3 opinions, 14 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted Yes.
2 votes
Jan 16

This comes down to freedom, do you as an adult have the right to put into your body whatever you choose. If you say yes, then drugs should be legal, if you say no then they should be illegal.

As an I adult I feel you should be able to do with your body whatever you choose, now that said if you commit a crime while high you can't use diminished capacity as a defense, after all you took the drug knowing it would do something to you. If you hurt someone, kill someone, rob someone, then you can't say "I was high" or "I'm addicted" as a defense or to lessen the punishment. If you want the right to take whatever drug you choose (alcohol included) you also have to take responsibility.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Only some illegal drugs.
main reply
1 vote,
Feb 10

I agree with this, and even more: I'd punish more someone who makes something illegal under drugs effects cause he took a risk and didn't take the responsibility. Also, to answer the primary question, I'd keep drugs illegal (even though I believe you should have the right to do whatever you want with your body) because lots of people wouldn't measure the risk, do something wrong. And even if they're punished, the bad would be done. My answer is no in a preventive way to avoid innocent having trouble because of inconscient ones, and a punishment will not redeem their act. EDIT: However, in my personnal opinion, some drugs are forbidden and aren't dangerous at all. For instance, Marijuana hasn't made anyone kill someone else. So I'd keep strong drugs (in a medical meaning) illegal but softer ones legal.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 11

There are people who get mean on marijuana just like people get mean on alcohol and while it might not happen as often with marijuana as it does with alcohol, it does happen.

Here's my problem with making drugs illegal, and it has nothing to do with drug. If you say " people wouldn't measure the risk" where do you draw the line? Fast food should that be illegal? Did everyone who ever ate fast food measured the risk? Did they really understand? You can say the same thing about many actives, so where do you draw the line?

You should be free to do with your body what you wish, even if your decision is bad for you.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 11

"You should be free to do with your body what you wish, even if your decision is bad for you."

I disagree. I come from a country where everybody chips in to make healthcare affordable for all (while soft- and harddrugs are relatively easily obtained <- believe you me that, in spite of what popular culture dictates, users/dealers have no rockstar status amongst - well, anyone with a job). People should be aware of the responsibility they carry for their own lives, because it affects others.

Mind you that historically, health hazards aren't always immediately known; what can be exciting and even somewhat innocent-seeming at first, later turns out to be more disasterous than previously had been anticipated, but by then it is too late (for example, "tobacco was long thought to hold medicinal properties", and therefore has been promoted as such).

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 12

The whole health care argument is a red herring, you can use that argument to ban anything. Sorry but we decided that fast food is banned because it causes health problems that are a burden to the healthcare system. Sorry but motorcycles cause a burden on the healthcare system, so now they're banned.

It basically comes don't to how much freedom do you allow people to have. Or to put it simply do you own you? Do you need the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, or should YOU decide what you do with your own body?

"tobacco was long thought to hold medicinal properties"

And I really hate to break this to you but tobacco does have medicinal properties.

"A statistically significant inverse association between smoking and alzheimer's disease was observed at all levels of analysis, with a trend towards decreasing risk with increasing consumption" (International Journal of Epidemiology, 1991) that along with protection against Parkinson's disease, Tourette's disease [tics], ulcerative colitis and sleep apnea.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 12

Yes, I should have emphasized that despite the positive properties of tobacco, there are still health risks. Especially since the argument for legalizing marijuana has a similar reasoning (edit: as tobacco had at the time). While I doubt marijuana will make people sick in the way tobacco potentially might, to say that "it does no harm" is a stretch. I actually think marijuana *can* make someone kill someone else, but through negligence rather than aggression.

Also, I would rather be told by the government what I shouldn't do, than be told by my body what I should crave (by physical/psychological dependency).

"Sorry but we decided that fast food is banned because it causes health problems that are a burden to the healthcare system." <- as a counter-measure, people could at least be educated on food, health and addiction. And it's not so much the burden on the healthcare system, but on society itself.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 13

"Also, I would rather be told by the government what I shouldn't do, than be told by my body what I should crave "

Basically you want the government to be your parent, sorry I'd rather make my own decision about my body and what I put in it. I can't understand why anyone would want to give the government that much power. I've always wanted as small as a government as we can get away with and as much personal freedom as possible. I don't think someone sitting 1,000's of mile away should be making decisions on what I put into my body, what I should drive, what activities I can do. As far a cravings go, should we ban sports that attract adrenaline junkies? B.A.S.E. jumpers for example "72% of experienced BASE jumpers “had witnessed the death or serious injury of other participants in the sport in which 76% had at least one-near miss incident and only 6% had not sustained an injury, near-miss or witnessed a fatality from BASE jumping”."

psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201410/the-real-adrenaline-junkies

Again where do you draw the line?

As far as fast food, called junk food by many, but is meat, bread, cheese, etc junk? No, it also doesn't mean it the healthiest choice, but should the government ban them? The government has told us for years it bad for us, and we have soda taxes in some places, (personally I see that as nothing but another tax for the government to waste as most people pay over 50% in total taxes. nowandfutures.com/taxes.html) if you really want the government to tell you're allowed to do, then you shouldn't have any problem with food bans, sport bans, drug bans, etc.

subscribe
load further replies (8)
100
User voted No.
1 vote
Feb 7, 2016

No. We should devote more resources to drug rehabilitation and drug abuse prevention education, and less to hunting down dealers/users. If we give poor kids a shot at a decent education and a chance at a decent job, they might be less likely to use or deal drugs. If we can remove the stigma from mental illness and make mental health care more widely available at an affordable price, we might decrease the number of people who use legal and illegal drugs to self-medicate.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jan 15

It's time morality steps down as the deciding factor behind "laws" and reason and logic step forward - "morality" is entirely too subjective and not universal whereas reasoned logic can be either true or false.

Has making drugs illegal stopped drugs from being available?

No - it hasn't. It's most likely had the exact opposite effect as every effort at prohibition points to; that making something illegal that people want only makes it, whatever it is, more lucrative from a supply-side aspect - in this case for both the suppliers and the law enforcement who "stop" it.

It's time all drugs were legalized and that education stepped in to take the place of punishment, although as we all know this flies in the face of the big pharmaceutical companies that stand to lose a lot of money in profits once people are no longer mandated by government what they can, and can't take.

The example is Portugal - a country that was hip deep in drug problems. They decriminalized and legalized almost all the "illegal drugs" and put their money into education and treatment rather than punishment; their "drug problem" has all but gone away.

Hence my view - we need to take the "moral" out of law - not that many of us believe in god as was once a requirement by government - and replace the outdated concept that "if we do wrong we'll be punished forever" into let's make sure the wrong choice is thought of as non-desirable.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: