Limitations on self-destructive behaviors?
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 1, 2011 15:42:43 GMT
It part of the government's role to limit self-destructive activities? Gambling, drugs, drinking, etc? What if those activities indirectly affect others?
My opinion is that any activity in which a person partakes is their own business after a "certain age". The problem is that said certain age is unknown: Whereas a six-year-old obviously doesn't understand the risks involved with gambling and a 40-year-old can safely be expected to know the risks, where is the line drawn? It is difficult to say.
The government should, however, step in when innocent people are injured. Take cigarettes for instance. Secondhand smoke is a horrible thing, not only for health but for comfort. It isn't just self-destructive, as it injures people around the smoker.
|
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on Sept 1, 2011 15:53:18 GMT
cool forum game
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 1, 2011 16:09:57 GMT
...oops.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Sept 1, 2011 18:03:53 GMT
Becoming an adult should allow a person access to self-destructive behaviors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 1, 2011 18:40:53 GMT
Of course, you have to define adult. 16? 18? 21? 42?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 1, 2011 18:57:51 GMT
Define by age? Age is not synonymous with maturity or knowledge or wisdom, which are the qualities that would best determine whether one may participate in "vices" (e.g. gambling, prostitution, et cetera). I must admit that these are not qualities easily tested for in a standardized procedure, which is the kind of procedure something as large as government would have to utilize, and age correlates with the three qualities, and so age instead is used as the indicator.
Now, one alternative way the government could go about the issue is determine the age of the youngest citizen they may legally draft, and then use that age for all other indications. You're old enough to sacrifice yourself in a war? You're old enough to drink responsibly (whereas irresponsible drinking, e.g. binge drinking and drinking while driving would still be illegal for obvious reasons). You're old enough to be asked by the government to go on suicide missions? You're old enough to engage in sexual activity with others under the condition that neither you nor the sexual partner are "united" (so as to avoid the "definition of marriage" problem) with someone else who doesn't explicitly permit such activity. You're old enough to risk your life at the whim of politicians? You're old enough to consume tobacco.
What about how the vices might affect others? Make sure the activities are only legal in certain conditions. Naturally, you shouldn't smoke inside a room with a bunch of non-smokers, you shouldn't engage in sexual intercourse with prostitutes if either of you are committed to someone else or if either of you knowingly have a sexually transmitted disease (which would be tested on a regular basis in ideal brothels or hypothetical legalized sanctuaries of free-for-all sexual intercourse), and you shouldn't be gambling while you owe anyone any amount of money exceeding the purchasing power of whatever amount can pay for utility bills over the course of, say, six months or so...
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 1, 2011 19:35:16 GMT
The real problem with self destructive behaviors is really when the government has to pay to take care of them. Smokers get more free Medicare than other people as smoking ruins their health and destroyed their wallet, and since we cant just let people die the government helps pay for their bills. That's why smokes have special taxes, to force smokers to cover their own medical bills that they are responsible for.
Also, things like drugs and gambling encourage other illegal behaviors. Drugs are aquired from brutal drug lords or crazies in a meth lab, and people under the influence of drugs are known to hurt others. Gambling encourages Casino's, and running a casino is basically equivalent to scamming people, which hurts other people. So even if a behavior only appears self-destructive it is probably actually hurting a lot of other people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 1, 2011 20:21:58 GMT
I have once heard that "gambling is a tax on the innumerate." Now, if only the government had casinos as opposed to private enterprises, then the money so obtained could be used in a way to benefit the citizens in general, such as paying off China bit by bit, or helping to pay off the promised social security benefits that do not exist, or who knows what else. Even if privately owned casinos remain privately owned, I still have to blame the innumerate for not having learned simple probabilities and what they mean. If one realizes that one is more likely to be struck by lightning, to be eaten by a shark, or to be married to a celebrity than to win certain games, but still thinks that he can win against the house, then I blame that person for his innumeracy. It's not as if he's being asked to evaluate differential equations or prove Fermat's Last Theorem: he merely has to see that he has a tiny chance of winning and that the chance will not increase every time he loses. Now, if the gambling opportunities aren't mathematically fair, then yes, the casino is to be blamed for hurting others for the sake of helping itself.
As for the drugs, I recognize that many illegal drugs are obtained in illegal manners from drug operations that themselves can result in other illegal activities, e.g. massive scale murders that result from drug wars; however, I must maintain that not all people under the influence of drugs are known to hurt others (at least not while under the influence of drugs). I can say this because I know someone who breaks that generalization (and no, that person isn't me)...
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Sept 1, 2011 21:59:04 GMT
Not all people under the influence, yes, but still you can't deny that drugs effect judgement and drug users have the potential to hurt people do to their addiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Sept 1, 2011 23:00:20 GMT
Oh yes, I'm certain that it affects judgement, and I'm certain that, once addicted, drug abusers will have a greater potential to harm people than clean people already have...
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 2, 2011 3:53:42 GMT
That's why it's limited, to an extent. As to take care of payment, I'll restate a point a teacher of mine made awhile ago: Legalize everything, and tax it extremely. Now if people really want to use it, they can, but the high prices prevent them from doing so, and when they do they're paying their own medical bills, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Sept 2, 2011 3:59:43 GMT
Wait, so what do you advocate taxing so heavily?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 2, 2011 4:03:28 GMT
Oh, I don't advocate it. It was just a concept someone told me awhile ago
|
|
|
[M:977802]
