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.

Reply to this opinion
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
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 13

"I can't understand why anyone would want to give the government that much power."

But I don't see how a government telling me something is the same thing as having power over me. Or maybe you mean something else with "telling", then. It could be so that I have not yet encountered the government in a situation where I wanted to do something which they "told" me not to do, while you have. I often find that my government and I are on the same page (which is admittedly not too hard with so many different parties).

"As far as fast food, called junk food by many, but is meat, bread, cheese, etc junk?"

A hamburger isn't that unhealthy, but the overusage of condiments is. A slab of cheddar is a different cheese than light-cheese, and the healthiness of meat depends on the production process. I even heard (from someone who tried to recreate the menu at home) that sugar-syrup is used to make the fries more tasty (and possibly addictive <- the brain wants quick glucose). I think fast food can also be called that because many shortcuts are taken to make it affordable, appealing and available. Ultimately, that reflects in its nutritional value.

Would you principally mind if your government took action against the practice of multinational shady car dealerships selling people a less version of a car that they've actually expected/needed (a quick start but no durability)? Or would you expect people to be as cunning as yourself, not to go there in the first place (and if not, too bad for them, since it's a free market)?

I think a way to look at base-jumping could be from the perspective of trespassing, or something. Aside from personal injuries and casualties as a consequence of personal responsibility, that's the only way I can see people having a problem with it. I wouldn't want to be an owner or worker in a building someone jumped off of, and see someone have a self-induced accident.

[EDIT] I would draw the line at public health, to give a quick and vague answer.

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

"But I don't see how a government telling me something is the same thing as having power over me. "

Generally how the government tells you to do or not do something is by passing a law. A law is really the only way a government can enforce the rules, with laws come penalties, that is the government get to punish you in some form, fine, or jail time. I am also willing to bet you have done something which the government has "told" you not to do. Want to barbecue, sorry there laws that prevent you from doing that in some places. How about grow a garden, sorry there a law preventing you from doing that in some places. Ever speed? Litter? Not used a turn signal? Since I don't know where you live, I don't know your local laws, so it's a little hard to be specific. But you have broken the law at some point in your life doing something you wanted to do.

1 oz of american cheese add less than 100 calories, dextrose is used to coat fries at some fast food places, to give them the golden color and to help keep them from turning grey. The amount is very small. As far as nutritional value, you can live a long health life on fast food. It's called fast food because in the past it didn't take long to get a quick meal. At one time McDonald's, had a 60 second rule from the time your ordered and paid for your food, to the time you got your food was less than 60 seconds. When I live in Seattle, the place with the fastest fast food at the mall was a Chinese restaurant, I had my food long before those who went to the burger chains did. (They had amazing duck BTW) but who at more healthy? MSG, salt, etc in Chinese food vs burgers and fries. Don't know, but I do know I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't eat.

Any dealership that really did that would be out of business very quickly, I can point to a number of cars that didn't have any durability or reliability, the Chevy Chevette come to mind along with the Ford Pinto and several others, and other than the fuel tank problem with the Pinto I don't recall any governmental action. BTW the Chevette generally makes it on the worst cars lists.

The point is that from a burden on the health system argument you could ban anything. There are many places that will allow B.A.S.E. jumping, and if you every go to Las Vegas you can pay to jump (with a safety line to slow your decent) off the Stratosphere.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 14

I come from a swamp called the Netherlands, and I am unaware of local laws (although I am aware of local culture). A reason why so far I haven't minded governmental interference is because we kind of need/depend on it to streamline the differences that arise as a consquence from living in such a tightly packed country (I think you can drive through it in 2-3 hours or something; what's the hurry). I suppose that this has influenced my views on legislation in general, but I'll try to keep that in mind.

So I do live by governmental rules, but everytime I am given a restriction I try to understand why this is supposed to benefit me and the community I live in. That doesn't make the government my "parent", though.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 14

Hello from North Dakota,

I don't know that much about the government in the Netherlands, perhaps they show much more restraint than other governments , as the laws I listed in the US are true in some places. Personally I've found that government at any level just want power over people and have no qualms with abusing said power.

A little off subject:

"I think you can drive through the entire country in 2-3 hours or something; what's the hurry"

You know that's one of the big disconnects when I talk to people from Europe, France is 248,573 square miles, Texas is 268,597 square miles and Texas isn't the biggest state, Alaska has 663,300 square miles. I generally don't include Alaska, because it such a pain to get there from the lower 48. I have to drive about 11 hours to visit my mother in another state, it takes over 20 hours of straight driving to go from North Dakota to Seattle Washington, while someone in Groningen could drive to London in about 8 hours. And in truth the culture in Kansas isn't that much different than in North Dakota, and Canada is almost the same as US (I can be in Canada in about an hour) so that leads to a disconnect when I talk to people who can with relative ease, experience London, France, or Germany on a long weekend. That kind of expose must effect on how people see the world, compared to the US.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 14

"That kind of expose must effect on how people see the world, compared to the US." At the very least there will be a relative conception of what freedom is. I don't want to cause a stir, but wouldn't this unignorable geographical difference account for at least *some* cultural divide between the US and Europe? I mean, sometimes I see people behave like there should be no difference which makes me wonder if people are realizing that these are completely different continents.

It's a funny idea to me; going from Groningen to London. I don't know anyone who would do this, unless they'd try to be fancy or something.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 14

I picked Groningen to London because when I did a search it was the farthest city that from London that came up on a quick search.

Yes it does cause, I'd say a lot, of cultural divide between the US and Europe. I can travel to New York, or Las Angeles, and for all intents and purposes there is no great difference. Everyone basically speaks one language, I can buy anything sold in my home state in both places with very little problem. Even with the EU can you say that?

In the US we don't interact that much with people from other cultures, partly because of distance and partly because there is no need. Even the closest country to me, Canada, I see no great differences, they speak English, and in many cases if you didn't know better you'd say they were from the US. Even in the South, were Spanish is spoken a lot there, most people expect everyone to know English, heck we expect people from Mexico to speak English.

Maybe the best way to explain it is with the Swedish word lagom, we don't really have a word that means that not too much and not too little. You're happy with something in between. Having diverse cultures, you'd have to find a way to get along and be more tolerant.

subscribe
load further replies (2)
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: