I did not say that people have total control over their lives. I've said people have control over their actions and choices, and are therefore responsible for them. I cannot control if, when I first step out of my door tomorrow, a bird craps on my head. I can control how I react to it, and I am responsible for that choice.
So basically, you haven't bothered to read my posts, since I've repeatedly referred to "total control" and "radical agency" for a few days now. Nice.
Anyway. In terms of ascribing responsibility, it still sounds like you want it both ways. People are responsible for their own actions, but government is to blame too. You haven't resolved that contradiction at all.
And again, there is solid evidence that people
aren't responsible for perpetuating their addictions, as
the whole point of an addiction is that it is compulsive, and the individual loses agency. Or do you recognize that choosing to stop an addictive drug is harder than, say, choosing a salad dressing?
The choice to take any drug comes with a risk. If someone is ignorant of that risk, that is no one else's fault. If something bad happens to that person because he took that drug, he is responsible. For example, I developed a life-long disease immediately in response to having taken the anthrax vaccine in the military. I joined voluntarily, and could have resigned at any moment. Therefore I am still responsible for it...no one else.
Your own comments undermine your own point.
When you joined the military, you may have known
some of the potential consequences. You knew there was a chance you could be injured or killed; you knew that you might have to kill an enemy. You
didn't necessarily know that a mandatory vaccine would result in permanent medical issues. (You also might not have known that nearby explosions or firing rockets could cause traumatic brain injuries.) You certainly did not know every single risk from every single choice you made, before you made it. In fact, as a soldier, you deliberately give up a lot of agency to your superior officers, and can't know every risk and every outcome of those orders in advance.
Anyway. Who is responsible? Let's look at some scenarios.
• The vaccine manufacturer properly tested the vaccine, but its tests did not show any major risks. In this case, even knowing that vaccines can have some side effects, there is no particular reason to assign blame to anyone.
• The vaccine manufacturer tested the vaccine, discovered possible side effects, and did not inform the military or the public. The benefits still outweigh the risks, but the military was misinformed when it made its evaluation. In this case, the manufacturer bears some responsibility for the failure to disclose the issues.
• The vaccine manufacturer tested the vaccine, discovered side effects, and informed the military. The military weighed the impact, and found that the benefits significantly outweighed the risks. We're back to "no one's fault."
• You became ill as a result of your military service. Even if the manufacturer and military did everything right, it makes sense that the military is responsible for any medical care in connection with the vaccine, since the reason you took it was in connection with your military service.
• Claiming "I am responsible!" doesn't tell us anything about optimal treatment for the side effects.
• You can quit the military any time you want? Really? Are you
sure about that one?
As for the government involvement with the opiates, you are the one that brought it up...
Incorrect. You blamed the "Nanny State" in post #29.
Prohibition doesn't work, and you want more of it. You want, in addition to your drug-addicts' addiction problems, legal problems piled on top of them. You want birds crapping on their heads.
I suggest you stop with the straw man arguments. I'm arguing for a) selecting treatment options based on effectiveness rather than ideology, and b)
better regulation and
better government policies.
The legal system is already piling problems on top of addicts. If this is not an efficacious approach, then we should change it. Chances are pretty good that treating addiction like a disease -- something you object to -- will probably work much better than criminalization.
Regulating treatment centers is also important. Without any oversight, there is basically no accountability -- especially since they service a population that is vulnerable and facing issues with credibility. Regulation doesn't fix every problem, but it can prevent a lot of issues.
