Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
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.
|
Yeah I wasn't convinced by the economic one either.
The point I was making concerning drugs - or rather the question I was asking - is, aren't the issues of regulation/prohibition more about health and safety (and possibly economic activity/productiveness) rather than morality? I think they are - unless we expand it to declare that all the decisions a government makes concerning safety and welfare are ultimately a reflection of the state having a 'moral' responsibility to protect its citizens. Which seems to me a somewhat looser sense of morality than the one you intended. Is any top-down handbrake on personal liberty for personal safety (or economic advantage or social cohesion) ultimately a moral pronouncement?
From what I know of the FCC, yes it seems to me a more straightforward example of almost puritanical morality for its own sake. I get that it's obviously about protecting children - partly giving parents the freedom to tackle sensitive subjects in their own time rather than having it forced upon them - but it goes further than just whispering 'won't anyone think of the children.' What about adults? Perhaps the FCC would insist that it's only being pragmatic - that it's saving American adults from the depravity than might otherwise consume them if they were exposed to too much sex and violence (but, in the US it seems, mostly sex and nudity - which is telling). Perhaps they will insist that this is - again - a welfare issue, a safeguard against desensitization... addiction... But have you noticed how discussions around FCC decisions are very rarely if ever framed in the language of psychology? There's little meaningful discussion about addiction or the psychosocial effects of normalization. It's the language of morality. "Crude". "Lewd". "Disgust". "Filth". Or euphemisms like "inappropriate" (ok enough about jOHN's private life). Maybe morality is often how we're sold unpopular but pragmatic decisions?