Listening to the radio, I heard a statement that I am curious as to how those who frequent this board would feel about.

The statement was, "People should have the freedom to make their own choices, even if those choices are harmful to themselves." It was specific to the use of illegal drugs, but looking at it from a higher view creates an interesting discussion (at least to me).

So the question is, "Should freedoms include the right to choices that result in harm to oneself?"

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 32 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The right to harm yourself. (32 votes.)

Should freedoms include the right to choices that result in harm to oneself? (Choose 1)
* Absolutely - 13% (4)
* Only to the point at which these freedoms interfere with the rights of others - 56% (18)
* Only if those choices have no societal costs - 22% (7)
* No – harm to oneself always diminishes society - 9% (3)
* No – there is or should be no individual rights at all - 0% (0)

In my opinion every person can do whatever they like to themselves as long as they harm no one else.

Help should be offered, but no forced unto them.

This is really an interesting yet a difficult question. I for one think that one has the right to hurt oneself as long as it does not harm others in any way and that includes suicide even though someone might consider that it hurts those close to you. Using drugs is a issue that will hurt society and others. In bying drugs one supports criminal activity and with the stronger stuff will propably end up hurting someone else too.

The thought of not being allowed to hurt oneself because it costs for the society is silly. That would mean that you can't eat unhealthy, you can't smoke, you can't drink alcohol etc. The society has a responsibility for the people to protect them but the protection needs to have its limits or we'll find ourselves in a police state where the state will dictate what is good for you.

*cough*Demoliton man*coug*

Now that the popsulture ref is out of the way, I can add my $.02 to this one.

I believe that everyoone should be allowed to do with themselcves whatever they want, as long as it does not mess with anyone else.

Leppi pretty much said what I think.

In a society, there is practically no harming yourself only. Even if the transgressor is the chief victim, it still makes no excuse to grant any right to harm others. Still, even if it were at all possible to harm only yourself, every human being has a right to life and human dignity and cannot validly renounce it. We can't really go to such extremes as banning unhealthy food etc, but drugs are a little bit much, let alone suicide.

However, what we don't see at first glance is that a human being doesn't normally turn against its own body. Those people have a problem and problems are solved by eliminating the cause, not by preventing or even merely outlawing the result. Again, this still doesn't mean the result should be made legal any more than the cause.

The real offenders aren't addicts or kids who mutilate themselves. The real culprit is drug cartels and nets of dealers, suicidal and otherwise overly depressing music, tolerance for crime and crime-glorifying culture (we need to crack down even on "gangsta rap", if you ask me) and the faults of the social order.

When you harm yourself you harm society as they are the ones who have to bear the cost of treating you for your self-inflicted injuries. This is in my opinion the main argument against drugs, a junky may harm chiefly himself with his drugs but someone has to pay for the stuff he steals to finance his addiction, stuff he would have to steal even if the drugs were legal and cheaper, someone has to pay for the hospitalisation after overdoses and dont forget, someone has to pay for the rehab if the person wants to kick the habit.

So no, people should not be allowed to harm themselves as it isnt them who picks up all of the tab.

We can't really go to such extremes as banning unhealthy food etc, but drugs are a little bit much, let alone suicide. In my view suicide is the most difficult thing here since you can't really ban it or condemn it either. You just have to accept it as a fact that some people are miserable enough to commit suicide. You can try therapy, you can try medicine but it really does not help in most cases. Trust me I know, someone I knew commited suicide a few years ago and she was allready in all sorts of therapy. Finland just seems to have a thing for suicides for some reason. :(

Darwinism rules. Let the stupid move to the great beyond -- quickly. I get tired of being told how I have to pay the rehabilitation/health care costs for those fools that just don't get it.

I agree with the second half of Chev's arguements, but if it doesn't hurt anyone else (in the financial or physical sense) then I don't have a problem. There was a program on TV here recently about self-mutilators - basically slicing themselves with knives - a bit like Richie from the Manic Street Preachers. I only caught the end of it, but they don't hurt themselves sufficiently to require medical attention and some of them were basically asking to be left alone to get on with it.
Drugs are likely to have a negative effect somewhere, if only due to the people who make or refine them - (possible exceptions being home grown cannabis, magic mushrooms and LSD)
Suicide and/or Euthanasia is a whole lot more tricky subject. It's likely to cause someone else mental anguish, but must weighed against what someone must be going through to get to that point. If there is nothing, and I mean nothing, that can be done, then I think we should respect peoples decisions to end their own lives.
I think suicide is still illegal in Britain, though I may be wrong.

Eh?

People do have the right to harm themselves. Beers and fags are legal. They are harmful to a persons health. Or are you referring to drug use? Or self-harming, cutting your arms etc.?

Drugs are illegal for a reason far from the fact that they harm you. Drugs lead to violence and robberies. People who are smashed off their face, steal from others to feed their habit. That is a fact. Drugs destroy peoples lifes. Not just those who do it to themselves, but their loved ones who have to watch them destroying their lives. I have seen it first hand.
Some people take drugs 'recreationally' or whatever. Like a quick line, or a spliff when they are out clubbing. They try to justify it saying that they only do it in those situations. I woukd personally like to know how many people who have got hooked on drugs, started out using it recreationally...

Self harming is a sick sick sick thing. It brings nothing but crap to already bad situations. I have a mate who used to cut himself out of depression. People who do it just don't listen to you. Life is about facing problems, not using sick harmful thigns as a way of 'escapism'. My mate now has scars allover his arms that he will probably have for life. He regrets it more than anything he had ever done. It is sick and makes bad matters worse. I'm not even sure if it is illegal or not. Not that it could actually be enforced, if it was illegal.

In a nutshell, no, the harmful things that are illegal, are illegal for very good reasons.

Once you factor in the emotional distress you cause to others around you, on a community and even on a societal level it can be considered "harmful" to others. Someone already touched on the difficulty of having a really victimless crime, the primary "victim" included.

This reminds me of "The Incredibles", where Mr. Incredible was sued for stopping a suicide.

:p

Carcaroth, self mutilation is a severe symptom on serious mental problems. The people who do it needs help, desperately. One of the main reasons for them cutting themselves are so they will have something visible for people to ask about. No matter what they say.

I agree with joacqin on this one. One of the functions of a society is that an individual is not left alone in hardship. Mental problem leading to self-mutilation is hardship. For the sake of the sane (when the problem ceases to exist) individual, the society must restrain the actions of his temporarily insane incarnation and has every right to, given the individual's capacity to make decisions is limited.

I obviously wasn't sane! How could you not have stopped me? I will sue you now! :rolleyes:

Beers and fags are legal.So THAT'S why Falstaff's moving to Europe!

:lol: :hahaerr:

(boy, unconstructive comments are fun for a change)

Aren't they legal in America then? Or just not both at the same time? :lol:

So no, people should not be allowed to harm themselves as it isnt them who picks up all of the tab.Does it really matter if people are allowed or not allowed to harm themselves? People are still going to harm themselves if that is what they want to do regardless.

This question is far too general but being general myself I agree with Chevalier and Joacquin in that you need to look and see who is really being impacted by the 'self-harm'. Hence, using hard drugs should be illegal because of the encouragement it provides to the criminal activities of drug cartels and the burden on society of medical costs etc. But it is too hard to draw the line on what is defined as "harm".

But I especially agree with Chevalier about banning gangsta rap!

Well, if you are harming yourself, it is likely that you are not totally mentally stable or at least could be off a lot better than you are. I imagine that much of people's harming themselves comes from depression, drug abuse, poor relationships, and so on. While I do not think that there should be laws against this behavior (insofar as that they are only are the individual in question), there should be (or continue to be) some government-backed organization that provides help and relief to such people - rehabilitation centers, places to help children who are hurting themselves and people who are considering suicide, etc.

But forbiddance of self-injury as a whole is a pretty silly idea, since that would make things like ear piercing, aesthetic scarring, and, you might even argue, cigarette smoking illegal.

A couple of points: The argument that drugs should be illegal because of the fact that there are drug lords or because addicts commit crimes is a circular argument. If drugs were legal, drug lords would move on to other crimes as corporate culture would take over. Additionally, drugs are expensive due to supply and demand. People don't rob or kill people on a regular basis for tobacco or alcohol, because they are cheap, although if the gov't continues to raise taxes on them you will see such crimes. Did you realize the street value of a trailer full of cigarettes is over a million US$ is New York City? How long until big rigs hauling cigs start being hijacked? Sorry :yot: .

Here is the real dilemma. If most of us agree that drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and opium are too costly for society to bear, so we have to make them illegal, but that fast food, tobacco and alcohol aren't, what are we basing our judgments on? Obesity is a major drain on the US economy, and the cost of health care is driven up by treatment of obesity and its related symptoms (heart disease and diabetes just to name a couple). Airlines are facing discrimination lawsuits for charging obese people more than average people, forcing them to consider passing the cost on to the rest of us. Cars destined for American markets are designed to protect obese people at the cost of protecting the average person (both in monetary costs and potential safety). Obese people miss more work (sick days) costing their employers who have to pass on the cost to consumers. Given the high cost of the war on drugs, it would cost American's (can't speak for the rest of the world) less to stop fighting "THE WAR ON DRUGS" (stupid name :rolleyes: ) and to just treat the junkies. I would bet that the actual costs of treatment would be less than the current monetary cost of obesity. Using this argument, why shouldn't the gov't start regulating the food industry and start taxing and making fattening foods illegal? So what are we basing our judgment of what is too costly to society on? Where in the grey scale do we draw the line?

For those who value personal freedom and liberty, the answer to that question should be based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. People should be responsible for their choices. If you chose to be fat, then you should have to pay the price. If you drink to excess, you should have to bear the cost. If you take drugs and become a junkie, you should suffer the consequences. It should not be the gov't or society's (supposed to be one and the same for the US) responsibility to rehabilitate, or treat, or slim you down. You made the choice to start drinking, taking drugs, or pick up the double Quarter-pounder with supersized fries. Help for these people should come from non-profit organizations funded by the charity of society, not by the gov't taking money from its citizens at the end of a gun. I believe that the war on drugs has already been lost, but the Republicans are too obstinate to admit it. Make them legal, and make those who get hooked on them have to pay for their rehab, if necessary by garnishing their wages. Sure it will be a very heavy cost in the short run, but in the long run people will learn personal responsibility and will pass it on to their children. For those who don’t, I know it seems cold, but tough luck, you made you bed, now sleep in it.

For those who believe that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual, the choice is much easier, especially if they are in a low tax bracket. :p

Beers and fags are legal. Well, beers are legal (if you are 21), but the other is not (unless you live in MA.) But seriously, Barmy Army is right on. And these are the huge white elephants in the middle of the room that everyone steps around and pretends are not there. They are every bit as destructive as illegal drugs. Tobacco is extremely addictive and alcohol is every bit as bad. But most everyone ignores the "legality" of their destructive qualities.

It appears we pick and choose our drugs based on arbitrary criteria. Consider that the crime related aspect of drugs is related to the notion that it IS illegal. If addicts could go to the local clinic to get their drugs at a cheap rate, then there would be a whole lot less drug related crime. But the Mafia would loose billions of dollars as a result, so forget that. We would not want crime organizatins to suffer an economic set back of that maginitude.

We would also have to empty hundreds of thousands from our prisons; but we pride ourselves on how many of these hardcore criminals we lock away; also we would lay-off half of the police and assorted law enforcement agents who earn most of their living off of the illegal drug traffic. Then there are all those lawyers who would have to compete for more business from the decrease in crime (unless corporate, white-collar crime actually does become illegal). And we would clear many thousands of hours from our court dockets, and actually have rapid judgment again in our courts. Really, we have an entire industry that we would wreck havoc on. Just the economics of what would be saved by the average taxpayer would be enough to probably save social security.

But will people ever get smart over this issue? Really, at some point in the future people will laugh at our stupidity and at our belief in the "War on Drugs." By the way, feel free to substitute "terror" for "drugs" and see similar results.

[ December 01, 2004, 05:59: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Well, I believe in the right for a person to harm themselves physically, because if a person's in that situation, the last thing they would want to hear is that it is "illegal" to cut themselves.

Now remember, suicide used to be illegal in North America as well (the reason why it is called suicide) until relatively recently.

Do I believe that they should be legal? Yeah, I do.

Do I encourage it? No, because I've went through it myself.

But would I give others the choice to make their own decisions even if there's a chance they might harm themselves? Yes, because how else would they get better?

a person with a desire to harm himself stands out from majority, and in that alone, is judged to be mentally instable and in need of treatment. At least in the society I live in.

And I dont think it should be a rigt to harm yourself, sorta like suicide. Both are illegal here, though if you really want to go through with it, well there's not really anyone to stop you.

Its a matter of principles, and I dont believe in the cause of harm.

I believe banning causing harm to oneself just leads to more trouble. Anything (including breathing) can be seen harmful, and not getting something (let's use breathing as an example again) might be harmful too.

So to stop people from harming themselves we would have to stop them doing anything while they're doing everything.

Both breathing and not breathing, the same person, at the same time... and he still might be harming himself.

Quantum society doesn't work.

(note 1: I'm 120kg and eat a lot less of fast food than your average person. Banning certain types of food doesn't work on obesity. Only banning food would, and that has kinda bad side-effects. :p )

(note 2: Chev. Blaming depressing music for depression? You could blame depression for depressing music, so there's no point in that. )

(note 2: Chev. Blaming depressing music for depression? You could blame depression for depressing music, so there's no point in that. )Music conveys mood; it can incite is as well as express it. I don't believe that aggressive music has no bearing on levels of aggression, nor that suicidal music has no bearing on suicide ratios.

I think we need to distinguish between one's right as in "morally permitted, legitimately" and the right as an instrument of stately authority, i.e. "legally".

I believe that anyone is free to choose to harm himself or kill himself. That's that. No use discussing treatments of mental illness.

A state, however, mustn't allow its subjects to harm themselves. For two reasons:
1. The state has an archetypical function. It has to set standards and rules, whether it is possible to enforce them or not. A state is not just the sum of its citizens, hence it mustn't think like one of them.
2. Harming oneself may, for all the state knows (please note this restriction), turn into harming others at whim. The state has to be afraid of anything it can't control. Therefore, since the possibility of harming others may exist, auto-aggression and suicide is not allowed.

If the state enforces to administer a therapy for this, it is not because the state is a loving father caring for each single child. It is because it is afraid for the well-being of all children at large.

@Chevalier: Unfortunately, your believes are not supported by any scientific study whatsoever. Best to leave subjective preferences (music, movies, operas, pictures,...) out of the discussion. You'd end up condemning Shostakovich's Cello Sonatas for their disturbing moods or Mahler's Sinfonia No. 2 for its depressing beginning...

The main and as far as I know only reason that suicide is illegal in Sweden is that it is then possible to put suicidal persons who perhaps have failed once or twice under lock with 24h watch. That came off, the point is that when it is illegal suicidal people can be taken in for treatment and observation whether they want to or not.

As for the drugs the choice of which drugs are legal or illegal is mostly cultural and historical, basically arbitrary as have been pointed out. Chandos if you think it would all be nice and wonderful if drugs were let loose you can just see the damage alcohol have on our societies. Here we have a legal, readily available drug which is reasonable cheap. People may not do that much crime to get it but the amount of crime being committed under the influence is staggering and the cost of treatment for all these alcoholics is just as staggering. This is the result of a rather "soft" drug which is not overly addictive. There have been attempts of banning it and believe it or not people do drink less now than 100 years ago. Cannabis would probably not be worse than alcohol but why let loose yet another substance to wreak unchecked havoc on society? Believe it or not but just the very fact that drugs are illegal are keeping a lot of people away from them. Could you imagine what legal heroin or crack would do to our societies? If there is no legal barriers against it? If anyone can go down to the supermarket to get some?

@Chevalier: Unfortunately, your believes are not supported by any scientific study whatsoever. Best to leave subjective preferences (music, movies, operas, pictures,...) out of the discussion. You'd end up condemning Shostakovich's Cello Sonatas for their disturbing moods or Mahler's Sinfonia No. 2 for its depressing beginning...Wrong. It doesn't take scientific analysis to notice that agressive young people listen to aggressive youth music. All too often brooding malcontents who go on about how world and life is hopeless, have musical taste similarly adjusted. In the latter case, it might be more of a result than a cause. In the former, however, it's part of the culture that glamorises aggression, unnecessary and excessive violence and no regard for other people's feelings. Kids pick it up like new swearwords from songs, you know. Some music is inherently tied with criminogenic environments. Some goes this route, some strikes the "life is hopeless, I have no reason to live, I'd better die" chord. We need to crack down on both. And on all such disturbances, for that matter.

You have the right to harm yourself. Whatever other people say about it doesn't affect it. The thing is, you're going to pay for the consequences.

Right now our society at large is extremely fearful of death, and sees life as something that must be preserved no matter the cost. So the society does everything it can to make sure people don't harm themselves. In many cases this is probably right, as more often than not harming yourself will result in emotional or economical harm to others. But in some other cases, who can tell?

I believe all of us are insane one way or another. I know I can't tell when someone is "out of their mind" enough for me to have the right to go and prevent them from doing something stupid. When it's my friend, I might be able to tell this. But in the case of any unknown person, I would have no idea.

Rambling on here again. Anyway as I said, harming yourself is your right. It's something given to everyone from the moment they were born. If you really feel you have to kill yourself or somesuch, then go for it. For the sake of others though, do it in a manner that doesn't harm innocent people. That it isn't accepted in the society is most likely a simple attempt to try and keep the whole of humanity as efficient and flawless as possible. Violence and suicides etc are a huge loss of resources afterall. In the grand scheme of things the "humanity" aspect that is so much talked about is nothing more but a practical name for the emotional stress and weakness us humans have. Catering to it is nothing but part of the grease used to keep the cogs turning ever more vigilantly. Or something.

Yeah, I'm pretty tired.

*sigh* How could you possibly shoot a "wrong" against my statement? Your answer should read: "Agreed. But I don't need scientific analysis to notice ..."

Your observation of aggressive people listening to aggressive music may or may not be right. I lack the data, and so do you. From experience I'd doubt your observation. I'm calm. I'm Death Metal. I'm joyful, I'm Gothic.

But even if your observed connection between emotional inclination and musical tastes were right, there is no evidence anywhere that the latter leads to the former. Or vice versa. That's what Taza meant. And he's right.

Next: do you have any idea what art is? Part of the idea of art is to challenge the listener/watcher, to force him into a dialogue between the subject matter and the subject. As long as it is not l'art pour l'art. And this does include any negative emotion as well as any positve one.

Now, how do you distinguish Eminem from Prokofiev or Slayer from Scriabin? One is an artist, the other one is crap? Ha, I'd like to see your definition of art that doesn't include "... and it has to be given my blessing!"

In your case it would only be logical to extend your disliking of "aggressive youth music" to any part of music that invokes any negative feeling. No more "Verdi Requiem". No more "Kindertotenlieder". No more "Fist****ing God's Planet".

We certainly do not "need to crack down on both". Or do you think that someone who is endangered to commit suicide could be saved by playing the Las Ketchup song to him?

And culture... well, obviously you're talking about sub-culture. You think the cause is the music and the result is joining your local gang? Better think again. If it wasn't "aggressive youth music" it would be something else. Anything else, really. If you're young, it's of biggest importance to you to distinguish yourself from the others, to be part of an exclusive group that sets itself apart from the mainstream. The means how to achieve this are secondary.

* me opens a can of worms *

OK, I can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet, but on the subject of harming oneself, and discussing it as a right, shouldn't the foremost example by euthenasia?

AFAIK, euthenasia is illegal in the U.S. with the exception of Oregon. Euthenasia is also legal in some European countries. When asking if it's OK to harm oneself, it seems only logical that the most extreme form of harming oneself (through possibly justifiable means) would be ending ones life when suffering from an incurable and debilitating illness. I view euthenasia as a completely different argument than suicide. In the case of the former, one is truly in a hopeless condition in most cases. Extending ones life may be possible, but only for a very limited amount of time, with no possibility of improving the quality of life. In the latter (suicide) while the person may perceive his/her situation to be hopeless, there is the possibility of improving the quality of their life further down the road.

Now, switching gears:

You made the choice to start drinking, taking drugs, or pick up the double Quarter-pounder with supersized fries. I agree with the first two, but not the third. Some people simply have eating disorders. One of my wife's co-workers is like this that she simply can't stop eating. Seriously, she can't go for more than hour without putting something in her mouth. She is a teacher. She brings food with her in the car on the drive to work. She keeps health food bars in her desk and eats one between every class. The woman simply can't stop eating. It's not like she makes a choice to eat - it is just as hard for her not to eat for an hour as it is for the typical person to not eat for an entire week.

To add to the previous points that everyone else has listed, I believe that the subject of physical self-harm and related things should be brought out into the light instead of being a taboo subject.

Sure, it isn't really something to talk about at the dinner table, but communication is the key for prevention in these types of situations.

People may not do that much crime to get it but the amount of crime being committed under the influence is staggering and the cost of treatment for all these alcoholics is just as staggering. This is the result of a rather "soft" drug which is not overly addictive. I'm not sure what you mean by a "soft" drug. If you mean alcohol (which I don't think you do), as there are many families that are shattered by domesitic abuse, child negelect, loss of employment, not to mention the health risks and all the people killed or injured by drunk drivers.

If you believe that tobacco is a "soft drug" do yourself a favor and visit a cancer ward and listen to the sounds of the dying; it's like something from Dante.

By the way, I never said things would be "fine" because people were using drugs. My problem with the issue is the approach to the drug use problem, which has been completely asinine.

[ December 02, 2004, 04:21: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Depends on your definition of "freedom". I believe people should be free from state interference insofar as their actions do not injure or violate the rights of others. Even suicide, as tragic as it is (believe me, I've had too many friends and relatives kill themselves to forget about the effects of that), shouldn't be subject to forced intervention - how do you predict it? How do you justify intervention when there is nothing to prove that event X was prevented (the Crime Prevention dilemma I have to deal with)? And how would you feel about it on the receiving end - you've tried to end it all, only to end up institutionalised for surviving; could you get any more bizarre?

The problem, as has been stated, is that it's rarely that simple - there are all sorts of incidental damage and cause-and-effect that complicate the issue. "Harmful" is constructed in so many ways - from a pharmaceutical point of view, tobacco is more "harmful" than heroin. Of course, since heroin is illegal, and therefore beyond any official regulation, it ends up in the hands of organised crime. That is why there are so many more harms associated with regular heroin use - because of how it is provided, how it is controlled (by legal and illegal bodies), how it is used (why smoke something that cost you $100 when you can shoot it, get a stronger hit and be less likely to get busted with it?) and how pure/impure it is.

@ Aldeth: I'm not going near that with a 20ft pole.

@ Chev: I don't think we can necessarily tie this just to aggressive or suicidal music. Sure, in some cases, I agree with you, but these are social responses that are usually a lot more complicated than you seem to be willing to concede.

@ Darkwolf: I agree - the War on Drugs is an almost unmitigated failure except at a symbolic level. Watch how long someone who tries to legalise and regulate illicit drugs lives - and I'm not talking politically, either. Still, I'm surprised at how much agency you assign to people; it's not as though we all have total control over our own behaviours and actions and can reasonably portion out "total responsibility" for one's situation. I think you can do a lot, but to expect that of everyone would ignore the fact that the playing field isn't level when anyone begins - there are always people higher and lower than you.

[ December 02, 2004, 04:03: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

I was actually meaning alcohol, and I wrote soft within "'s the people who classify drugs tend to classify alcohol and cannabis as soft and I thought I made it very clear that I was aware of the damage alcohol have.

I would barely list tobacco as a drug, it takes some 20+ years of daily abuse for it to significantly impact your lifelength and there is no intoxication for you to committ crime in. Which actually makes it kinda pointless.

I would barely list tobacco as a drug, it takes some 20+ years of daily abuse for it to significantly impact your lifelength and there is no intoxication for you to committ crime in. Which actually makes it kinda pointless. Well, there are two lines of argument running through this thread: is it ok to harm oneself? and the harm done to society. Tobacco is really just in the first category. But, ever wonder why it's the second question life insurance companies ask you? The first is your age.

@Joac: Tobacco is HIGHLY addictive, and is often considered a gateway drug, soft or otherwise. Drugs are usually defined by their intoxicating impacts, not their negative effects.

@Darkwolf: You said it, brother. People should be able to do whatever whatever they please as long as they foot their own bills for the results. Don't make MY taxes go up to pay for the impacts of YOUR bad habits, and I'll do the same. :)

@Aldeth: Someone with an eating disorder has a medical condition that should be covered by insurance. That's a lot different from the person who eats fast food all the time because s/he's too lazy to learn to cook for him/herself, and ends up morbidly obese.

@ Chev: I don't think we can necessarily tie this just to aggressive or suicidal music. Sure, in some cases, I agree with you, but these are social responses that are usually a lot more complicated than you seem to be willing to concede.Not really, the idea is that social responses tend to depend on cultural issues a group has with the rest of the society and, especially with teenagers (or mental teenagers) and among those especially among the social margin, music makes the most of it. Movies follow. There are pieces of music and movies aimed specifically for that audience (and those normally outside the said audience, who nonetheless identify with it) and they base on relevant issues and divisions and inflate them even further. After all, that's what makes room for their music or movies on the market and brings them money, isn't it? That's why cracking down on music, movies and games that glamorise aggression, violence, hostility and general merry law-breaking might be a good start. Of course, this alone won't do any good without addressing all the roots of the problem, that is granted.

Rallymamma, I am myself a severe tobacco addict so I am all too aware of how addictive it is. That said the greatest negative influence the kind of tobacco I use is on my "charisma", most women just dont find it sexy with a man with his mouth full of snus, snuff, skoal, copenhagen or whatever is a good name for it in English. Whatever adverse effect it has on my health is existing but it is reasonably small. I still have a theoritical will to kick the habit though.

As for the gateway drugs, well all drugs are gateway drugs. I wonder how many proper junkies who did not start with cigarettes. I know that at my workplace I do not think there is one drug addict who doesnt smoke as well. I still think there is a sharp line between alcohol/tobacco and cannabis and the rest just because one group is legal and the other is not. In my opinion there is a smaller step from nothing to cigarettes than between cigarettes and cannabis but of course it is smaller than between nothing and cannabis.

Chandos, I would say that tobacco, mainly smoking, is both a societal ill and a personal ill. Cancer care is expensive. In my opinion a strong case for banning tobacco could be made by just listing the cost of health care for all patients with cancer or other diseases they have got from tobacco. Seeing as this is really the only adverse affect it is hard to make a strong case which would not be shot down by people crying big brother.