1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow are people to legally make informed decisions if only one outcome of the decision is legal? In order to make an informed decision, it's necessary to be informed and to be in a position to make a decision.
I'm not interested in telling people what to do. What I am interested in is that sensible people must be able to make informed responsible adult decisions about their health based on facts and not on fairy tales from the sixties.
Do you wear your safety belt while driving ?
(I just made an informed decision to split an infinitive; if the consequences of breaking that grammatical law were more serious, my informed status about infinitives would do me no good, since it wouldn't be sensible to split the infinitive even if I wanted to -- there would be no real decision.)
Originally posted by royalchickenYou know what I mean, RC.
How are people to legally make informed decisions if only one outcome of the decision is legal? In order to make an informed decision, it's necessary to be informed [b]and to be in a position to make a decision.
(I just made an informed decision to split an infinitive; if the consequences of breaking that grammatical law were more serious, my in ...[text shortened]... t be sensible to split the infinitive even if I wanted to -- there would be no real decision.)[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, I don't. If a well-informed person wishes to make an informed decision whether or not to take drugs, it does little to encourage that person's decision-making process to make him a criminal if he well-informedly chooses one of two possible actions.
You know what I mean, RC.
If you mean that the state should provide honest, objective information about the effects of various drugs, then I wholeheartedly agree.
Do you believe that physical health is so important that any action which damages it, no matter what other benefits it may have, is wrong?
Originally posted by royalchickenNow you are getting the picture ... more or less ...
No, I don't. If a well-informed person wishes to make an informed decision whether or not to take drugs, it does little to encourage that person's decision-making process to make him a criminal if he well-informedly chooses one of two possible actions.
If you mean that the state should provide honest, objective information about the effects of vario ...[text shortened]... portant that any action which damages it, no matter what other benefits it may have, is wrong?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe vision of the government as Big Mommy passing criminal laws for our own good is almost as scary as Orwell's Big Brother. It is the old-time "liberal" view of enhanced state power; the first Federal drug laws were passed during the New Deal era. Free men don't need or want the collective to dictate what they can do "for their own good".
Now you are getting the picture ... more or less ...
Originally posted by no1marauderGets my rec, N1M.
The vision of the government as Big Mommy passing criminal laws for our own good is almost as scary as Orwell's Big Brother. It is the old-time "liberal" view of enhanced state power; the first Federal drug laws were passed during the New Deal era. Free men don't need or want the collective to dictate what they can do "for their own good".