Replies

If most of these self harms were only to one’s self, I would not disagree. But that is rarely the end of it. A drug user, addicted to his fix, will do ANYTHING to get his fix. Steal, hurt, kill, sell ten minutes with his daughter. While high, he can cause untold harm to others. To his family, to other bystanders. He doesn’t give them the choice of whether they pay the price for his self destruction. A DUI driver doesn’t ask if his victims want to get hurt or killed.

The moment any individual becomes guilty of most of the transgressions you speak of is the point where his liberty ends. Whether or not that person is on drugs is irrelevant to the fact that they committed a crime.

Your choice to make the use of said drug a crime is what encroaches on the individuals' liberty to do as they please with their own body.

Fact is - many responsible people DO consume drugs and alcohol every day, and do none of the things you mention.

Yet under what some call 'moral' laws...they are automatically a criminal in the same class as those who steal, maim, and destroy. Despite the fact that the individual might never do any of those things and simply may be looking for a temporary thrill.

Your rationale for 'moral' drug law basically is prejudging an individual, because they do the drug - which inherently affects nobody but themselves, if they do it in their own home and are responsible with it's use. Not because they will commit a crime.

You are painting all drug users with an extremely broad brush there, if you presume all drug use ends up in crime. And that broad brush has no respect for the liberty of the responsible individual.

Jefferson's quote is very applicable to the case you made:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.-- Thomas Jefferson

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

But you gloss over that part. EQUAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I have a basic right to travel the street without having to be under the constant threat of “Responsible DUI”. I’m not going to wait for him to harm me, mine, or an innocent party.

Yet I’ve seen people argue that society shouldn’t stop them until they actually harm someone. One even argued for speeding through school zones, and not stopped until he actually hits a kid.
Bull! If someone is waving a gun around at me and mine, I can not be expected to wait until actual harm is caused before stopping it. Same with drunks. I have not one reason to wait until he harms my kid, before stopping him.

The moment your activity becomes are realistic threat to the freedom of others, is the moment your activity will get controlled. Want what you want, but that is the way it will be.

And responsible drug use, including alcohol, is an oxymoron. It is a substance designed to remove the ability to be responsible.

“Your freedom to wave your fist ends at the beginning of my nose.”
You understand what it means. And it is a fundamental truth of a civil society.