Should Drugs Be Legal?

[Haezed]

How are they infringing upon your inalienable rights? How is taking drugs a right?

 

Like, it's a pursuit of happiness kind of right, dude.

[badchad]

My main problem with drug laws relates to alcohol and cigarettes.

 

Here we have two drugs with a high addictive potential, serious physical consequences, and adverse social consequences. Yet these drugs are completely legal. It is a difficult thing to justify why these drugs are legal and others are not.

 

Furthermore, if the money spent on the "Drug War" and housing of people jailed for drug offenses were put in social programs, it is very likely the number of people using drugs and the harm caused by drug use would decrease.

 

These are the goals of the "war on drugs"; decreasing use and harm. These goals would likely be better served by a reallocation of resources and legalization.

[the tree]

Like, it's a pursuit of happiness kind of right, dude.

The pursuit of happiness and doing whatever the hell you feel like, are very different things.

[Haezed]

The pursuit of happiness and doing whatever the hell you feel like, are very different things.

 

 

If I'm not hurting anyone, why can't I fry my few remaining brain cells, turn up dat rock music up till my hearing goes, eat fatty food, play online games till I have cardiac arrest and even refuse to take my vitamins?

 

It's like, an "I get to do with my own body what I want to" kind of right, dude!

[foodchain]

The pursuit of happiness and doing whatever the hell you feel like, are very different things.

 

Yes, but don’t you see that its somewhat nothing more then opinion dictating what people can and cant do? I mean guns in the united states account of over ten thousand homicides a year, how many people die from the use of an automobile, is there any need for race cars, what about shopping malls? Do I need to play online video games? I mean where is the definitive objective truth on the issue? People do countless stupid things period in so many different forms its not really funny. In very conservative cultures you really cant do much, in some places women are not allowed to go outside without being clothed from head to toe, because it might cause some reaction or behavior in a person? I mean it is drugs, but it is also very much freedom also.

 

You can simply say its stupid or silly or you don’t like it much, and that is fine, but its also not much of a position really. I mean sure people can get pain relief from other drugs or chemicals, but why not marijuana, because they could get high, I mean forbid someone wanting to get high, they might enjoy it, like someone gets stimulus of enjoyment from playing football. The bottom line to me is a society in America has countless possible pitfalls when it comes to behavior items in the society can lead to, yet we pick and choose what we allow via laws what people can do with there lives. These laws are for the most part temporary and flawed, or else they would never need to change. I guess we should ban nitrous in whip cream, or hey, how about gasoline, people can get high off of that also! I mean sometimes I have put off responsibility to seek the enjoyment of reading a book even...

 

I mean drugs should be illegal because they are addictive, it simply makes no sense. Drugs should be illegal because it can lead to negative situations, it already does and has been doing such for thousands of years. The war on drugs in America has been going on for decades, and every drug you want can be purchased in any quantity really in any city you go to overall. The illegal matter of it props up criminal empires, produces impure drugs such as kids dying from false LSD that’s actually more or less produced with arsenic. Its not doing any real good overall, and it is in a basic sense a denial of individual liberty and of course the pursuit of happiness.

 

I could care less for various substance such as meth or crack to even exist, but on that note I can notice a failed policy and one that is above and beyond an abuse on people at large while being a failure also.

[jackson33]

guess, i hung around on the wrong side the tracks, but my experience has been the use of these to control other. i have no idea how many good looking ladies, seemingly bright and with qualities which should have taken them to good lives. instead some pimp gets hold of them while they play with drugs and you end up with serious problems.

 

the medical industry or at least the people that can write prescriptions, making addictive drugs otherwise illegal, legal. here again, when a source runs out for the legal the turn is to illegal. the M. Monroe, A.N. Smith or Presley stories are known, but tens of thousands die no less tragically.

 

since Alcohol and smoking, guess cigarettes, cigar and such have been called equals, i might suggest your coming at the issue from a rather distorted view. the list of things that are legal, unenforced but major killers are far more numerous than Joe six pack or a life long smoker that passes maybe a week or so ahead of schedule. being fat, alone will kill you quicker and i won't begin to describe the legal or illegal use of an automobile. i call this attitude, not in my backyard syndrome.

 

crimes committed by those needing cash to buy into their habits are underrated, since these are as often to their loved ones or friends, altering lives and establishing rules for generations. often the crime and/or cause are never addressed until the time comes to pay for the habits. if lucky the crime goes to the streets and the problem soon addressed if nothing else.

 

i have no answer on what should or should not be. the cost and criminal factors along with all those that get rich off the issue and of course the political and economics. i would like to think if all were legal, everything would just clear up and all i mention would just cease.

[thechronic]

How are they infringing upon your inalienable rights? How is taking drugs a right?

 

Think of it as a right to self harm. Or so you think it should be illegal to harm ourselves?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Who said you had a right to harm yourself?

 

All I remember are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and those are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights.

[JustStuit]

Think of it as a right to self harm. Or so you think it should be illegal to harm ourselves?

 

It's not only about yourself, which is the reason I would not want them legal. People can harm, cut, poison or whatever alone when it doesn't cause bodily harm to anyone and I wouldn't care.

[the tree]

It's like, an "I get to do with my own body what I want to" kind of right, dude!

How many different kinds of right is it? Or are you just shifting goalposts?

 

Think of it as a right to self harm. Or so you think it should be illegal to harm ourselves?

Yes I do, see my first post in this thread.

 

Yes, but don’t you see that its somewhat nothing more then opinion dictating what people can and cant do?

Not really, it can be properly observed and analysed what substances are really bad for you or really dangerous.

 

I mean guns in the united states account of over ten thousand homicides a year, how many people die from the use of an automobile, is there any need for race cars, what about shopping malls?

Strawman, I didn't ever say I thought that firearms and cars designed to break the highest speed limits should be legal. Let's keep it on topic.

[Haezed]

How many different kinds of right is it? Or are you just shifting goalposts?

 

It is a fuzzy kind of right to be sure but the concept emanates from the basic right of an individual to be left alone. The right to say this is my space, not yours, my home, my body, my life.

 

The S.Ct. has recognized this right in some instances as the right of privacy but that right is constrained by judicial deference for legislative actions. When the S.Ct. acts is a fuzzy judgment call based on the loosest of language.

 

For example, in striking a Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, Justice Douglas wrote that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

 

While in the absence of a specific right of privacy in the Constitution, judicial right of privacy has been gathered from such "penumbras" and "emanations," I think the legislators should always firmly keep in mind the basic principle of the sanctity of the individual to make decisions about himself so long as they do not adversely impact others.

 

Arguments such as "we are all interconnected and hurting yourself hurts the collective" (not that you made this argument) prove entirely too much as such an argument would justify every kind of intervention such as universal morning PE along with, I guess, now, a glass of red wine every evening. Yippie!

 

There are difficult lines to be drawn and, frankly, I'm not sure how society would fair as a practical matter if MJ and worse were as easy to acquire as alcohol. Alcohol already tears a swath through our lives and I don't even want to think about the debates regarding second hand MJ smoke.

 

At the same time, I firmly believe in the rights of the individual as opposed to collective to make decisions regarding solely himself. I believe there is a right broader than that recognized by the Courts to be wrong subject to the same caveat that I you can't harm others.

 

I do not view individuals as cogs in machines (not that you do) so I dont' think government should, although legally it can, consider the impact of having a broken cog in the various parts of the machine. The exceptions, of course, would be where the the abrupt breaking of that cog could hurt others directly, e.g. airplane pilots.

[JHAQ]

Yes-- with controls . Obvious on the face of it . Too many reasons to iterate .

[thechronic]

Who said you had a right to harm yourself?

 

All I remember are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and those are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights.

 

So you think harming yourself should be illegal?

 

Wow.

[thechronic]

It's not only about yourself, which is the reason I would not want them legal. People can harm, cut, poison or whatever alone when it doesn't cause bodily harm to anyone and I wouldn't care.

 

So when you see your daughter cutting herself that isn't as bad as her smoking pot? Because this is what you are saying. Just wanted to let you know.

[thechronic]

How many different kinds of right is it? Or are you just shifting goalposts?

 

Yes I do, see my first post in this thread.

 

Not really, it can be properly observed and analysed what substances are really bad for you or really dangerous.

 

Strawman, I didn't ever say I thought that firearms and cars designed to break the highest speed limits should be legal. Let's keep it on topic.

 

You think it should be illegal to harm yourself?

Why? Who will judge ehat is good and what is bad? That's so dumb, it will be America's downfall. "We know what is best for you!" Ever read 1984 Tree?

[JustStuit]

So when you see your daughter cutting herself that isn't as bad as her smoking pot? Because this is what you are saying. Just wanted to let you know.

 

If she is in that state, laws obviously aren't going to help her and the parents needs to consult her and get her help. However, from a legal standpoint, she won't be hurting other people with impaired judgment that way. And, by the way, that is not what I am saying and I will decide what I say, thank you. I suppose if you can't argue logically, the fallacies come next.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So you think harming yourself should be illegal?

 

Wow.

 

Strawman fallacy.

 

I do not think that harming yourself should be illegal, nor did I say that. I said it was not a right.

 

The case here is that in the act of harming yourself, you lose your ability to judge if you will harm anyone else, and that is where the problem is.

[thechronic]

Strawman fallacy.

 

I do not think that harming yourself should be illegal, nor did I say that. I said it was not a right.

 

The case here is that in the act of harming yourself, you lose your ability to judge if you will harm anyone else, and that is where the problem is.

 

Then you arrest that person according to the CRIME he committed, not what causes it. People also lose the same ability to judge when they are in fits of rage. Are you saying fits of rage should be illegal?

[thechronic]

And Tree actually said he wanted to illegalize self-harm.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then you arrest that person according to the CRIME he committed, not what causes it. People also lose the same ability to judge when they are in fits of rage. Are you saying fits of rage should be illegal?

 

Weak analogy. Drug use is preventable. It can be outlawed. Anything can cause a fit of rage.

 

Also, the subject is not if we should outlaw a lack of judgment. We are discussing the legality of drugs, which are but one way to induce a lack of judgment in a person.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's so dumb, it will be America's downfall. "We know what is best for you!" Ever read 1984 Tree?

Slippery slope fallacy.

[thechronic]

Weak analogy. Drug use is preventable. It can be outlawed. Anything can cause a fit of rage.

 

Also, the subject is not if we should outlaw a lack of judgment. We are discussing the legality of drugs, which are but one way to induce a lack of judgment in a person.

 

What I was saying was that causality has no factor in illegalizing something. You punish the person for the CRIME he committed. Not for what causes him to do it.

[thechronic]

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

Fallacy? How so?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What I was saying was that causality has no factor in illegalizing something. You punish the person for the CRIME he committed. Not for what causes him to do it.

 

You're ignoring the fact that drug use is a crime.

 

You'll have to justify what you consider to be "crime."

 

Fallacy? How so?

You assumed that through making self-harm illegal, America would fall. That argument is based in the slippery slope fallacy, assuming that one thing will inevitably lead to something else even when a series of unlikely events would have to occur in the middle.

[thechronic]

You're ignoring the fact that drug use is a crime.

 

You'll have to justify what you consider to be "crime."

 

 

You assumed that through making self-harm illegal, America would fall. That argument is based in the slippery slope fallacy, assuming that one thing will inevitably lead to something else even when a series of unlikely events would have to occur in the middle.

 

A crime is an act that infringes upon another's rights.

 

And are you advocating the illegalization of self-harm, or are you just being argumentative. And do explain why the events that would have to occur would be unlikely?