reply to post by aggadoo
I think agga had a partially good point, but too much bias showing there. lol You can't class drugs as a whole and get a reason, as he said. The
origin of banning substances? Two things. One, social views on them. Two, the effects they could have on those who did not choose to partake of them.
I'll give you two examples:
For the societal view, lets take alcohol and the prohibition. Societal effects aside, of which there are plenty, most of the drive behind the
prohibition was the non-drinkers trying to force their views on everyone else. (At least, in a really oversimplified way of putting it.) I'm sure, if
you put a little thought into it, you can come up with some similar laws being bandied about today, in that regard. And while Im not a fan of the
drunken binges that have come to be synonymous with entertainment these days, such laws violate the rights of the individual. Even so, legally
consumption is restricted to locations where those who choose the participate are exposed, as should be the case. If only such laws were enforced more
strenuously!
Now for the banning of substances because of the effect they would have on passerby, if you will. Pot is an excellent example here. (as is the growing
restriction on tobacco smoking.) The issue with a substance that is to be smoked is, if you walk through a cloud of smoke, you're exposed to the
substance against your will. Tobacco is one thing to be exposed to, because, while it can lead to cancer and so on, by and large, occasional exposure,
for most, is not of any great harm. But when it's pot, its a little different. Not that a tiny exposure is likely to get you high; its a bit more
complex that than. You see, no employer is ever going to want employees who smoke pot. They don't exactly tend to make good employees, as a whole,
for a number of reasons. How to prevent this? Drug testing. But how could you verify if someone is a pot smoker or not, if they could be randomly
exposed to it walking down the street? You would have people losing their jobs over accidental exposure. And there would be a risk, if not a high one
in MOST areas, of a more extensive involuntary exposure leading to the passerby suffering the effects of pot use. Basically, since there would be no
realistic way to control exposure of those who are not willing to be exposed, making it legal would violate the rights of all of us who would rather
find meaningful enlightenment within ourselves, instead of in a drug-induced stupor.
Obviously, there are a million other aspects I've not even mentioned, but I think that is a good enough example to make the point. Restriction of
substances is rooted in societal views and in personal rights issues. Now, that has since grown to the classification of substances with similar
effects being banned more for their similarity than any real issues with them, as a matter of expediency, its true. But I would hope that these
examples might lay some groundwork for the OP to understand the basis and logic behind controlling and banning substances, and thus to help understand
the dynamics of freedom and society, both in the positive and negative ways it can be implemented, from a more personal perspective.
[edit on 7/21/2008 by saturnine_sweet]