How Applicable an Argument Is the “Freedom to Choose” to Use a Substance if the Substance Is Addictive?
Question by .02 REMAINS: How applicable an argument is the “freedom to choose” to use a substance if the substance is addictive?
To expand on my point, an addictive substance removes the user’s freedom to choose not to use it.
Is it more applicable to describe a “freedom to use, not to abuse” policy towards addictive substances?
At what point does use turn into abuse? To ask another way, at what point does the freedom to choose to use (or not use) no longer exist?
Specifically, I am thinking about alcohol and tobacco, but you may use other examples in your response as well.
Best answer:
Answer by little78lucky
If it is known the said substance is additive and the person still “choose” to use it once knowing they get addicted then any result is their own fault.
Answer by Mutt
I’m addicted to tobacco. I quit 9 years ago, and haven’t had one since. Why? Because I CHOSE to fight the addiction and not to give in to any cravings I get (and I do still get cravings now and then). It’s a little thing called “will power”.
Inmates Complete Substance Abuse Programme
Five Westgate inmates were recognized for the successful completion of the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Education Treatment Programme, Minister of Public Safety Michael Dunkley said on Friday [Nov 22] in the House of Assembly. “The programme not …
Read more on Bernews