Depends what you mean by 'rights'. There are no natural rights. Human rights are something that societies decide to adopt.If you live in a society you are given certain rights, agreed by that society, in return for, broadly speaking, sticking to the norms of that society. Society as a whole has decided that alcohol should not be illegal, so if you are over 18, etc., you have the right to buy it. Every so often, society changes its collective mind about certain rights, usually as the result of groups of people pushing for it, like the right to own other human beings.

If you are looking for a methodology I suggest you read Plato. His division of labor theory attempts to guide you from individual rights to group rights and benefits to the polis. I believe you need to weigh each question alongside the benefits to the individual versus the group. We truly do not possess individual rights, this long ceased to be when humans formed groups to protect themselves from wild beasts or other humans. In your three examples you site drugs, alcohol and pharmaceutical testing as issues to be examined. What you are really asking is why are these three privilege's not individual rights? Those who do not partake in these privileges are still exercising their right not to partake in lawful or unlawful behavior.

[mises.org]​

There is no decent trade off in my opinion, individual choice should always come first, then again I was never fond of the group mentality. Neither drugs or alcohol should be made illegal, people need to be free to make their own choices.

Well I suppose one could apply the straight forward cost/benefit formula to such decision making. Who what is harmed or benefited by deciding one way or another in such situations?

There is no such thing as "group rights" or "collective rights". When we use those terms, we're really talking about an aggregation of rights of individuals.

Knotty one this. Maybe thats why we have democracies. In the US you can have guns but not gambling (broadly speaking). You deal with the fallout from gun violence and accidental shootings which cannot be good for society but its your choice. In the UK we dont do guns but do have gambling. Sure it means that even as kids we can gather as a family and bet on the grand national or the derby but inside those betting offices are fixed odds machines. These will allow you to gamble up to £1,000 per minute on the high st. They have been described as crack for gambling addicts. We deal with the social consequences of this. Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice.

My 2 cents: this is a problem. If I choose to harm myself through alcohol or drugs why should the government intervene? Most laws (like a stop sign) are there for the benefit of all -- like not harming someone else by hitting them with a car. There are other things that could be included here -- prostitution. Law and religion grew up hand-in-hand (from prehistoric time) and eventually broke into separate groups. Many Laws intersect with Religious tenants -- Don't kill, steal, etc. Governments create laws as a reaction to some stimulus -- which may be supplanted as time passes. Between cotton and marijuana war in George Washington's time, cotton won and marijuana has been in the toilet since then -- no specific laws until the 1920's. Victim-less crimes may be unreasonable -- like suicide attempts, but until the laws are changed, we are stuck with them. While I don't agree with all the laws (I doubt anyone really agrees with all of them), I do agree we need laws. Take an intelligent approach when breaking a law you disagree -- and if you do get caught, admit it freely. Yelling at a policeman only escalates things.

I am VERY pro-individual rights about almost everything. Alcohol and most recreational drugs, consensual sex between adults, and gambling is an individual choice....and should not be restrained by religious or socialist police states.

Should alcohol be illegal? No. Prohibition didn't work then and it wouldn't work now.

Should drugs be illegal? No. People are going to do them no matter what. Drug cartels profit the way Capone, et al used to when alcohol was illegal.

Legalize it all. Make it as safe as it's possible to make it. Tax and regulate the hell out of it. Use a portion of the resulting funds to provide addiction recovery at no cost to those who want it.

As far as pharmaceutical drugs, I could go on at great length about the profiteering in that industry and the harm it wreaks on us as a society. Salk gave the polio patent to the people and, as a result, we have almost no polio in the developed world. The current model, however, seems to be "Let's charge a freaking fortune to treat symptoms, but to hell with ever curing anyone. That's bad for the shareholders."

I realize that didn't address your specific question about pharmaceuticals, but you're looking for a very detailed answer on whether we should be able to choose to forego some safety testing to get our hands on promising drugs sooner, if need be. My two answers would be "maybe" and "I'm not qualified to answer that."

The only real methodology is the Minority always rules even if it is elected or selected!

The majority can can control events but are always stirred towards the minority wants and needs do to fact one must earn to survive!

The majority can not and is not able to govern itself without loosing what it has gained!

So the phony inclusion of our wants and needs are just that, predestined to subdue us and make us feel we are part of Majority who thinks that they are in charge!

I'm not sure I understand the question? I'll endorse individual rights first, over group rights. If you can't respect an individual, how can one respect anything or anyone else? That one person becomes marginalized by other's values and subsequently terrorized in order to endorse the group over the individual.

There's an exercise in some philosophy classes about this. I can't remember exactly how it goes but it has to do with a lifeboat full of people, one of which is a fat man and do you keep him in there so that others may live?

I don't think there's a perfect methodology that never gives any individual, anywhere, less than everything they want 100% of the time. If that is the criteria then we would never make ANY decision, even bad ones.

Group consensus by definition means some people will be less than happy with the result. On the other hand the alternative is authoritarian-imposed decisions which guarantees, overall, that hardly anyone will be happy with the result except the authority and perhaps the elites.

I still can't come up with a better system than conscientious representative democracy; unfortunately the dysfunctional system in the US and many other countries falls short of this. My current touchstone is democratic socialism but that isn't perfect either.

I do think much of our difficulties in the US currently are the result of people concerned about losing privileged status, more than about economic concerns. In other words, white privilege is going away and some people are shitting bricks because of that. Those brick-shitters would, I assume, answer questions like yours in terms of getting rid of people who are Different or who disagree with them. To an extent, at least short to medium term, that are succeeding in that.

Interesting question. I think our rights diminish based on the number of people we interact with, for example, being in a crowded theater diminishes your freedom of speech.
Other limiting factors include use if available resources (if a lot of people are starving, it's right to take food from a person who throws away large amounts of food everyday. This involves a right to live verse private property rights), public safety, efficient use of public resources (if you drive 5 mph on the interstate because you're slow grooving, people behind you will rejoice when you get shot)

Right On!!!?

Trolley Cases.
Best method ever.

The only legitimate rights are individual rights. Any laws should be based on that, I believe.