aren't prepared to deal with the consequences. Many think that it simply won't happen to them. After all, only weak willed people get addicted to drugs. They just want to get high. Not to mention if they want to quit in many cases it will require medical treatment. Further, there's always the chance that while they're high they might harm other people. Drug use can effect more than just yourself.
Quote:
|
Shouldn't we also try to ban extreme sports from your point of view? I mean, they probably kill as many people as hard drugs do, and adrenaline rushes can be considered addictive from a physiological standpoint.
|
Red herring and strawman.
Quote:
|
PS: There is a world of difference between "addiction" and "dependency", though you seem to claim that the former implies the latter--that is definitely not true.
|
The simple fact is most hard drugs have been scientificly proven to cause dependency, and that is what most people mean when they use the term addiction. Do you have a point here beyond sementics?