MSimon wrote: some people are presented with a drug, they are hooked
Why only some? An interesting question don't you think? But you have moved the discussion forward. You admit that drugs do not cause addiction. It must be something else. Otherwise every one would get hooked after a trial run.
It's most likely a genetic effect. It has been established that American Indians lack the gene that codes for an enzyme which breaks down alcohol in occidentals. It is not surprising to me that there would be genetic diversity in tolerance for addictive substances. Nature is very clever. It spreads the gene pool so widely because it aids in survival. One characteristic which might be fatal in one environment, might be absolutely essential in another. I have read that anemia evolved as a survival response to Yersinia Pestis. (The bacteria uses iron, and needs it to grow and survive. )
MSimon wrote:
That leaves the question: if it is only dangerous for some why are the rest denied the benefits? Should we outlaw peanuts because some people are deathly allergic to them?
If it were a significant percentage of our population, then I say yes, we should ban peanuts. I've read of cases where a girl nearly died because she kissed her boyfriend who had eaten something with peanuts. Were it a serious and common threat to a large group of people, it should be regulated as a dangerous substance. Since it only affects a very tiny minority of the population, it doesn't rise to the level necessary to impart greater security regarding it, though I have heard that some schools ban all peanut derived items due to the large quantities of their students that are known to have such allergies.
MSimon wrote:
Should we ration water to people for fear some one will overdose on it (it kills due to electrolyte imbalance)? What is your criteria for limits?
I don't have any formal criteria. I've thought that it would be nice for me to try and derive one, but I have yet to undertake the task. My default position is to follow the societal norm, with the theory being that morals are just hard life lessons learned by ancestors, and that one doesn't need to understand WHY they work to know that they do work. (though it helps.)
From a theory standpoint, I think the basic criteria for any action undertaken by Society or Government relies on how many people are affected, and to what degree, and whether or not there are any benefits that might outweigh the detriments.
If the percentage affected is large enough, (say 1%) and the detrimental consequences are some threshold of severe (say 10% likelihood of death or disablement, and it has no redeeming characteristics) then I think society will feel the need to move and address the behavior.
Much is also modified by historical perspective. Alcohol is probably the most destructive drug ever created, but because it has been accepted in so many cultures for so long, it is tolerated even with it's high death rate, while comparatively benign Marijuana is not.
Alcohol is the beneficiary of a societal "Grandfather clause," though I hear they once tried to eject it from society.
MSimon wrote:
Should cheeseburgers be exempt?
No, it's a common food. Too hard to regulate even if you wanted to, which only a nut would want to.
MSimon wrote:
Tobacco?
In my opinion, yes, but it too relies on a societal "grandfather clause" dating from a time when people didn't know it was deadly. Actually, I read that most of the carcinogens in cigarette smoke are the result of the combustion process temperatures. When the smoke is liberated at lower temperatures, it is far less deadly. At this point, I don't mind seeing it being regulated to death, but on the other hand, I don't like some of the ways they are attempting to force people off of it. It took people a long time to discover it's dangerous, and it took them a long time to get addicted. People should allow for the time it will take to attrite it out of being a popular habit. Eventually the habit will die out, and I for one won't morn it's disappearance. It kills a lot of innocent people because of the fires it causes, on top of the cancer.
MSimon wrote:
Alcohol?
That toothpaste isn't likely going back in the tube. I think mankind would be better off without it, but at this point I think we are stuck with it. It has certainly cost my friends and family dearly, but apparently society has decided the benefits of keeping it outweigh the detriments of having to live with it.
MSimon wrote:
Automobiles? Crossing the street? Jumping out of airplanes? Riding a motorcycle on city streets? Aspirin? Ibuprofin? Five gallon buckets (infant deaths from drowning)? What is the criteria?
I think the criteria is flexible and dynamic. I can't see any of the above ever meeting the criteria, but that does not change the fact that society will very likely try to regulate any behavior that poses a serious threat to some threshold level of it's population. If conjuring demons was a commonplace activity, and it resulted in some threshold quantity of people getting seriously hurt or Killed, (nothing worse than getting ripped limb from limb by a ferocious demon you tried to control unsuccessfully:) ) society (and the government, who has an interest in maintaining some level of defensive manpower.) will step in and either regulate of prohibit it.
Behavior which is ordinary and typical, and that does not pose a significant threat to most people, (like motorcycling and skydiving) should not be regulated, unless of course it poses a threat to others. (Skydiving into traffic, or driving your motorcycle through children at the playground.)
People ought to have the right to risk their own lives for their betterment or enjoyment, provided such behavior does not constitute a significant threat to others. I believe that hard drugs meet this criteria, while skydiving and mountain climbing does not.
