I'm going to do what I want to. So should you. As long as I'm not putting others in danger, why does anyone care? I don't want to be saved! I'm at my house getting High or drunk its not anyone's business. If I get in a vehicle or go outside with a firearm I have now become a danger, and should be punished severely. Drugs and alcohol are not a excuse. If you rob, kill, or commit any crime you should be punished. Being high , depressed, or bipolar doesn't make what you did less of a crime. So why in the hell do people feel they have right to tell someone what they can do? It's time you keep your morals in your yard. People can sleep with whom they chose. They can ingest what they chose. So you save the ones who chose to be saved .
Some aspects of social conditioning are not part of a modern society in my opinion. As long as people are not harming other people or breaking laws they should be able to do what they want as long as just about everyone is not in disagreement. There is a lot of ignorance in human society about a lot of things that other people want to do in the world. This is wrong when what they are doing is not harming other people and many other people actually agree with what they are doing.
There is hardly anything one can do which doesn't affect others. If I can see you/hear about you doing anything it affects me, however indirectly.
That being said, what doesn't affect anyone else than the doer should be allowed. Anything else I would consider an infraction of my rights as my own being.
Some things we do which we consider to have no affect on others can have an indirect effect. Take smoking, for instance. The second hand smoke from a smoker can cause serious and lasting damage to those around the smoker, provided they're not taking measures to prevent this (i.E. Smoking outside). On the other hand, why should something be wrong to do if it doesn't affect anyone negatively? What would be the purpose in prohibiting it? Sounds totalitarian to me.
Yes, adults (I would argue people, too, but that's for another time) should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't affect others (including indirectly). However, you'll be very hard pressed to find something to do which doesn't affect other *in any way at all*. Very hard pressed, indeed.
If you choose to claim that adults cannot do what they want, out of a desire to "protect the children", in the context of the question that claim is irrelevant. In terms of adults being able to do what they want without affecting anyone else, that would mean that they are not affecting anyone at all other than themselves. Whether such a thing is possible is also irrelevant. It's not about if it is possible, it's about if it should be done if it would not affect anyone else. So if it was possible to do something without affecting anyone else, then yes, why not?
For those of you who say "no", I propose that you are considering the people who might walk around naked and thus scar children's eyes forever. That scenario however would affect other people (parents being angry, children wondering), so it would not apply to the scenario.
To think that your actions don't affect others, that makes no sense. As the old saying goes, "for every choice we make there's a consequence" at least that's how I think it goes. Regardless it's true, that our actions affect someone somewhere somehow, if you do drugs this can affect kids' views on such things and influence whether or not they will use it the drugs themselves, in that case we have a societal effect. If say pot was legal, but instead of buying it you grew it that means that you're affecting businesses and stopping them from making much of a profit, and that means that a big argument for legalizing drugs goes away.
Overall, this doesn't seem like a good idea.
This is more Libertarian nonsense.
Unless you live alone in a cave in the woods far far away from society and you don't have a job, your actions affect others, e.G., sick days, increased medical cost because of drug abuse, etc.
So, if you want to live in a cave far away from society and you don't work for a company, and all your relatives are dead, then go for it.
Things we do which directly doesn't effect others may have indirect effects. Many existing rules and customs have been created for the stability of the society.. One person breaking it may not have any effect, but majority of human kind breaking it may make the society unstable. We are social beings and we cant exist without the society.
The society as a whole has a responsibility to maintain a code of conduct and morality.
Your children learn from you... My children learn from your child. Habits and bad actions get passed on regardless of what they are. Every habit is passed on into society, and as long as that can happen, even if your specific action isn't directly hurting anyone, society has a responsibility to block out negative influences.
That's what every action is... An influence... And we must let some go, but many are too bad.
Remember, we set up the society our children will live in... Keep bad influences out...
Allowing all self-regarding acts would include such things as chopping one's own arm off and becoming addicted to heroin. The consequences of these are horrible, and 'It's your own stupid fault' doesn't make the harm go away. There are certain things that no reasonable person would choose, and since there's evidence for a genetic factor of 50%+ in intelligence, and in any case people don't choose their early upbringing, allowing full freedom for self-regarding actions means letting people suffer huge harms because of something that's not your fault.