 |
|  |
 |
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001 time: 00:25
|
|
Kid, the problem with your assertion regarding murder is analytical.
The term "murder" contains both the action, and its effect (an immoral one).
Selling drugs, however, is externally bad; it's a victimless crime, or, more precisely, the buyer, in the larger part, chooses whether or not he'll be a victim. Many people consume drugs like others take alcohol or smoke cigarettes; either they aren't even addicted, or they are to a point they can still control their lives. Being addicted to tobacco is not that bad if you can pay for it, just like is drinking a few beers when you come back from work.
What you need to realize is that most of drugs' "wrong" effects either won't proliferate or even diminish if prohibition ends. Addicts can be helped instead of being sent to jail (psychological studies have demonstrated that the bad living conditions in jail entice people to resort to drugs); prices can be controlled, and sale to minors can be more easily regulated; organized crime will take a hit, and, most importantly, drug concentration, doses and quality can be regulated (many overdoses result from the randomness and bad quality of the drugs bought on the street).
So the point is that in the case of an action that doesn't contain internally the potential wrongness, there is absolutely no reason not to legalize it if it is shown that it can help control and reduce unwishable, external effects.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
Bolony. Selling drugs is not a victimless crime. Even using drugs is not a victimless crime. The effect is not always bad, but often it is. If you use or sell drugs you contribute to these negative effects. |
You don't understand the idea, Kid.
When someone kills, there's a murderer and a killed person. Period. That's immoral.
When someone sells drugs, there's a seller and a user - a potential wrong.
However, legalization REDUCES the likelyness that using drugs turns out to be a wrong.
There is no applying that reasoning to murder, because legalizing murder does not reduce the likelyness of the effect of the act being immoral.
When the bad resulting from an action is external, there are 2 possibilities.
1- If legality reduces or maintains the risk level, then it's the moral thing to do, if we assume there is no point in infringing on individual freedom without a valid reason.
2- If legality increases the risks, it becomes a question of tradeoff: is it worth sacrificing individual freedom for the sake of greater good?
In some cases, the answer is clearly yes, as in forbidding drugstores from selling poison.
In others, the answer is unclear, as demonstrated by the debate on firearms.
And then sometimes the answer is clearly no, as in prohibiting fastfood chains.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|