Ban on alcohol and cigarettes: Who owns your body?

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
792
Drinkers, smokers, and for that matter, sinners of all stripes... who owns your body?

Defnition: ownership

The moral and/or legal right to exclusive control over a physical resource.

Defnition: slavery

The legal right to ownership, including acquisition, disposal i.e. trade, of another (living) person's body.

In principle, does the individual own his body? Or does the state own it?

[ Note: All opinions on this thread are welcome.... even if you don't agree with me. But if you don't agree, share your reasoning, don't surround the idea with noise and ad hominems, then label *your* disruption as [interested parties going 'off topic'], and subsequently report interested parties to the moderator. That would be disingenuous and against the spirit of open enquiry. If you really can't stand confronting the topic or a poster, use the Ignore feature, otherwise it just makes you look desperately intolerant of other viewpoints. (you know who you are). ]
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
792
Ladies would probably be more alert to the implications of these questions... because they have more obvious skin in the game, so to speak, when it comes to decision-making power over one's own body. But so would drinkers, smokers and sinners of all stripes... there's nothing quite like having real skin in the game to guage one's values.

If value is subjective, then rationality i.e. your reason for doing something, is neither here not there. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If a woman wants to sleep with someone you deem to be unworthy, her 'irrationality' is irrelevant. In principle, the choice is hers because... she owns her body.

The principle applies to any ingestible (nicotine, alcohol, salt, sugar, biltong etc.) because you own your body.

If you can justify violation of individual autonomy or self-ownership in the case of alcohol and cigarettes, what would be a sufficient argument for stopping there? Would it be a principled argument? Or would it be one suited to the range of the moment?
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,541
Its an interesting thought experiment in its own way, but at the end of the day as a citizen of the country you have handed over control of those decisions at a macro level to a different authority than yourself..
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
49,134
So unban all drugs no matter their schedules?
indeed
much of the allure is found in the rituals involved in scoring, preparing & using - kinda like naughty rebellious schoolboys giving "the system", a middle finger.

send a platter of lines of coke around at a party, many wont bother.
secretly signal them to join you crawling around in a bathroom or toilet - and they'll be lining up
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
792
So unban all drugs no matter their schedules?
No, unban decision-making power.

In my preferred legal jurisdiction, individuals would be free and responsible - like adults - to decide for themselves what is poisonous and what is either safe to digest or worth digesting in spite of any toxicity (alleged or actual).

They'd also be free and responsible for acquiring help from others in determining what is or is not suitable for ingesting. This would be a matter of voluntary exchange, though. Legally speaking, no-one could prevent you from doing research.
 
Last edited:

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
792
who is responsible to fix it after you have broken it, and have zero income or resources ?
It depends on which jurisdiction you're talking about.

If it's one in which adults are legally free & responsible to mitigate risk, then they would already have agreed to self-fund their experimental behavior. Because such a jurisdiction would be strictly opt-in.

If you agreed to associate with others on voluntary terms, on entering the jurisdiction, then before conducting your experiments you could seek insurance/mitigation from willing parties in the case your body broke, in the process of doing x, y or z with it.
 
Last edited:

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
18,197
nobody owns your body, but people want to CONTROL it,

look at the mass media, the internet and TV, everybody want to influence and Control you to do X.
one of the reasons there are so many laws about it, because there are a lot of benefits associated with Booze/cigarettes
namely Tax money and why we now have a Sugar tax.

Im of the live free persuasion, you can do whatever you like to your body,
kind of like you can do whatever you like to a car, nobody should tell you how/what to do.
 

Solarion

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
19,261
who is responsible to fix it after you have broken it, and have zero income or resources ?
Tax payer. No cigarettes = no tax to fix anything because the cigarette problem is solved.

NDZ logic. I doubt she sees the irony of this behind that mountain of ego standing in her path.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
20,397
This is a bad argument. The government isn't trying to claim ownership of your body. They are just trying to claims ownership of everything else.

They aren't controlling you, they are controlling cigarettes.
 

Hellhound105

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
4,472
I just want my full sugar Coke. Actually want to check who was for the removal of full sugar Coke but against the ban of alcohol and cigarettes .
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
792
This is a bad argument. The government isn't trying to claim ownership of your body. They are just trying to claims ownership of everything else.

They aren't controlling you, they are controlling cigarettes.
I guess that is getting to the next question... i.e. if you are a self-owner, presumably someone needs permission from you to deprive you of your justly-acquired property e.g. tobacco, booze whatever belongs to you.

If you own your body, then you own property, by extension. Like other physical resources which you legally acquire through voluntary exchange.

edit: 'deprive you of your' should read: 'permission to use/control' (deprive implies they've already helped themselves to what is rightfully yours)
 
Top