I absolutely support it. It goes with my general philosophical standpoint that people, as a matter of principle, should not be able to make stupid decisions, and if they do, the power should exist to correct them.
It's one thing to say that someone should be able to step in when someone's judgment has been compromised though an addiction.
But saying people aren't ever allowed to make stupid decisions is pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.
Well, I do not claim omniscience, but I can tell you that the effects of drugs such as these are greatly detrimental to one's health and general well-being. Why should I, in good conscience, allow a friend to do something that would hurt or harm themselves, that, if they were fully informed of the consequences, would not do? Such a belief is a logical extension of that. Totaliarianism? I'd call it Hobbesian paternalism.
Because different people prioritize different aspects of life and hold different subjective ideas on the benefits of taking risk upon themselves. What I'm saying is that you cannot impose your ideals of life on someone who wants to live a hedonistic one, that's fundamentally immoral and imposing your worldview on your friends. How would you like it if I forced everyone to smoke marijuana because I find it to be beneficial and well worth the risks and considered anyone who didn't smoke it to be lifeless pussies with no penchant for enjoying themselves?
What, should be ban storm chasing, surfing, snow boarding, driving cars and going outdoors because it could be detrimental to people's general health and well being at times? It's up to the individual to decide what is healthy for themselves and what is not, and what constitutes sufficient risk to stop their activity. Well in an ideal world it would be entirely up to the individual.
