Or, if you like, change that title to "In defense of Roy Marten". Roy and Kate are victims of society's misunderstanding of individual rights to self-destruction. And yes, governments' pathetic paternalism, as usual.
You know that caffeine is not very good for your health. Yet you drink coffee (or pops). Maybe because it tastes good. Imagine if based on "caffeine is not good for your health" the government bans the caffeine consumption. Suddenly drinking coffee is illegal. Cafés are closed. Would you like that? I guess no.
Now, think about cocaine. It too is deemed dangerous. But why is cocaine illegal and caffeine is not? After all, they both are "not good for your health". Yet, the decision to illegalize cocaine is based on that "scientific finding"; but caffeine escapes the verdict. If Law is to be consistent, drinking coffee should not be allowed. Or for that matter, everything that is "not good for your health" should be banned: cigarrette, late night work, road crossing, etc.
This problem is pervasive. So how about a simple solution.
You should not be punished if you hurt your own self. You should be punished if you hurt somebody else. I don't care if Roy is rotten by sabu-sabu, or Kate by amphetamine. But I care when Roy or Kate or any drunkard hurt me or my friend or my kid or anybody else. So, if somebody is proven by the court to have hurt somebody else -- regardless of whatever he or she ate -- he or she must be punished.
The solution sound simple but it has broader implication. For example: seatbelt regulation. Obligating the use of seatbelt when driving car is foolish. Every driver should be free to use or not to use sealtbelt. After all, he or she is the one who will get hurt when accident happens. (Think about this, too: when you use seatbelt, you tend to drive faster or, worse yet, reckless).
Some would say: but we have to prevent bad things while we can. Well, who can judge intention?
Kate Moss | Roy Marten | caffeine |
cocaine | Law and Econ