Finland already has power to hike its own alchohol taxes but ever since there are about to takeover the position of EU Leadership, they want higher alchohol taxes in every EU nation to prevent Finns from making purchases where taxes are less oppressive. Curbing alchoholism is not a matter of the government but rather the matter of every individual who is accountable for what he does, so why shouldn't Finnish policymakers expell their miserable suggestions and finally let everyone on this statist European continent of socialism, to be able to realize one of his/her very basic and inalienable right - FREE CHOICE!
Read about the topic discussed above here.
7 comments:
'Curbing alchoholism is not a matter of the government but rather the matter of every individual who is accountable for what he does, so why shouldn't Finnish policymakers expell her miserable suggestions and finally let everyone on this statist European continent of socialism, to be able to realize one if his/her very basic and inalienable right - FREE CHOICE!'
So I expect you are also against the 'war on drugs.' Would you legalise marihuana?
As I regard myself Libertarian, I also oppose "war on drugs" and therefore of course fully support the legalization of marihuana. There should be absolutely no restrictions on drugs because smoking marihuana and of course sniffing other drugs is "a crime without a victim" which makes clear that each individual carries out his or her own consequences for decisions and actions which he or she has made. Accountable responsibility counts!
Yes, I used the term 'war on drugs' preciselly because I had a notion you were libertarian :=
The problem I see is where we stop individual responsibility, where the state has the right or obligation to prevent individuals to do things that could be harmful to them. In my case this line is in flux, so to say. What about in your libertarian case, does such a line exist, or is it unimportant.
I would not allow 'hard' drugs, but I couldn't care less about marihuana, because if alcohol is not prohibites then there is no reason marihuana should be.
The question arises also on suicides. I think every human person has the right to suicide. I don't mean only actualy suiicide, but killing oneself with bad food, lack of excercise, extreme sports. And yet, I feel, that in the interest of a society such things must be curbed in the name of society. A conflict, as you can see.
Where so you stand on this?
The issue which you point out is correct. The state behaves like a 'nanny' and therefore pretends to know what's best for the citizens of certain country, notably Slovenia or Iceland. The feature which we - libertarians - firmly underpin is that individuals should be given a full freedom to do actions up to the point where the actions made hurt the freedom of another individuals. But of course giving more freedom logically requires the rise of responsiblity by the same amount. State is able to monopolize moral issues and define what is harmful for individuals and what not. But the fact is that legally defined consequences appointed by the state are not the measure of truth. State is riskless when it sets what is "right" for individuals. If I take a marihuana or any other hard drug, I do it because I like it but that doesn't mean that I'm not aware of risk that is being present. From that point forward, I'm accountable for all the negative consequences so it is my inseparable decision to do whatever I know it is the best for myself. I'm in charge of my "self-ownership" so state authorities don't have a right to pin-down what is good for me and what bad. The consequences are carried out solely by myself.
Drugs are not treated very nicely on the scale of my value system but that doesn't mean that I'm charge to force my view to other lads who possibly have various opinions which are different by nature.
In sum, I don't oppose using hard drugs. If people want to kill themselves, they have a total right to do so. They won't hurt me by doing that.
Most of the attractiveness to drugs comes out from the fact that most of them are prohibited (illegal) to use. Of course, age matters a lot! Perhaps the use of some extremely poisenous drugs should be limited to some certain extent but people will soon recognize how poisenous those drugs are, so I assume they will see that using such drugs is not very healthy and it causes diseases which deny productive happiness. But it's like I said: "It's up to them to use the life in the way they want. They're sole owners of their life, so they can do whatever they want to do with it." Extracting from the view of self-ownership and viable responsiblity , I don't think it would be practically smart to limit the participation in extreme sports.
Everymust must be given a free choice. It's up to him to decide how determine his own future. Productively (work, risk, entrepreneurship) or miserably (hard drugs). If you choose the latter, you'll not probably end-up prosperous. But anyway, you were aware of risks, responsibilites and consequences. So carry them on own and don't blame others for being depressed and destroyed because of drugs. Face it and be aware for the next time. Work hardly productive in order to recover and later on, you'll see that using hard drugs is not a very smart idea.
The limits require external treatment which means that they deserved to be imposed where the use of rights results in mutual conflicts. And from the point of view, absolute freedom deserves a limit because otherwise individual liberties (and freedom in general) loose their truest sense. And that's why if we want to respect the liberties of other individuals, we must sometimes slightly curb it in order to assue tommorow's respectiveness of freedom among us.
Regards, Rocks
The state has every right to regulate substances that alter your ability of perception and/or coordination (alcohol, illegal "drugs") because you are, when at large, danger to your fellow citizens. Same goes for smoking - by all standards, it should be illegal even to look at a pack of Marlboros. Freedom ends when you limit another man's freedom.
And if god wanted us to take drugs, he would put them in wheat (let's see if anyone picks up on that). :D
Drugs are not treated positively in my value system. In fact every alternative is a congratulating step ahead. Generally speaking, I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. As to my value system, If people want to kill themselves they have every right to do so. Most harm is coming from the drugs because they're illegal. If enacted, where's the seed of logical contraction? There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana$. 7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils. The failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. Of course, I haven't even included the harm to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes.
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://www.forbes.com/services/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html
Speaking on behalf of ethical grounds, do we have a right to use the wheeling machinery of government to prevent individuals from becoming alcholics or drug-addicts? No doubt, there's a qualified "yes" for children. But in case of responsible adults I would say "no". I believe we have no exclussive, direct or indirect right to prevent a man from commiting a suicide, drinking alchohol or taking drugs. It's his damage if he does that, not mine!
Suggested readings:
Milton Friedman: It is Time to End War on Drugs, Hoover Digest
http://www.hooverdigest.org/982/friedman.html
Milton Friedman: Prohibition and Drugs, Newsweek
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/prohibition_and_drugs.htm
Milton Friedman: The War We are Loosing, Searching for Alternatives
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/war_we_are_losing.htm
Interview with Milton Friedman on War on Drugs, America's Drug Forum
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm
Milton Friedman: A Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise, Drug Policy Reform
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/051/friedman.shtml
"and of course sniffing other drugs is "a crime without a victim"
The victims are the person's family.
Post a Comment