|
We come back to the question of would it be permissible to consume and transact with intoxicants from which the active intoxicant is removed as an actual primary law?
The answer is that in the case of solids there would be no problem and for the non-fermented intoxicants again there would be no problem, if they are not detrimental to the health, and if it can be ascertained that fermentation is the criterion for the impurity and no other law prevents its comsumption. As for intoxicants that undergo fermentation, in their case if it can be said that the removal of the intoxicant either produces a chemical change or is a purifying agent then its transaction and consumption would become permissible.
Finally smoking through the lack of evidence suggesting its primary actual law, is deemed as permissible as apparent law through the procedural principle of "exemption". However through medical research the intellect formulates a criterion for its non-permissibility namely "unbearable detriment" and thus makes it unlawful in transaction and usage. The only thing would be to determine, in the case of existing smokers, as to whether stopping or continuing is more detrimental. However unlike the cases in which the criterion is determined by the legislation in these cases where the criterion is formulated by reason it is possible to either remove the criterion as we saw above or counter it contrary to the legislative criterion. The example of the first is the removal of detriment from the tobacco and the second is, let us say, having medical treatment to combat the detriment sustained from smoking. The latter will be specific to the cases in which reason has stipulated the criterion for the non-permissibility.
|
|
