Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US government control what substances individuals can put in their own bodies?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 34% | 44 votes | Total: 128 votes | |
| No | 66% | 84 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesA native sense of contrariness prompts me to add a YES argument to this lopsided debate. First let me say that I firmly believe that I own not only my own body, but my personal choices, as well. I can not, however, in good conscience carry such a notion to its ultimate extreme. In the practice of law, we argue the validity of a law based upon how that law would be enforced in the most extreme situation, without regard to 'common sense' or the normal restriction civilized society places on behavior. This is done because, invariably, some individuals will act without common sense, and in the extreme. To be a good law, a law must hold up under the most extreme and absurd circumstances. For an example, imagine a law prohibiting including 'foreign substances' in baby food. On its face, it seems like a good law, doesn't it? But without defining 'foreign substances' the law restricts any and all additives to baby food. Would the addition of vitamin 'C' be allowed? Arguably not, because if the food itself did not contain vitamin 'C', the addition of the vitamin would be a 'foreign substance'.
This is a parallel to the notion that the Government should not be allowed any control over what individuals can put in their own bodies. Taken to its absurd extreme, such an idea ignores issues like the following:
When does the age of consent start? Are children allowed to put anything into their own bodies? If they are not, are their parents the responsible parties, able to make such decisions for thier children? What about parents who think their toddler should have early experiences with hallucinogenic drugs?
Would you support the decision of a parent who, for religious reasons injests poison, to encouraqe their child to do likewise? What about a person in a coma, without the conscious ability to choose? Would their legal conservator have the right to try experimental medical procedures, giving them medications for testing purposes?
How would you feel, the next time you step on an airplane, about the pilot's unrestricted right to put anything he wants into his own body? What about the driver of that monster SUV next to you on the freeway? If she flattens you while under the influence, is it merely a civil matter? Buckle up, the future might be a bumpy ride.
I feel strongly about the right of competent adults to make choices about their own lives, but we can't forget that our choices often affect others. In our rush to freedom to make our own choices, let's not forget to place some reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on personal choices that affect other people.
Learn more about this author, Dan Willett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Should the US [or any] Government control what a person puts in their body [or mind or how they use their body]?
No. That is a complete sentence and a simple statement without emphasis.
There are two absolutes about society; it is constantly evolving and it is consistently reactionary. Emplacing restrictions on society by law is an attempt to mold society by whim. Blue' laws, laws designed to govern moral' behavior of a society, are an attempt to mold a society into some perceived right' by a faction of that society. James Simon Kunnen, in The Strawberry Statement' said, "Society moves very slowly, without the rebel, it would move backwards." He is speaking of the rebel in the sense of Civil Unrest that attempts to change a society from within rather than the sense of rebellion directed at collapsing a society or government.
In considering whether a government should proscribe activities or behaviors, it is useful to consider what the results of such proscription yield. It is a well-documented fact that the surest way to ensure that a socially unacceptable' behavior continues and grows is to make it illegal. The surest way to minimize the practice of a socially unacceptable' behavior is to educate a society about the behavior's undesirable effects.
Another consideration is the far-reaching power of proscription. Two books, to cite an example, have been banned in America. One book, Jonny Got His Gun, was banned during WWI, WWII, and the Korean War. This book was banned because it was an anti-war' novel. Actually, the book spoke to the horrors of war as illustrated by what happened to one fictional character, Johnny. What could be healthier than to understand that war has a cost on a personal level during time of war? Yet, the government banned the book because it might sway a reader to question the policy of the government. The book Lolita' is banned in the United States, as is the sequel written by the author's son. It is banned because of the nature of the fictional story. What is not considered is that any reader of the book is being told of the negative impact of that behavior. More, the sequel emphasizes the greater negative impact of the behavior. Yet, the government has banned the book because the vocal minority of statistical liars, who never read the books, has decided that the nature and not the message are offensive.
America has been at war with drugs for nearly a century. Other nations have decided to live with the problem. The question is not about the negative impact of drugs. That is a given. The question is about the effectiveness of proscribing their use. In America, where listed substances are proscribed, the rate of use and addiction grows exponentially. In nations where such use is not banned, or in the least, criminalized, the rates of abuse and addiction have fallen to a rate that becomes insignificant in terms of harm to the society. Lifting the proscription or decriminalizing the behavior removes the mystique. That is an extremely powerful tool. Moving anything out of the shadows allows it to be discussed openly and allows those who practice it to hear truth instead of propaganda. When a person sees, in the open, that the substance or behavior is detrimental to themselves and the society in which they live.
The counter argument is that, for the most part, socially unacceptable' behaviors are proscribed because of their cost to society and the individual. On the surface, this seems to be a defensible position. It is a hollow defense because it only considers the effect and disregards both cause and effective methods of changing the proscribed behavior. Proscription makes education and correction' academic and problematic. If a person recognizes that they need help to end a proscribed behavior, they will be reluctant to seek that help because they risk suffering criminal consequences for seeking help to end the behavior.
Therefore, the government should not proscribe what a person does with or puts into their mind or body. Evolution is the positive progression of the entity evolving. Proscription, by government or society, is an attempt to force devolution.
The government and society's position must be to allow evolution and allow behaviors to stand the test of Darwinism'. If a behavior yields a positive impact to society, it will continue. If a behavior is detrimental to society, it will discontinue. Proscription has the effect of continuing a detrimental behavior. The end of proscription has the effect of limiting, and even eradicating, detrimental behavior. Very few practice bloodletting to cure the common cold, a common practice in the 18th Century.
End proscription and devolution. Allow society to evolve.
Learn more about this author, Kelly Piercy.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Drug Laws & Prevention
- The continued epidemic of drug use means we've lost the war on drugs
- Should a Constitutional amendment have been required to prohibit today's illicit drugs?
- Should we create policies that treat drug abuse as a health problem rather than a crime problem?
- Should Sudafed be a controlled drug?
- Is there an underlying culture of racism in the war on drugs?
