Government-supplied ultimate recreational drug - would this be a good thing?
Imagine that your country's Government invented a new recreational drug that had several remarkable properties.....
(A) It produced a high that is better than that produced by any current drug, better than sex, better than anything;
(B) It didn't prevent you from doing your normal day-to-day life things - it merely made you feel really good;
(B) It had absolutely no destructive physical or mental effects from long or short term use, apart from just one....
(D) It was completetly addicitive: ie a user would be addicted from one use only, and would not be able to resist taking the drug again. If it were withheld, after a month of steadily worsening withdrawal symptoms, the user would invariably die.
Now imagine that the Government undertook to distribute this drug, free of charge, to anybody who desired to use it. So for example, you could pick up a bag at the post office for free.
Would this be a good policy or a bad policy?
Would it make any difference if the drug was not addictive, and you didn't die after stopping usage?
Would it make any difference if it was prohibited for people under 18 years old?
|
1
point
This is bad because it makes people dependent upon their government to feel good and to survive withdrawal symptoms. If it wasn't addictive, I might support it a bit more. Maybe not the part about the government being the sole supplier, but allowing the market to distribute this kind of drug might enhance our quality of life, so long as the addiction wasn't a factor. If it wasn't addictive and didn't cause any harm to the user, I wouldn't care if people under 18 took it. However, if it was addictive, I would say that no one should be given any until they're 18 (maybe 21) and sign a statement indicating that they understand the addictive nature of the product. |
