Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

67 (62.6%)

Yes, but only if the amount you could own at any one time was limited

14 (13.1%)

Yes, but for Medicinal uses only

10 (9.3%)

Yes, but only for chronic illnesses(Cancer, AIDS, Crohn's Disease, etc.)

3 (2.8%)

No

13 (12.1%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Max White]

The government has no right to tell you want you can and can not put into your body. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that they do. To tell me that I can not smoke Marijuana in the privacy of my own home, or shoot heroin in the privacy of my home, without doing harm to anyone or infringing the rights of anyone else is just rubbish. Some of you may hate Marijuana and all drugs, that's just great. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean you should vote for them to be banned, or carry heavy criminal charges. It's selfish, not sure where this quote comes from but "The rights that you should fight to protect the most, are the ones that you don't agree with." You may or may not agree with my viewpoint, I'm a pretty heavily left winged libertarian.

That is one point of veiw... The other is that the govonment has the right to stop actions that harm society.

[Retro]

The government has no right to tell you want you can and can not put into your body. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that they do. To tell me that I can not smoke Marijuana in the privacy of my own home, or shoot heroin in the privacy of my home, without doing harm to anyone or infringing the rights of anyone else is just rubbish.

Shooting heroin does harm to yourself. This is generally just an incredibly biased and close-minded post much in the same vein as x2's, so I don't think there's much else worth saying about it.

[atomicwinter]

The government has no right to tell you want you can and can not put into your body. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that they do. To tell me that I can not smoke Marijuana in the privacy of my own home, or shoot heroin in the privacy of my home, without doing harm to anyone or infringing the rights of anyone else is just rubbish.

Shooting heroin does harm to yourself. This is generally just an incredibly biased and close-minded post much in the same vein as x2's, so I don't think there's much else worth saying about it.

But as long as it does no harm to anyone else who cares. It is your choice, you are aware of the risks, and you take them when you do it.

I never said it wasn't harmful to yourself.

[Max White]

But as long as it does no harm to anyone else who cares. It is your choice, you are aware of the risks, and you take them when you do it.

I never said it wasn't harmful to yourself.

Would you debate against the law that says suicide is illegal?

[Retro]

You said 'anyone.' You didn't say 'anyone else.'

The government should not be allowing you to fuck yourself up. Much less to use something that fucks you up and is addicting. While their stance on drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes under that umbrella title) has been anything but consistent, I don't think there's really any good argument for legalizing heroin use. Even if the government did take a 'your body, your problem' attitude, the lack of action taken against heroin users would cause other people to think that there's probably no harm in trying it themselves since the government doesn't have a problem with it, and then heroin addiction becomes even more widespread. It's not on the same level as the relatively quite harmless marijuana.

In response to Max, that's not quite the same thing either, so I'm not sure how well it would work out as a debating counterpoint.

[Vector]

I think the real problem would be more "people who can't get their next fix will often destroy other people's lives in an effort to get another fix, and don't really care about laws anymore most of the time."  I don't think, for example, that legalizing cocaine would really change this.  It might, but I doubt it based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the drug.

Preventative methods to protect other members of society should be the basis of any government stronger than libertarianism, in my opinion.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that.

There are different degrees of this, but it's what makes sense to me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But as long as it does no harm to anyone else who cares. It is your choice, you are aware of the risks, and you take them when you do it.

I never said it wasn't harmful to yourself.

Would you debate against the law that says suicide is illegal?

Well, that depends on the situation. If someone is dying of a terminal illness, who am I to tell them they must live with the agony of slowly withering away? If somone has grown so weary of living that they have no will to continue on left, who am I to try tell them that they have to keep going anyway?

If other people can force you to remain alive when you don't want to be, does your life really even belong to you, or does it belong to them instead? And yet, on the other hand, the majority of failed suicides are glad that their plans went wrong. But then again, they are the ones who survived because somthing went wrong, so it might be that deep down they wanted to survive, so they forced their plan to go wrong. And then, it could be said that the people who succeeded in killing themselves really did want to die in totality, and those attempts that go wrong by true accident make up the minority that still wish to commit suicide even after their plans go wrong. But this is all speculation that could very well be unknowable.

In short, it's complicated, and I don't have answers, only speculation.

[Realmfighter]

But then again, they are the ones who survived because somthing went wrong, so it might be that deep down they wanted to survive, so they forced their plan to go wrong.

Thats a pretty big assumption.

[Enzo]

Even if the government did take a 'your body, your problem' attitude, the lack of action taken against heroin users would cause other people to think that there's probably no harm in trying it themselves since the government doesn't have a problem with it, and then heroin addiction becomes even more widespread. It's not on the same level as the relatively quite harmless marijuana.

Even if they took the funds that are currently spent attempting to stifle the illegal narcotics industry, in addition to the funds they would doubtlessly receive if it was properly regulated, and spent it on educational and rehabilitative programs? Programs which already exist because trying to stifle it doesn't actually work? Honestly, to a teenager, the fact that it's illegal can just add a degree of romance to the idea. The government condoning drug usage may not even have the overwhelming effect you're describing.

[Realmfighter]

How much money actually goes into fighting drugs? And where is that money going in the whole Anti-Drug fight?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But then again, they are the ones who survived because somthing went wrong, so it might be that deep down they wanted to survive, so they forced their plan to go wrong.

Thats a pretty big assumption.

I'm not saying it's true. I just wonder about things.

[DJ]

You tax drugs and use taxes to fund medical treatment. It's how tobacco and alcohol work.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I think the real problem would be more "people who can't get their next fix will often destroy other people's lives in an effort to get another fix, and don't really care about laws anymore most of the time."

I seem to recall reading about a government program, I believe in Switzerland (though I could be wrong), though I'm hazy on the specifics, that went out and gave free heroin to addicts, along with literature regarding treatments and whatnot, with the express purpose of shutting down the black market trade in it and reducing related crime, with further prevention as a secondary goal. As I recall, it was controversial, but successful.

[x2yzh9]

Holy shit. I sleep for a little too long and this page is 6 pages. Fuck.

[ChairmanPoo]

You tax drugs and use taxes to fund medical treatment. It's how tobacco and alcohol work.

No, that's what is done after preventive measures have failed, to try to forestall the damage. The sanitary cost is ridiculously high, and in many cases not too effective.