[Zsych]

I'd actually disagree that you have a right to destroy your body, must as I'd disagree with people being able to choose to commit suicide. You exist as part of a community, you represent an investment by the community (schools and what not other resources that were spent in developing you, not to mention time put in by your parents). You are born in debt, you have no right to destroy yourself :P

So, no, people do not need the right to take drugs that harm them. If people don't have the sense to stop themselves from harming themselves, then they have a problem, and one society does not need to help them, make worse.

Ultimately, society must put the greater good above the desires of individuals. Especially self destructive desires.

[Lycurgus]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd actually disagree that you have a right to destroy your body, must as I'd disagree with people being able to choose to commit suicide. You exist as part of a community, you represent an investment by the community (schools and what not other resources that were spent in developing you, not to mention time put in by your parents). You are born in debt, you have no right to destroy yourself :P

What you're advocating is slavery.

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, no, people do not need the right to take drugs that harm them. If people don't have the sense to stop themselves from harming themselves, then they have a problem, and one society does not need to help them, make worse.

Your definition of harm is not mine. What you interpret as harming, taking LSD or using marijuana, I may interpret as coming one step closer to spiritual enlightenment. Or I may use as a muse, to create music.

And is it your proposition that music isn't beneficial? That it doesn't benefit society?

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ultimately, society must put the greater good above the desires of individuals. Especially self destructive desires.

Ultimately, society exists to benefit individuals, and society as a hole.

Society is the sum of its parts.

[Mader]

If we are talking about relaxing on the back porch after a hard week on the job, that is one thing, but all drugs cause crime. Yes, even in Holland, where drugs are legal.

Also, please remember the collateral damage - the children who live with the drug user, the children who lose a parent to drugs (ever seen your daddy stoned at your school play?), children who end up in foster care due to drug use, marriages broken up from drug use, increased medical costs, and so on.

This, for me, runs along the same lines as the motorcycle helmet argument. I don't care if you don't wear a helmet, until, I have to pay for your medical care when your private insurance runs out.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your definition of harm is not mine. What you interpret as harming, taking LSD or using marijuana, I may interpret as coming one step closer to spiritual enlightenment. Or I may use as a muse, to create music. And is it your proposition that music isn't beneficial? That it doesn't benefit society? Ultimately, society exists to benefit individuals, and society as a hole.

True, the best art generally has to come from experience with the subject matter, or some kind of cathartic state. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy almost certainly came from an artist who, at some point in his life for whatever reasons, was an inch away from suicide. You know, someone who stood on the precipice with nothing to lose, and was terrified back into life. By the OP's logic, there might even be a case for outlawing such works of art, despite their power, because the community should not suffer the dire circumstances of their creation to continue.

[Lycurgus]

Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

True, the best art generally has to come from experience with the subject matter, or some kind of cathartic state. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy almost certainly came from an artist who, at some point in his life for whatever reasons, was an inch away from suicide. You know, someone who stood on the precipice with nothing to lose, and was terrified back into life. By the OP's logic, there might even be a case for outlawing such works of art, despite their power, because the community should not suffer the dire circumstances of their creation to continue.

Man need not have freedom to be successful or happy, simply doing as he's told should be suffice.


For you, perhaps.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hubcap]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'd actually disagree that you have a right to destroy your body, must as I'd disagree with people being able to choose to commit suicide. You exist as part of a community, you represent an investment by the community (schools and what not other resources that were spent in developing you, not to mention time put in by your parents). You are born in debt, you have no right to destroy yourself :P So, no, people do not need the right to take drugs that harm them. If people don't have the sense to stop themselves from harming themselves, then they have a problem, and one society does not need to help them, make worse. Ultimately, society must put the greater good above the desires of individuals. Especially self destructive desires.

Lycurgus is correct, what you advocate is slavery.

Can you not see that society has no legitimate claim on any individual? Society is made up of individuals. Society is an abstract concept anyway.

[yoginimama]

The frequent use of black/white, all/nothing thinking on this forum drives me nuts.

It's not EITHER individualism OR collectivism, it's not EITHER "I can do absolutely anything I want to myself" OR "I can do nothing until they key the padlocks and let me out to perform my assigned tasks for the day."

Rather, we are BOTH free AND obligated (i.e. "you represent an investment by the community," which, in fact, quite literally, you do).

Life is about the dynamic tension between that "both-and."

So, do people have a right to do drugs? Commit suicide?

Well, the collateral damage argument against drug use is pretty strong. But it's not clear to me that that means drugs should be "illegal" in the way they currently are. I think it's glaringly obvious that our current policy ("War on Drugs," prohibition) is so monumentally ineffective and indeed actively counterproductive that a ring-tailed lemur could have come up with something better. (Lemurtarians unite!)

Suicide...I'm not opposed to it in theory, if the person really is of sound mind (aka we're sure their suicidality is NOT a result of depression, schizophrenia or other mental illness) and they're not being pressured or manipulated or drugged or something by a third party. But those are big "if"s.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Rather, we are BOTH free AND obligated (i.e. "you represent an investment by the community," which, in fact, quite literally, you do).

I would like to respectfully challenge your assertion that "I represent an investment by the community".

Please explain.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would like to respectfully challenge your assertion that "I represent an investment by the community". Please explain.

Well, as Zsych points out, the community and your family put a lot of time, effort and resources into feeding, clothing, protecting, socializing, enculturating, educating and training you. Your health and basic skills are a product of their efforts. They did this (a) because it's the right thing to do and (b) so that you would grow up to carry on their work (in general terms).

But none of that takes away from your freedom. Actually, one of my very favorite writers, Madeleine L'Engle, put it best. In one of her novels, she said that life was like a sonnet. The rules, the form, the structure of a sonnet are very fixed and rigid. But within those limits, you can write whatever you want. You decide the sonnet's tone--happy, sad--and its subject and its wording.

So, there is BOTH constraint (you're the product of a community which invested in your development, you're part of various collectives such as your town and country) AND autonomy (you own your own body, you are "the master of your fate, the captain of your soul").

[Lycurgus]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, as Zsych points out, the community and your family put a lot of time, effort and resources into feeding, clothing, protecting, socializing, enculturating, educating and training you. Your health and basic skills are a product of their efforts. They did this (a) because it's the right thing to do and (b) so that you would grow up to carry on their work (in general terms).

Does that mean I'm not free to move from Ohio to California, if the community that invested in my was Ohio?

What about from Ohio to Vancouver?

What about from Ohio to Shanghai?

If I can move from Ohio to Shanghai, where Ohio loses out on all of its investment in me anyway, why can't I off myself?


Further, there's no contract -- written or spoken -- between me and anyone in my community or the community itself, nor did I ask to have an investment in me by anyone, the community or my family. They choose to do that, of their own volition.

I can't get together with my community, choose an empty lot and turn it into a garden simply because we feel like it, and then claim ownership -- in any way -- over it. Someone else owns the deed to that property, and if they want to demolish the garden, it's entirely within their rights, because it's their property.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, as Zsych points out, the community and your family put a lot of time, effort and resources into feeding, clothing, protecting, socializing, enculturating, educating and training you. Your health and basic skills are a product of their efforts. They did this (a) because it's the right thing to do and (b) so that you would grow up to carry on their work (in general terms).

I'm sure that my "community" would be shocked if you informed them they did all those things for me. I know for a fact that my parents would be shocked. I understand the concept you are describing, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Your perspective is interesting to me. I find it insightful in gaining a greater understanding of your perspective.

Interestingly enough I grew up in a rural farming community which was populated by staunchly independent people. The culture they enculturated me with was one of self-reliance and not one of dependency. For that I am grateful. I enjoy self-ownership and would have it no other way. Honestly, I cannot understand why anyone would want it any other way.