And that is why you should only take one or two puffs and not smoke a whole joint like 15 years ago. Also, I'm strongly convinced you should not be consuming it everyday, maybe 3 times a week max and even then that is hectic. People are way to chilled out about cannabis/thc dosages.
I think people "should" be consuming whatever they want. We're not free if we're not free to damage or destroy our own damn selves. It's really nobody else's business what goes into one's own body, or how damaging it is or is not to the person ingesting it.
Well, maybe, but I think the parent comment had implicitly meant "should... [if you want to avoid cognitive impairment" rather than making any moral judgement on those who don't.
Mmm sounds like American individualism. You do not live in isolation and nothing happens in isolation. Everything we/you do affects others. Freedom is a false carrot that's been used to make people feel good enough so they don't burn down their governments when things go wrong. Stop paying rates/taxes and see how free you are.
Every single person who end up in EC/ER due to drugs/alcohol/jumping off roofs, are a drain on society. Yes it great that we can fix those people up when they hurt themselves, but where is the line when people get reckless etc? Someone is paying to get your broken leg fixed. We all need to acknowledge that and appreciate one another. Every hour that I work, someone in my country gets fed by a government grant, all I ask is that the person take care of themselves and not waste my money.
Having rights to one's own physical body has nothing to do with America.
If we don't have ultimate physical control over our own physical body, to do with it as we please, we can't really be said to have any meaningful rights at all. All other basic rights as an existing entity stem from the fact that we are ourselves, and others are not.
It's absolutely not individualism to say that every adult human being should have unrestricted rights over their own person-as-object, to enrich or damage as one sees fit. That seems plain as day to me. How can you even have the concept of a society of people if the societal group claims ownership rights over the bodies of the people that supersede those of the people themselves?
(If you think society shouldn't be spending money to repair damage caused by individual choices because it's unfair, we're in agreement there, but your broken leg case is a bad example, because you end up illustrating a point which I don't think you meant to make: that healthcare costs, something extremely variable based on individual choices, probably shouldn't be borne by society as a whole but by individuals themselves.)
> How can you even have the concept of a society of people if the societal group claims ownership rights over the bodies of the people that supersede those of the people themselves?
Uh... how can you have the concept of a body of cells if the body claims ownership over the entirety of each one of it's cells?
Did you stub your toe? Well it's not actually, your toe, it's an independent living organism, and you need to respect it's God given right to run into hard objects every now and then.
Really though, I think if you explore the wide variety of human cultures that have existed over time, you'll find that historically speaking, the default level of organization has been the tribe, not the individual. Indeed, individualism as we know it is only possible in highly organized societies, with super-powerful governments that create a monetary system, common language, infrastructure, legal and judicial system to enforce contracts, and other things that enable one to live "independently" like Ebenezer Scrooge.
For a right-wing take on this, please see "The Rational Optimist" by Matt Ridley. If you prefer a more moderate view, I recommend "Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker. Finally, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" by David Graeber touches on more than a few of these topics.
Granted, I may be misunderstanding your argument, so please clarify if this is the case. :)
Sure, if it doesn't affect anyone else. Sadly that's not always the case, e.g. if you are prone to psychotic episodes from consuming said thing or just having society paying for your cancer treatment later on
Taking drugs doesn't affect anyone else. Having psychotic episodes doesn't affect anyone else. Doing already-illegal things that violate the rights of others during psychotic episodes, that affects other people.
Taking drugs doesn't affect anyone else. Getting cancer doesn't affect anyone else. Receiving cancer treatment doesn't affect anyone else. Using public funds to pay for that cancer treatment, that affects other people.
Those things should not be conflated, or treated as identical.
I wrote the parent comment and mostly agree with you about personal choice @sneak, except 'Taking drugs doesn't affect anyone else'. Whether alcohol, weed, opiates or whatever substance abuse is hugely costly and damaging in modern society to those who don't have this disease. There is a strong argument for pre existing substance dependency condition in people but the toll on those around them is huge.
You are smudging cancer and substance abuse together but in many cases complete abstinence in an individual due to awareness of a pre existing familial susceptibility can help that person to never become addicted because they are aware of the danger and biological weakness in themselves. 12 step programs etc can help people abstain if they become addicted although it is a huge and heroic struggle back to the surface.
Parent isn't doing anything more than suggesting users consider dosage and frequency. It's good advice IMO. Nothing was said about taking away your right to kill your own brain cells.
