When people say "in no way harms others" they're always talking about direct, physical harm from engaging in the activity itself.
I would agree that drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, smoking dope, shooting up heroin and carrying a loaded gun with the safety off "in no way harms others", in a direct physical sense.
Driving drunk or stoned on any drug does harm people. Carrying the gun, well, to my great regret.... we have decided against that because even respectable people have the odd brain snap.
But there is a cost to society when all these self determining mature adults (putting aside the side issue of our immature culture when it comes to alcohol and drugs) who are causing no direct harm to others start asking for medical treatment for the consequences of their decisions. Those consequences range from broken limbs to cancer to depression or other mental illness and they're expensive to deal with.
Would I then agree to a total alcohol and cigarette ban? Sure (I would sadly say goodbye to my Glen Morangie). When people say that prohibition "doesn't work" they always seem to mean that it doesn't stamp out the problem completely, once and for all. No solution to a complex social problem works on that definition of "work".
But if I was a father, I would rather that my kids couldn't legally buy a drug which can touch off depression. The risk of someone "trying it" is way higher when the thing is legal.
If prohibition means that less people can get a substance that offers no benefit whatsoever (other than a holiday from reality) that's fine with me.
The cancer patients and (it seems) people with arthritis get hauled out in support by the "legalise it" group. I'd legalise dope for the terminal cancer patients. But you can't take a substance like THC and say that it helps my granddad with his cancer so your 19 year old son who's fit as a fiddle should be allowed to have it. There's nothing wrong with a general rule that has carve outs to deal with specific situations. We do that in legislation all the time.
To the "where do you draw the line" crowd, I really don't know. Things which offer no benefit and which harm either individuals or society are already present in society. I don't see that fact as an argument for saying "well lets add this non beneficial, harmful substance into the mix as well 'cause we already have alcohol and cigarettes".
I actually (and contrary to the tone of this post) hate our Nanny state. If our resources were unlimited, I would take a slightly different view of things. But since they're not, for me, its just a matter of sticking the benefit on one side of the scale and the bane on the other and seeing which way it falls.
I would agree that drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, smoking dope, shooting up heroin and carrying a loaded gun with the safety off "in no way harms others", in a direct physical sense.
Driving drunk or stoned on any drug does harm people. Carrying the gun, well, to my great regret.... we have decided against that because even respectable people have the odd brain snap.
But there is a cost to society when all these self determining mature adults (putting aside the side issue of our immature culture when it comes to alcohol and drugs) who are causing no direct harm to others start asking for medical treatment for the consequences of their decisions. Those consequences range from broken limbs to cancer to depression or other mental illness and they're expensive to deal with.
Would I then agree to a total alcohol and cigarette ban? Sure (I would sadly say goodbye to my Glen Morangie). When people say that prohibition "doesn't work" they always seem to mean that it doesn't stamp out the problem completely, once and for all. No solution to a complex social problem works on that definition of "work".
But if I was a father, I would rather that my kids couldn't legally buy a drug which can touch off depression. The risk of someone "trying it" is way higher when the thing is legal.
If prohibition means that less people can get a substance that offers no benefit whatsoever (other than a holiday from reality) that's fine with me.
The cancer patients and (it seems) people with arthritis get hauled out in support by the "legalise it" group. I'd legalise dope for the terminal cancer patients. But you can't take a substance like THC and say that it helps my granddad with his cancer so your 19 year old son who's fit as a fiddle should be allowed to have it. There's nothing wrong with a general rule that has carve outs to deal with specific situations. We do that in legislation all the time.
To the "where do you draw the line" crowd, I really don't know. Things which offer no benefit and which harm either individuals or society are already present in society. I don't see that fact as an argument for saying "well lets add this non beneficial, harmful substance into the mix as well 'cause we already have alcohol and cigarettes".
I actually (and contrary to the tone of this post) hate our Nanny state. If our resources were unlimited, I would take a slightly different view of things. But since they're not, for me, its just a matter of sticking the benefit on one side of the scale and the bane on the other and seeing which way it falls.