ahallock asked the right question, but your response is wrong.
Saying there are "immoral laws" and "immoral laws" as if to imply a difference, is intellectually dishonest and violates the law of identity in logic. You're simply trying to weasel in some other definition of "immoral". I'm simply identifying the rhetorical device you're using, and that it doesn't fool everyone as perhaps you wished.
Mandatory genital mutilation is immoral, in the end, because no one ones another person's body, and no one has authority over another person's body.
Making drugs illegal is immoral for the exact same reason.
Drug addicts committing crimes that harm other human beings is also immoral for the exact same reason.
Society has no right to police things because only individuals have rights, not groups. If you think groups have rights I'd love to be convinced of that.
> there is no denying that drug use does in fact cause societal harms.
This is so easy to deny. There are many ways to go about this. We could say caffeine helps society be more productive and so in the end it may be a net benefit. There are other drugs we could argue are helpful, at least for some people, like lithium, aspirin, etc. Moving on, if you don't accept any of the beneficial drugs, I could argue that many instances of drug use result in neutral societal consequences, for instance, every time I use drugs, there is never a societal harm. I'm taking 'societal harm' to mean violations of the rights of any individual in that society. When I take drugs I do not violate any one person's natural rights. So really, there are so many examples of how drug use does not cause societal harm, that for you to say there's no denying that, is frankly delusional.
Saying there are "immoral laws" and "immoral laws" as if to imply a difference, is intellectually dishonest and violates the law of identity in logic. You're simply trying to weasel in some other definition of "immoral". I'm simply identifying the rhetorical device you're using, and that it doesn't fool everyone as perhaps you wished.
Mandatory genital mutilation is immoral, in the end, because no one ones another person's body, and no one has authority over another person's body.
Making drugs illegal is immoral for the exact same reason.
Drug addicts committing crimes that harm other human beings is also immoral for the exact same reason.
Society has no right to police things because only individuals have rights, not groups. If you think groups have rights I'd love to be convinced of that.
> there is no denying that drug use does in fact cause societal harms.
This is so easy to deny. There are many ways to go about this. We could say caffeine helps society be more productive and so in the end it may be a net benefit. There are other drugs we could argue are helpful, at least for some people, like lithium, aspirin, etc. Moving on, if you don't accept any of the beneficial drugs, I could argue that many instances of drug use result in neutral societal consequences, for instance, every time I use drugs, there is never a societal harm. I'm taking 'societal harm' to mean violations of the rights of any individual in that society. When I take drugs I do not violate any one person's natural rights. So really, there are so many examples of how drug use does not cause societal harm, that for you to say there's no denying that, is frankly delusional.