I'm a little skeptical of the personal freedom argument where
drugs and diving are concerned.
One reason for my skepticism derives from the apparent conflict
between Bob's freedom to risk his own safety and well-being, which I would agree is sacrosanct, and the practical consequences his intoxication may have for others.
I don't like fishing corpses out of the water. I don't like having to explain to the dead person's loved ones why, why, why. I don't like repairing the damage done to freediving in general by these deaths. I don't enjoy the autopsies, the recriminations, the guilt, the sorrow, the mess, the investigation, etc. and etc.
So, if, as seems undeniable, intoxication increases (and unneccesarily) the liklhood of me going through all that, then Bob's freedom to risk his life getting stoned and diving directly conflicts with my freedom to live as I wish.
The other reason for my skepticism is that as a practical matter, my personal experience with advocates of "drug freedom" is that many of them are very eager to use the force of the state -or transnational authority- to restrict or eliminate other freedoms, which apparently offend them. Their cry for "freedom" is often (although, to be sure, not in all cases) a call for the freedom to behave as they think "free" people SHOULD behave - or else. One can easily call to mind numerous controversies in which drug freedom advocates tend to come down on the side of more restrictions, more regulation, more prohibition.
Tobacco never killed anybody. Pot never killed anybody. Smack
never killed anybody. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, including themselves. That is the essential truth, and until the debate on drugs and diving is framed in terms of personal accountability for behavior and its conequences, we are just grinding water.
Aloha.
|
