On the first try i got 20%, with three sets of questions that were in conflict. Two of the answer's i had given, i had been on the fence about anyway, so whether it's considered to be choices made "in retrospect/ more thought through", or simply "an alternative version", i went back to check how i would do if i changed those questions i had been unsure about.
I got 7 %, and the only two questions that were in conflict were these:
Tension Quotient = 7%
Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?
50051 of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised
In order not to be in contradiction here, you must be able to make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user. More than this - you must also show that prohibited drug use harms others more than other legal activities such as smoking, drinking and driving cars, unless you want to argue that these should also be made criminal offences. As alcohol, tobacco and car accidents are among the leading killers in western society, this case may be hard to make. You also have to make the case for each drug you think should not be decriminalised. The set of drugs which are currently illegal is not a natural one, so there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same.
But i have an answer for this, and it's weird because the question was there. Question 26 asks if individuals have sole rights over their bodies, and on the same basis as believing that euthanasia should remain illegal, i had to disagree. This is the same question as the OP asks: "How can you say that people are free to do what they please, as long as they don't harm others, if you say they can't do drugs?"
I would like to rephrase this definition of "freedom" with respect to what i have said above. "People should have the right to do as they pleas, as long as they do not do not harm themselves or others" (a better definition would also include living life as long as you do not do it at the expense of others).
Look, on the same basis as we don't just sit back and watch a teenage girl cut herself, or refuse to intervene when a man is about to jump off a building, we don't let people harm themselves in other ways either. Why? Because they are not in the right state of mind to make those decisions, and even if they were we can't just sit by and watch people hurt themselves. Yeah, this would include drinking excessive amounts of alcohol (or home-brewn/ dangerously high alcohol levels) and tobacco smoking, since we know that's harmful too.
I don't know enough about illegal drugs to be able to say that ALL illegal drugs are dangerous, some might be safe in small doses, like alcohol. But i do know that many (if not most) are as dangerous long-term as tobacco smoking (if not more so). I believe proper research should be made so we will be able to make informed decisions about what recreational drugs to legalize, and which to keep illegal. Unfortunately, tobacco smoking remains legal while other drugs are illegal, so most of the world's laws already have "philosophical tensions".