![]() For instance, a non-addictive drug with minimal risk of harm would definitely be defended. Of course, this might vary depending upon the drug. Thus, the case of the bridge applied to drug use suggests that Mill would favor drug education warning of the danger of drug use, but that Mill would oppose a prohibition on drug use. (This would be equivalent to drug education.) Once warned of the risks of drug use, the state, like the citizen in the bridge case, would not be justified in preventing someone from undertaking the risky behavior. Therefore, in the case of drug use, the state, like the citizen, may justifiably stop people from using drugs in order to warn them of the danger. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |