POLL: The right to harm yourself.

Remove all ads!

Listening to the radio, I heard a statement that I am curious as to how those who frequent this board would feel about.

The statement was, "People should have the freedom to make their own choices, even if those choices are harmful to themselves." It was specific to the use of illegal drugs, but looking at it from a higher view creates an interesting discussion (at least to me).

So the question is, "Should freedoms include the right to choices that result in harm to oneself?"

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 32 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The right to harm yourself. (32 votes.)

Should freedoms include the right to choices that result in harm to oneself? (Choose 1)
* Absolutely - 13% (4)
* Only to the point at which these freedoms interfere with the rights of others - 56% (18)
* Only if those choices have no societal costs - 22% (7)
* No – harm to oneself always diminishes society - 9% (3)
* No – there is or should be no individual rights at all - 0% (0)

 

In my opinion every person can do whatever they like to themselves as long as they harm no one else.

Help should be offered, but no forced unto them.

 

This is really an interesting yet a difficult question. I for one think that one has the right to hurt oneself as long as it does not harm others in any way and that includes suicide even though someone might consider that it hurts those close to you. Using drugs is a issue that will hurt society and others. In bying drugs one supports criminal activity and with the stronger stuff will propably end up hurting someone else too.

The thought of not being allowed to hurt oneself because it costs for the society is silly. That would mean that you can't eat unhealthy, you can't smoke, you can't drink alcohol etc. The society has a responsibility for the people to protect them but the protection needs to have its limits or we'll find ourselves in a police state where the state will dictate what is good for you.

 

*cough*Demoliton man*coug*

Now that the popsulture ref is out of the way, I can add my $.02 to this one.

I believe that everyoone should be allowed to do with themselcves whatever they want, as long as it does not mess with anyone else.

Leppi pretty much said what I think.

 

In a society, there is practically no harming yourself only. Even if the transgressor is the chief victim, it still makes no excuse to grant any right to harm others. Still, even if it were at all possible to harm only yourself, every human being has a right to life and human dignity and cannot validly renounce it. We can't really go to such extremes as banning unhealthy food etc, but drugs are a little bit much, let alone suicide.

However, what we don't see at first glance is that a human being doesn't normally turn against its own body. Those people have a problem and problems are solved by eliminating the cause, not by preventing or even merely outlawing the result. Again, this still doesn't mean the result should be made legal any more than the cause.

The real offenders aren't addicts or kids who mutilate themselves. The real culprit is drug cartels and nets of dealers, suicidal and otherwise overly depressing music, tolerance for crime and crime-glorifying culture (we need to crack down even on "gangsta rap", if you ask me) and the faults of the social order.

 

When you harm yourself you harm society as they are the ones who have to bear the cost of treating you for your self-inflicted injuries. This is in my opinion the main argument against drugs, a junky may harm chiefly himself with his drugs but someone has to pay for the stuff he steals to finance his addiction, stuff he would have to steal even if the drugs were legal and cheaper, someone has to pay for the hospitalisation after overdoses and dont forget, someone has to pay for the rehab if the person wants to kick the habit.

So no, people should not be allowed to harm themselves as it isnt them who picks up all of the tab.

 

In my view suicide is the most difficult thing here since you can't really ban it or condemn it either. You just have to accept it as a fact that some people are miserable enough to commit suicide. You can try therapy, you can try medicine but it really does not help in most cases. Trust me I know, someone I knew commited suicide a few years ago and she was allready in all sorts of therapy. Finland just seems to have a thing for suicides for some reason.

 

Darwinism rules. Let the stupid move to the great beyond -- quickly. I get tired of being told how I have to pay the rehabilitation/health care costs for those fools that just don't get it.

 

I agree with the second half of Chev's arguements, but if it doesn't hurt anyone else (in the financial or physical sense) then I don't have a problem. There was a program on TV here recently about self-mutilators - basically slicing themselves with knives - a bit like Richie from the Manic Street Preachers. I only caught the end of it, but they don't hurt themselves sufficiently to require medical attention and some of them were basically asking to be left alone to get on with it.
Drugs are likely to have a negative effect somewhere, if only due to the people who make or refine them - (possible exceptions being home grown cannabis, magic mushrooms and LSD)
Suicide and/or Euthanasia is a whole lot more tricky subject. It's likely to cause someone else mental anguish, but must weighed against what someone must be going through to get to that point. If there is nothing, and I mean nothing, that can be done, then I think we should respect peoples decisions to end their own lives.
I think suicide is still illegal in Britain, though I may be wrong.

 

Eh?

People do have the right to harm themselves. Beers and fags are legal. They are harmful to a persons health. Or are you referring to drug use? Or self-harming, cutting your arms etc.?

Drugs are illegal for a reason far from the fact that they harm you. Drugs lead to violence and robberies. People who are smashed off their face, steal from others to feed their habit. That is a fact. Drugs destroy peoples lifes. Not just those who do it to themselves, but their loved ones who have to watch them destroying their lives. I have seen it first hand.
Some people take drugs 'recreationally' or whatever. Like a quick line, or a spliff when they are out clubbing. They try to justify it saying that they only do it in those situations. I woukd personally like to know how many people who have got hooked on drugs, started out using it recreationally...

Self harming is a sick sick sick thing. It brings nothing but crap to already bad situations. I have a mate who used to cut himself out of depression. People who do it just don't listen to you. Life is about facing problems, not using sick harmful thigns as a way of 'escapism'. My mate now has scars allover his arms that he will probably have for life. He regrets it more than anything he had ever done. It is sick and makes bad matters worse. I'm not even sure if it is illegal or not. Not that it could actually be enforced, if it was illegal.

In a nutshell, no, the harmful things that are illegal, are illegal for very good reasons.

 

Once you factor in the emotional distress you cause to others around you, on a community and even on a societal level it can be considered "harmful" to others. Someone already touched on the difficulty of having a really victimless crime, the primary "victim" included.

This reminds me of "The Incredibles", where Mr. Incredible was sued for stopping a suicide.

 

Carcaroth, self mutilation is a severe symptom on serious mental problems. The people who do it needs help, desperately. One of the main reasons for them cutting themselves are so they will have something visible for people to ask about. No matter what they say.

 

I agree with joacqin on this one. One of the functions of a society is that an individual is not left alone in hardship. Mental problem leading to self-mutilation is hardship. For the sake of the sane (when the problem ceases to exist) individual, the society must restrain the actions of his temporarily insane incarnation and has every right to, given the individual's capacity to make decisions is limited.

I obviously wasn't sane! How could you not have stopped me? I will sue you now!

 

So THAT'S why Falstaff's moving to Europe!



(boy, unconstructive comments are fun for a change)

 

Aren't they legal in America then? Or just not both at the same time?

 

Does it really matter if people are allowed or not allowed to harm themselves? People are still going to harm themselves if that is what they want to do regardless.

 

This question is far too general but being general myself I agree with Chevalier and Joacquin in that you need to look and see who is really being impacted by the 'self-harm'. Hence, using hard drugs should be illegal because of the encouragement it provides to the criminal activities of drug cartels and the burden on society of medical costs etc. But it is too hard to draw the line on what is defined as "harm".

But I especially agree with Chevalier about banning gangsta rap!

 

Well, if you are harming yourself, it is likely that you are not totally mentally stable or at least could be off a lot better than you are. I imagine that much of people's harming themselves comes from depression, drug abuse, poor relationships, and so on. While I do not think that there should be laws against this behavior (insofar as that they are only are the individual in question), there should be (or continue to be) some government-backed organization that provides help and relief to such people - rehabilitation centers, places to help children who are hurting themselves and people who are considering suicide, etc.

But forbiddance of self-injury as a whole is a pretty silly idea, since that would make things like ear piercing, aesthetic scarring, and, you might even argue, cigarette smoking illegal.

 

A couple of points: The argument that drugs should be illegal because of the fact that there are drug lords or because addicts commit crimes is a circular argument. If drugs were legal, drug lords would move on to other crimes as corporate culture would take over. Additionally, drugs are expensive due to supply and demand. People don't rob or kill people on a regular basis for tobacco or alcohol, because they are cheap, although if the gov't continues to raise taxes on them you will see such crimes. Did you realize the street value of a trailer full of cigarettes is over a million US$ is New York City? How long until big rigs hauling cigs start being hijacked? Sorry .

Here is the real dilemma. If most of us agree that drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and opium are too costly for society to bear, so we have to make them illegal, but that fast food, tobacco and alcohol aren't, what are we basing our judgments on? Obesity is a major drain on the US economy, and the cost of health care is driven up by treatment of obesity and its related symptoms (heart disease and diabetes just to name a couple). Airlines are facing discrimination lawsuits for charging obese people more than average people, forcing them to consider passing the cost on to the rest of us. Cars destined for American markets are designed to protect obese people at the cost of protecting the average person (both in monetary costs and potential safety). Obese people miss more work (sick days) costing their employers who have to pass on the cost to consumers. Given the high cost of the war on drugs, it would cost American's (can't speak for the rest of the world) less to stop fighting "THE WAR ON DRUGS" (stupid name ) and to just treat the junkies. I would bet that the actual costs of treatment would be less than the current monetary cost of obesity. Using this argument, why shouldn't the gov't start regulating the food industry and start taxing and making fattening foods illegal? So what are we basing our judgment of what is too costly to society on? Where in the grey scale do we draw the line?

For those who value personal freedom and liberty, the answer to that question should be based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. People should be responsible for their choices. If you chose to be fat, then you should have to pay the price. If you drink to excess, you should have to bear the cost. If you take drugs and become a junkie, you should suffer the consequences. It should not be the gov't or society's (supposed to be one and the same for the US) responsibility to rehabilitate, or treat, or slim you down. You made the choice to start drinking, taking drugs, or pick up the double Quarter-pounder with supersized fries. Help for these people should come from non-profit organizations funded by the charity of society, not by the gov't taking money from its citizens at the end of a gun. I believe that the war on drugs has already been lost, but the Republicans are too obstinate to admit it. Make them legal, and make those who get hooked on them have to pay for their rehab, if necessary by garnishing their wages. Sure it will be a very heavy cost in the short run, but in the long run people will learn personal responsibility and will pass it on to their children. For those who don’t, I know it seems cold, but tough luck, you made you bed, now sleep in it.

For those who believe that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual, the choice is much easier, especially if they are in a low tax bracket.

 

Well, beers are legal (if you are 21), but the other is not (unless you live in MA.) But seriously, Barmy Army is right on. And these are the huge white elephants in the middle of the room that everyone steps around and pretends are not there. They are every bit as destructive as illegal drugs. Tobacco is extremely addictive and alcohol is every bit as bad. But most everyone ignores the "legality" of their destructive qualities.

It appears we pick and choose our drugs based on arbitrary criteria. Consider that the crime related aspect of drugs is related to the notion that it IS illegal. If addicts could go to the local clinic to get their drugs at a cheap rate, then there would be a whole lot less drug related crime. But the Mafia would loose billions of dollars as a result, so forget that. We would not want crime organizatins to suffer an economic set back of that maginitude.

We would also have to empty hundreds of thousands from our prisons; but we pride ourselves on how many of these hardcore criminals we lock away; also we would lay-off half of the police and assorted law enforcement agents who earn most of their living off of the illegal drug traffic. Then there are all those lawyers who would have to compete for more business from the decrease in crime (unless corporate, white-collar crime actually does become illegal). And we would clear many thousands of hours from our court dockets, and actually have rapid judgment again in our courts. Really, we have an entire industry that we would wreck havoc on. Just the economics of what would be saved by the average taxpayer would be enough to probably save social security.

But will people ever get smart over this issue? Really, at some point in the future people will laugh at our stupidity and at our belief in the "War on Drugs." By the way, feel free to substitute "terror" for "drugs" and see similar results.

[ December 01, 2004, 05:59: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]