Susan Sontag wrote that "all genuine moral views are founded on a notion of refusal" and it's a truth that underlies a lot of the values in our so-called Christian society. Refusal is based on what is considered to be right, it's the holier-than-thou attitude that comes from a smug sense of personal satisfaction.
Economists have described interest rates as being "blunt instruments" for controlling inflation and, in a similar way, I believe the law is a blunt instrument for enforcing morals.
The problem with morals is that they're informed by superstition - a dogma. Whereas ethics are based on actually engaging with issues and resolving them through intellectual means.
So reading
this comment from Australia's top cop makes me wonder why, if the market dictates demand and price for many services, how come drugs aren't legal?
I guess because morally it's considered poor character to seek escape from personal circumstances. Morally one should confront these flaws and overcome them.
So rather than creating legal avenues that would also create ways of controlling the demand and use of drug, our society casts these issues as moral problems rather than health ones.
It's why people with mental health issues have to demonstrate that they've overcome their drug addictions to receive assistance such as housing. Of course, the catch is that if they're living on the street they're going to seek comfort through drugs.
Another issue is that prohibition doesn't work. Where would problem gamblers be if gambling was illegal and they had no exposure to the harm minimisation messages which are becoming more prevalent? (Well, aside from lining the pockets of Woolworths and the Australian Labor Party.)
