|
As I said, the difference between a right and a privilege is the height of the bar that must be jumped to justify to limit or abrogate them. But suppose there is a drug that, although taken "consensually", seriously increases one's aggressiveness and impairs one's judgment for prolonged periods, and therefore markedly "spikes" the statistical incidents of violence in a community, for example PCP. The effect on the individual has ramifications for the community, does it not? Barb, of course, is always bringing up Prohibition at this point, but that is fallacious, since Prohibition sought to eliminate by fiat an almost universally accepted practice, one that was easily indulged in moderately; was from the beginning hypocritical, since it was never really intended that the "better sort of people" should suffer because of it, but was supposed to be directed against the degeneracy of the working class; and suppression had an obvious futility, since it is so easy to make beer, wine, and even liquor. Family legend has it that my great- grandmother made bath- tub gin after being widowed, for example:-)...In the case of many drugs, it is at least possible that prohibition is preferable to widespread availability. |
