Yes, but the poll is the poll and my comment is a side-note.
You hit a nerve when you said there is no logical connection between harmful and legality.
Should there not be? What is the point of forbidding something unless it is harmful, either for the individual or the society?
The only reason I see for forbidding something that is not harmful - like for instance recreational sex in certain religions - is because it conflicts with the ruling ideology.
What is the point of banning hallucinogenic drugs such as DMT, Peyote or LSD? They have no proven physical ill-effects on the human body, they have but marginal side-effects which are temporary, and cannot be classified as harmful unless severely abused.
But, two of the world's most dangerous drugs, cigarettes and alcohol, are legal and readily available. AND, heavily taxed. It's kind of like the world's governments are saying "since it's harmful we want a bigger slice of the proceeds.
That's drugdealer mentality. "This stuff is killer, it'll cost you extra".
You hit a nerve when you said there is no logical connection between harmful and legality.
Should there not be? What is the point of forbidding something unless it is harmful, either for the individual or the society?
The only reason I see for forbidding something that is not harmful - like for instance recreational sex in certain religions - is because it conflicts with the ruling ideology.
What is the point of banning hallucinogenic drugs such as DMT, Peyote or LSD? They have no proven physical ill-effects on the human body, they have but marginal side-effects which are temporary, and cannot be classified as harmful unless severely abused.
But, two of the world's most dangerous drugs, cigarettes and alcohol, are legal and readily available. AND, heavily taxed. It's kind of like the world's governments are saying "since it's harmful we want a bigger slice of the proceeds.
That's drugdealer mentality. "This stuff is killer, it'll cost you extra".