LSD Legalization

In this round I will be focusing on Pro's argument from R2 and will show why it fails to support his position within the debate. I will focus on Pro's rebuttals to my own case in the following round. RebuttalsI. Harm to the SelfIn this debate, Pro has decided to rely solely on the Harm Principle to show that LSD should be legalized for recreational use. The Harm principle states, in essence, that just because something harms the self doesn't mean it should be illegal - only things that cause harm to others should be made illegal. Thus, I will not spend any time rebutting this section of the Harm principle, since the only thing Pro really did within this section is provide reasoning for why the Harm Principle works for his position. As a utilitarian myself, I agree with the Harm Principle and only differ with Pro in the sense that I do believe LSD causes harm to others. If I can show that LSD causes harm to others, then Pro won't be able to stand on the Harm Principle and, by extension, will have no further arguments to rely on. II. Harm to OthersFirst and foremost, Pro already concedes that LSD can cause harm to others. This is evident with his statement, "it only becomes harmful to others if done within an unusual context." Thus, we can already establish that LSD does indeed cause harm to others by Pro's own admission, regardless if the harm to others is done under "unusual contexts", the harm is still done. What Pro does to save himself from his own concession is argue that we should treat LSD usage the same as we do driving a car -- put regulations in place to minimize the occurrence of "unusual contexts", i.e., to minimize the harms it causes to others. However, this is a false analogy fallacy on Pro's part, as LSD usage and driving a vehicle are two completely different things. Even attempting to compare LSD usage to Alcohol would be a false analogy fallacy due to alcohol being a depressant and LSD being a hallucinogenic. We cannot reasonably ascribe restrictions already in place for certain substances to LSD because the effects of LSD are totally different. Due to the unique nature of LSD, Pro must do more than merely say that we could just put restrictions in place to ensure that no harm to others would occur, as we currently have no such restrictions in place for the legal use of hallucinogens as potent as LSD to even compare it to. ...Most importantly, if I can show that there is solid evidence that legalizing LSD for recreational use would cause harm to others, then Pro's entire case would be defeated, as it rests solely on the assumption that LSD doesn't cause harm to others. To start, I would like to clarify what sort of harm John Stuart Mill meant when first creating his principle. The reason for this is that Pro made the claim that, "actions have to be *inherently* harmful in order to qualify under the standard of the Harm Principle." This is false, Mill never explicitly defines what he means by harm, and he uses various different words at different times (hurt, damage, loss, injury). However, Chapter 4 of his book 'On Liberty' (141- 6) contains a discussion, which if we read very carefully, provides a sense of what harm includes and what it excludes. In general, "As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it" (141). So, in the first instance, harming someone means injuring their interests.This is where the distinction can be made between self-regarding actions and harming others. Self-regarding actions are ones that affect only the agent 'directly and in the first instance'. They may still affect other people, but if they do so, they so 'through' the agent. This is the strongest point Pro has going for him, because he can rightfully say that any harms caused to others are just the result of self-regarding actions and those actions themselves are not punishable by the government under the Harm Principle. But if we really look at the Harm Principle, we'll see that JSM raised some distinctions and that there is indeed a line between self-regarding actions affecting others, and self-regarding actions harming others. Mill wanted to use his idea of 'harm' to change what society believes about rights and morality. According to Mill: "'Harm' to our interests involves physical injury and death, being confined against our will, having our reputation hurt, financial loss, being coerced through deception or threat, having promises and contracts broken, being unfairly treated, and even, Mill adds, other people’s selfish refusal to defend us from injury by a third party." (145) This effectively draws the line between self-regarding actions that affect others and self-regarding actions that cause harm to others. Furthermore, Mill raised an objection to the claim that all self-regarding acts are permissible under the Harm Principle, which was evidenced when he stated: "No person is an entirely isolated being’ (146), so it is impossible that anything someone does that harms themselves will not also harm people close to them. For example, if they harm themselves financially, this will impact on people they support. Or if they harm their minds or bodies, they may become dependent on others. If nothing else, their behaviour will harm others 'by example'."...At this point, I've shown that the act of taking LSD, while a self-regarding act, can affect others, and that if it affects others in the sense of impeding their interests, then the harm principle here becomes null as it doesn't justify legalizing things which cause harm to others. All that's left now is to answer the question of how the legalization of LSD would cause harm to others in real world application. Remember that, according to Mill, 'Harm' to our interests involves physical injury and death, being confined against our will, having our reputation hurt, financial loss, being coerced through deception or threat, having promises and contracts broken, and being unfairly treated.- Physical Injury and Death -http://www.dailycamera.com...In this example, a young man under the influence of LSD stabbed his friend in the heart, causing his friend to die. Not only did this cause a direct harm to the victim, but an indirect harm to the victim's family members' who mourned the unexpected loss of their teenage son.http://www.9news.com...In this example a man was shot and killed by police after ingesting LSD and subsequently stabbing his friends. He ingested the LSD in the safety and comfort of his own home, was a smart guy, and was with supportive friends. Even in this preferred scenario of being safely home and with friends recreational use of LSD resulted in harming others. http://www.thejakartapost.com...In this example a student under the influence of LSD caused the death of four people while driving. http://articles.latimes.com...In this example, a young lady killed an expecting mother and her fetus while driving under the influence of LSD. http://www.theunion.com...In this example a young lady crashed her car, causing damage to the state and passenger, and then ran around naked in front of children playing softball at a Christian youth camp. ...In all these examples, one person's act of ingesting LSD impeded on the interests of others by causing them harm, even in the safest of contexts. Due to the fact that LSD usage is responsible for these occurrences, it's clear that the Harm Principle holds no bearing in justifying the legalization of LSD for recreational use. Ultimately, I have successfully shown why the Harm Principle fails to uphold Pro's position within this debate.