yes on all of them. strange...Just tried that. Not working.
Can you tell me if:
- you can edit/correct any post, replied to or otherwise?
- you can edit new or old posts?
Yes, people should decide what they are able to do with their own body. It is THEIR body, so who are you to tell people what to do with themselves? Of course, I don't mean to say that people should just be allowed to do everything to their body. Anything that can be lethal or causes hallucinations should be monitored, such as drugs or medicines.
Abortion and gay marriage being two topics that this applies to. Republicans believe that abortions should be outlawed and that gay marriage should not be allowed;however, what gives them the right to choose what other people can do with their body?
I'll give a mature person prespective, but one which will probably be dismissed by most younger people.
The argument that "I should be allowed to do what I like, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else" is very common these days, but the decision isn't usually made under the best circumstances. It might be ok if the person made that decision in full knowledge of the impacts, long term consequences, but I doubt this is usually the case. The decisions made when you are young are very likely opposite to those you would make later in life, but sadly, it may then be too late.
Many young people (I'm talking very young eg. teenagers) take up smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc for very stupid reasons (to look cool, experimentation, boredom, rebellion), but realise too late that the addiction has long term consequences.
Secondly, it's impossible to judge whether your decision will impact others. Mostly, others will be badly affected and in ways that weren't anticipated.
So, whether we like it or not, we NEED laws to try to protect people as best we can. In my rather long lifetime, I've seen many people regret the decisions they made when they were young, I've seen the results of bad decisions, and often it is not pretty.
I never said he did either. He was talking about the laws.Warren didn't say a word about banning anything.
He referred to laws that protect people as best as (we, society) can.
But ultimately, if a substance is known to cause heavy addiction and problems to 5% of the population (rather generous percentage, obviously; in truth, the numbers are much higher) should we feel fine just because it doesn't affect us and only that minority? It doesn't sound like a proper evolution to a society.
This is what i mean. How should the laws be based?Full, uncompromising individualism will lead humanity to a black alley and then we shall be no more.
There must enough laws to prevent this, but not too much as to prevent freedom, creativity and free will (free will being the responsible use of one's rights, including body).
I never said he did either. He was talking about the laws.
So my question was should the laws be based on profits or actual science?
Should we ban it because a minority of the drinkers can´t control it?
Actually i started it all off with the word: true.Didn't you imply it, at least? I'd say so.
So Alcohol should be banned or should other substances be made legal?A rather good question with an obvious answer.
No my question was actually this,But your question was:
Agree. But where do you draw the line? Scientifically speaking?The answer to the profits vs science based laws: science, always. What other answer could there be?
Yes and no it seems. We should be able to fully trust science but with the way it´s funded there is inevitable that you won´t always be able to do that because someone has the ability to strangle the research etc.There is however a problem. One you know full well exists, as we have been discussing such issues in another thread.
Take global warming. My former professors involved in geophysics say global warming as caused by man alone is nonsensical. I have read reputable professors, scientists say the same thing.
However, we went from a "oil sponsored scientists contradict Global Warming" to a "politicians & big companies sponsored scientists say Global Warming exists".
On one hand, "science" says GW is not real. On the other hand, "science" says GW is real.
Can we trust science to tell us the truth?
And the humanitarian course is what?So, again, not a black and white issue. But, ultimately, profits should never determine what is right and what is wrong. Problem is, for all intents and purposes, profit does not "seemingly" determine this - profit acts through other channels and not fully exposed. Which means, as long as we have the news media we have, the frontiers between profit and science, good science and bad science, will always be blurred. So, how do we decide?
Easy: we should always take the most humanitarian course. Always.