Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard
Agree with the general principle. There might well be examples where I would make an exception, but nothing springs to mind right now.
I suppose quite a lot hinges on what you mean by "directly affect". For instance, the government upholds copyright law. It could be argued that that's kind of regulating morality - or at least fairness. In that instance, behaviour is being regulated, even though actions of the illegal downloader are not quite "directly" affecting the physical wellbeing of another human being. Maybe that's a bad example.
It also hinges on what counts as morality. Is the banning of certain drugs a moral issue? It might be a safety/welfare/exploitation issue, but isn't that ultimately about morality? Ditto the illegality or regulation of prostitution or pornography.
|
i suppose those are economic protections— i wasn't really going for the economic side of the equation.
the two exceptions i was thinking of when i made the post were the FCC and prostitution. the FCC to control what can be *publicly* seen over radio and tv to prevent psychological trauma in children and for the right to not be exposed to those images.
to me, drugs should only be banned when they create a risk to those around them or an immediate death risk for the person using them— so, for example, marijuana and lsd would probably be legal, while crack cocaine and heroin would be illegal.