Should drugs stay illegal in America?

[Proverbs]

Religious viewpoints influence the way someone sees the world. The fact that you an athiest doesn't have a religion changes their viewpoint the same amount. Morals are just as valid for argument as facts. Whether or not you personally have a conscience, there are civil morals such as 'murdering is bad.' The whole idea that you said that what we do is fine so long as we do not harm sentient beings implies that harming sentient beings is immoral. According to your opinion, any viewpoint is a valid argument because you brought your own morals into this.

Morals are just as fair game as anything else. You likewise presented that idea and didn't qualify why hurting sentient beings is bad. If there are no morals (which tend to stem from religion), then the whole idea that a person should be able to do what they want is flawed. Your idea that the government can't limit what we do assumes that limiting us is wrong. But if there is no right or wrong, you cannot make that assumption either.

 

[Crimson King]

I don't believe my body is me or mine. My professor believes that the body belongs to the self, but I believe my body belongs to my Maker. But this is a difference in belief and I don't think we can come to an agreement on this issue so we'll leave this part out.

Legally, your argument is null and void. God does not belong in law, hence why we have the Establishment clause. In a secular matter, your body IS your possession, and there is no valid reason why the state should tell you what you can or can't do with it if you aren't hurting anyone else.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

We shouldn't be focusing on this. Religion and philosophy found one's viewpoints. Then we argue those viewpoints. Great, let's do it.

The governments attempt at enforcement of drug bans creates more harm that good, because it creates crime organizations that start drug wars and it raises the value of drugs because it makes them difficult to obtain. The government can't effectively enforce this, and trying but failing is worse that repealing the ban.

I agree with Proverbs if he says doing drugs is immoral, although the government is not my moral enforcer. I am, God is, and, to some extent, my parents. The government has no responsibility for my "moral health" as it were, and they should keep it that way. All I need the government for is to make sure I don't get robbed and killed in my sleep.

if you allow religious viewpoints to be valid arguments in a debate, then ANY viewpoint is a valid argument.

This is pretty bigoted.

 

[illinialex24]

Without a doubt Meth, Cocaine and Heroine should stay illegal.

 

[Crimson King]

This is pretty bigoted.

No, it isn't. Separation between Church and State is in place so religious views are not the basis for laws. His wording was poor, but his point is valid.

 

[urdailywater]

I really think they should, myself. At least until the drugs are learned about a bit more. Of course not COMPLETELY illegal. Some drugs can be used in medication, but these drugs are probably meddled with a bit, or don't have the harmful ingredients that drugs the public at large use.

Other than that, drugs like meth should definitely stay illegal to the public.

 

[Aesir]

This is pretty bigoted.

The separation of church and state is neutrality. The government makes no stance on the role of religion and in society. Religious beliefs without evidence don't get a say in what our laws are, like wise the government doesn't get a say in what religion does just so long as they abide by the law.

It was primarily put there to protect peoples individual rights, history shows when a state supports a religion it's oppressive to all the others.

 

[cF=)]

I really think they should, myself. At least until the drugs are learned about a bit more.

http://www.erowid.org

oh snap, knowledge about drugs on the internet

 

[manhunter098]

Proverbs, marijuana is an effective treatment for several types of cancer (it actually prevents the growth and spreading of tumors), it is also helpful for patients undergoing chemotherapy (since it helps them to keep their food down) and it can prevent damage to your vision from glaucoma. It has a very large number of medical applications beyond just dulling pain and the side effects from using it are far less damaging to your body than many other drugs.


Furthermore it doesnt lower your ability to make sound decisions significantly. The only way it really will hurt others is if you drive when you use it, or if it takes over your life which is not nearly as likely as more addictive drugs.


And yes I am getting away from the topic but like I said before, drugs is too general a category to apply the same reasoning to ALL drugs. Its important to understand which drugs are actually damaging to society and which ones only will have a minimal impact.




CF, I definitely agree with you on that, we do know a LOT about drugs. We dont necessarily know about complex social changes that greater drug use may cause or how the public may react to legalizing drugs, but there is more than enough information about the dangers of the more commonly available drugs to make informed decisions about them on a legal level.

 

[arrowhead]

Religious viewpoints influence the way someone sees the world.

so do drugs, but you wouldn't trust the judgement of someone coked out of his mind would you? because the only basis for religious ethics is "cause god says so" then ANY viewpoint can be valid if you allow religious viewpoints to be valid.

who are you to question god when he says "it's okay to kill kids as a sport"? we only see a section of the big picture while he sees all of it, so when god comes into my dreams and tells me to kill children, i should go against my ignorant mind and obey the almighty.

see how silly that sounds, and see how easily people can "justify" what they think? when two religious people start to argue about ethics through their god, the discussion dies.

The fact that you an athiest doesn't have a religion changes their viewpoint the same amount. Morals are just as valid for argument as facts. Whether or not you personally have a conscience, there are civil morals such as 'murdering is bad.'

actually it depends entirely on the context of the situation.

The whole idea that you said that what we do is fine so long as we do not harm sentient beings implies that harming sentient beings is immoral. According to your opinion, any viewpoint is a valid argument because you brought your own morals into this.

you cannot really own something if it can do things completely out of your control. according to the ideals in which the country was founded, we cannot physically harm something without its consent. i don't believe i ever said anything about it being immoral.

Morals are just as fair game as anything else. You likewise presented that idea and didn't qualify why hurting sentient beings is bad.

it's not "bad"

If there are no morals (which tend to stem from religion), then the whole idea that a person should be able to do what they want is flawed.

yeah, a person CAN do whatever he wants. but he also knows that if he does that, he will be punished. so people end up generally obeying the law. where's the flaw?

Your idea that the government can't limit what we do assumes that limiting us is wrong. But if there is no right or wrong, you cannot make that assumption either.

i'm saying according to the constitution the government has no right to restrict us from doing thing that only harm ourselves. i thought this was implied in everything i said, but i guess it wasn't.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Oh, I'm all for the separation of church and state. The only thing a government has a right to do is protect me from others harming me. If I harm myself, that's just my own stupidity. Actually, if I were in charge of a small nation that had a population of 100% serious Christians, I don't know if I would even have laws at all. They limit free will. That's impossible in a real country of course.

I'm not snatching my viewpoints out of mid-air though. Perhaps I misunderstood when I thought arrowhead implied that.

 

[B0mbe1c]

I say most or the majority of drugs should stay illegal. Some, like steroids, help people who have diseases. Others cause problems in personal life and on the streets.

 

[cF=)]

Others cause problems in personal life and on the streets.

"Problems in personal life" is entirely subjective while "problems on the streets" is a direct consequence of a banning on drugs. Make drugs legal tomorrow and you'll remove a HUGE part of what's making the black market today. This is why we should consent making drugs legal, it avoids throwing innocent people in jail, it cuts on the money wasting propaganda and you reduce the black market's power and income.

 

[IDK]

When religion comes into an argument, it is a tough situation to address. In many cases, it is a large and important part of an argument. However, the opposition to the religious argument is at great disadvantage because they must realize that they can't push their beliefs on them, and that there is absolutely NO WAY they will get them to change their mind. Because of this, religion should be left out of any argument unless necessary.

 

[Ryusuta]

Darn it all. I actually had a nice C/P on the subject that I wrote, but it must have gotten purged. Figures.

*Sigh*

I'm a dedicated teetotaler, and I don't take drugs of any kind (I don't even take Ibuprofen unless I'm absolutely in total pain), but I'm actually entirely in favor of recreational drugs being legalized. And not for some silly "people have a right to put stuff in their body" reason, either (though that's an incredibly minor part of it, I suppose).

To me, there are very practical, realistic reasons for legalizing recreational drug use. Health, safety, and money. By legalizing drugs, you are taking money out of the hands of drug dealers by destroying their market and circulating the money into the legitimate economy.

You're also protecting the safety of EVERYONE involved with the transaction, because if drugs are legalized, they must also be regulated. You're keeping the market safer by ensuring that the drugs offered aren't cut with anything else.

Remember that performing certain activities under the influence would still remain illegal. This is a key thing to bear in mind.

Currently, the war on drugs has INCREASED demand and value of the drugs the government has sought to abolish. Since the 1960s, Cocaine use has increased by more than 30 TIMES per capita. This war is flushing taxpayer money down the toilet (20 billion dollars a year, to be exact), is criminalizing citizens, and is putting lives in jeopardy every single day. It's a terrible idea all the way around, in spite of its overall good intentions.

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

people do stupid stuff when drugs are about, so no

 

[manhunter098]

people do stupid stuff when drugs are about, so no

And drugs will be about regardless of what the government does.

 

[Ryusuta]

Exactly. Prohibition has a documented, historical record of INCREASING per capita drug use, not the other way around.

 

[Atsu]

Some drugs that are illegal in America are due to the extent of abuse the people take it too. Marijuana has been considered as treatment for various medical reasons. Although small doses of drugs may not produce significant health defects, abusing it can.

But when I say abuse, to what extent of it? A single cigarette merely affects a small fraction of your health. Several packs a week can lead to critical health problems such as lung disease/cancer. Of course, that's not a very good example since it's not exactly an illegal drug in America. So basically, it's a bad example. Deal with it.

But I believe abuse stems off of prohibition. When parents say that you're not allowed to watch a certain show, what do you do? You strive to watch it. You adore it. It became forbidden fruit that you have to take a bite out of. In the end, if your parents had not tried to prohibit it, there's a good possibility that you may not have liked it. (This was me with The Simpsons)

Other things I wanted to address have already been accomplished by Sir Orion:

To me, there are very practical, realistic reasons for legalizing recreational drug use. Health, safety, and money. By legalizing drugs, you are taking money out of the hands of drug dealers by destroying their market and circulating the money into the legitimate economy.

You're also protecting the safety of EVERYONE involved with the transaction, because if drugs are legalized, they must also be regulated. You're keeping the market safer by ensuring that the drugs offered aren't cut with anything else.

Remember that performing certain activities under the influence would still remain illegal. This is a key thing to bear in mind.

EDIT: If I wasn't clear, I support the legalization of drugs in America.

 

[Lord Viper]

I don't know why a lot of people would want drugs to be legal, (unless it's medicine drugs or drugs that can be used as an experiment so it can help). That's almost like asking should all American homes should have at least one gun at they house. The reason, taken drugs is like walking into death later on in the future when one, two or more of your body organs can't take it anymore. In my option, this will increase the death rates of the US, and we worked so hard to decrease it.

 

[Crimson King]

I don't know why a lot of people would want drugs to be legal, (unless it's medicine drugs or drugs that can be used as an experiment so it can help). That's almost like asking should all American homes should have at least one gun at they house. The reason, taken drugs is like walking into death later on in the future when one, two or more of your body organs can't take it anymore. In my option, this will increase the death rates of the US, and we worked so hard to decrease it.

It's not like that at all actually. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, just a drug use is a RIGHT. With guns, they are needed because cops are not meant to protect people; they are meant to solve crimes after they happen. If someone breaks into your house, you are at their mercy. For drugs, it's your body to do with as you wish, not the government's. Marijuana doesn't kill people. Mushrooms and LSD don't kill people. There are quite a few drugs that do not kill a person. Learn your facts before arguing.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

people do stupid stuff when drugs are about, so no

Well if that's your reasoning, you should also want to make alcohol illegal too, right? And we all know how that went.

Manhunter, I challenge your assertion that marijuana is an "effective cancer treatment." Can you provide me with an article from a medical journal that supports that?

 

[manhunter098]

Well if that's your reasoning, you should also want to make alcohol illegal too, right? And we all know how that went.

Manhunter, I challenge your assertion that marijuana is an "effective cancer treatment." Can you provide me with an article from a medical journal that supports that?

I wish I was at school still so I could get a book that my friend has on the myriad of diseases and conditions that can be treated with marijuana. I will however look around on the internet and see what I can find.

Im not going to say its some miracle cure, but the cannabinoids present in it (I believe that CBD is the major one) do inhibit the growth and formation of tumors. There is one patient in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program that has a rare bone disorder that causes tumors to form on his bones, and since he was put into the program while he still has many tumors, no new ones have formed and the ones he still has have stopped growing.

I also know that marijuana use decreases the risk of cancer in tobacco smokers.


But yeah, Ill look for some medical journals to support my claims, shouldnt be too hard.

 

[pockyD]

isn't marijuana already legal in a medical context?

anyway, I still think the giant umbrella term of "drugs" is really not conducive to an argument, unless anyone for its legalization describes which subset of drugs they are fighting for to begin with

 

[Zero Beat]

I'll address the topic itself :

Drugs should be legalized immediately. Here are my reasons. I'm going to set it up in a pretty way.

-Because right now the biggest danger related to drugs is the danger of imprisonment.
-Because the US is wasting billions on a drug believed by every expert to be a COLOSSAL failure.

+Because drugs are winning the drug war :
-They are cheaper, better quality, and more available than in the 80s when the drug war officially began.
-Because cops and dea agents and fbi agents are increasingly agreeing with the experts (www.leap.cc)
-Because the drug war and making drugs illegal DOES NOT stop the purchasing of drugs nor does it stop the drug revenue from being created. instead all it does is FUNNEL the revenue to known criminal groups and violent gangsters.
-As a result, the drug war empowers and enriches criminal cartels.

-The drug war also has caused cocaine, which is derived from a cheap and plentiful plant, to be MORE VALUABLE PER WEIGHT THAN ENRICHED URANIUM.

Check it out:
The street price of cocaine is about $50 per gram, some places, its $80 per gram.

In the UK its $100 per gram. If you multiply that out to like, 8 kilos, you get a dollar amount that is bigger than the ****ing cost of 8 kilos of weapons grade uranium.

To finish with pure skill, I present you this:

 

[manhunter098]

isn't marijuana already legal in a medical context?

anyway, I still think the giant umbrella term of "drugs" is really not conducive to an argument, unless anyone for its legalization describes which subset of drugs they are fighting for to begin with

No, the federal government still raids the homes of patients in the states where medicinal use has been approved, and its totally ridiculous. It is possible to get the government to allow you to use it out of necessity, but you will still be arrested and tried in court before they give you that declaration, and if other (more damaging) drugs can help your condition its possible they will deny you the right to use marijuana to improve your health.

 

[Dash_Fox]

I'll address the topic itself :

Drugs should be legalized immediately. Here are my reasons. I'm going to set it up in a pretty way.

-Because right now the biggest danger related to drugs is the danger of imprisonment.
-Because the US is wasting billions on a drug believed by every expert to be a COLOSSAL failure.

+Because drugs are winning the drug war :
-They are cheaper, better quality, and more available than in the 80s when the drug war officially began.
-Because cops and dea agents and fbi agents are increasingly agreeing with the experts (www.leap.cc)
-Because the drug war and making drugs illegal DOES NOT stop the purchasing of drugs nor does it stop the drug revenue from being created. instead all it does is FUNNEL the revenue to known criminal groups and violent gangsters.
-As a result, the drug war empowers and enriches criminal cartels.

-The drug war also has caused cocaine, which is derived from a cheap and plentiful plant, to be MORE VALUABLE PER WEIGHT THAN ENRICHED URANIUM.

Check it out:
The street price of cocaine is about $50 per gram, some places, its $80 per gram.

In the UK its $100 per gram. If you multiply that out to like, 8 kilos, you get a dollar amount that is bigger than the ****ing cost of 8 kilos of weapons grade uranium.

To finish with pure skill, I present you this:

I find that enriched uranium fact to be hysterical. Hey, I would rather have cocaine than uranium in my house. I guess that means something...

 

[Oracle]

I think marijuana should be legalized, but not other drugs, because other drugs have a much greater effect on people that can actually last their entire lives, such as physical dependence, hallucinations, etc.

Also: When people make something illegal because they don't want someone doing that to their body, they assume that all of the people who do this are too stupid to control themselves, which is totally false.

 

[manhunter098]

Manhunter, I challenge your assertion that marijuana is an "effective cancer treatment." Can you provide me with an article from a medical journal that supports that?

Here is one article I have found, showing that CBD prevents the metastasizing of breast cancer tumors. It is also considered non-toxic. Unlike pretty much every drug used to combat cancer.

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/11/2921

 

[riboflavinbob]

Why should drugs like cocaine be legal though? What good does it do to the majority?

I find it interesting that issuing the death penalty for drug trafficking in some eastern asian countries (namely China) isn't that big of a deal.

 

[Aesir]

Why should drugs like cocaine be legal though? What good does it do to the majority?

Not a very good argument.

Whether they're legal or not makes no difference to the majority. However legal drugs means we'll no longer have non-violent drug offenders imprisoned.

When someone has a drinking problem we get him help, It should be no different with drugs.

I find it interesting that issuing the death penalty for drug trafficking in some eastern asian countries (namely China) isn't that big of a deal.

China also a communist dictatorship.

 

[Dodongo]

The reason, taken drugs is like walking into death later on in the future when one, two or more of your body organs can't take it anymore. In my option, this will increase the death rates of the US, and we worked so hard to decrease it.

Prescription drugs kill three hundred percent more people each year than illegal ones. source
Also, most of the people who are going to do drugs are already doing them anyway, they keep it to themselves. Legalization wouldn't be the chaos you're imagining.

 

[Overload]

I believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your body. People who want to to drugs will do drugs regardless of their legality. Another way to look at it is make all drugs that grow naturally on the earth legal and anything artificially created illegal. Then again, pharmaceuticals are legal.

I'll go back to my original statement that you should be able to put whatever you want into your body. It's your body, if you want to kill yourself then so be it. There are plenty of legal drugs that people become addicted to that are harmful and can lead to death anyways. Some examples being alcohol and tobacco products.

Now I don't know if this is true but I heard marijuana was made illegal because when the Mexicans started coming over people in the south were angry because they worked for low wages and jobs were all taken so they made marijuana illegal to try to get them to leave because they used to smoke it.

 

[Oracle]

I am against the legality of so called hardcore drugs because they have terrible effects on the body, and if the drug companies use the same type of advertising as the tobacco industry, then we'll have a bunch of kids doing crack and stuff.

 

[Overload]

I am against the legality of so called hardcore drugs because they have terrible effects on the body, and if the drug companies use the same type of advertising as the tobacco industry, then we'll have a bunch of kids doing crack and stuff.

There would definitely be an age limit on drugs. Now that's not to say kids won't do these things, because there are kids who drink and smoke weed already. Like I said, kids are going to do this stuff if they want to regardless of their legality.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Then let's say we do legalize drugs. Imagine this scenario:

Drugs traders, under new legality laws, begin to form companies to market these drugs, as they are now as legal as over the counter medicines.

Drug companies begin making unimaginable amounts of money because of their highly addictive (though dangerous) products.

Widespread advertising for drugs begin.

Then what? Drugs fed to infants in order to serve as pacifiers?

Mass genetic malignancies? Due to widespread drug usage?

Extreme hedonism because people have become addicted to legal chemicals?

What can drugs do for us if legalized?

Even if there were laws preventing commercial distribution of drugs, the usage would skyrocket and most likely yield the same results of hedonism and irresponsibility.

If drugs are kept illegal, who are we harming? The idiots who chose to use them and get caught by the police with no sense of responsibility or common sense? Some "innocent" people supposedly caught up in the trade? The black market?

We are better off with drugs like cocaine and w/e being illegal.

 

[manhunter098]

Then let's say we do legalize drugs. Imagine this scenario:

Drugs traders, under new legality laws, begin to form companies to market these drugs, as they are now as legal as over the counter medicines.

Drug companies begin making unimaginable amounts of money because of their highly addictive (though dangerous) products.

Widespread advertising for drugs begin.

Then what? Drugs fed to infants in order to serve as pacifiers?

Mass genetic malignancies? Due to widespread drug usage?

Extreme hedonism because people have become addicted to legal chemicals?

What can drugs do for us if legalized?

Even if there were laws preventing commercial distribution of drugs, the usage would skyrocket and most likely yield the same results of hedonism and irresponsibility.

If drugs are kept illegal, who are we harming? The idiots who chose to use them and get caught by the police with no sense of responsibility or common sense? Some "innocent" people supposedly caught up in the trade? The black market?

We are better off with drugs like cocaine and w/e being illegal.

No, we are better off decriminalizing them. There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. Decriminalizing basically makes it okay to personally use the drug as long as your arent hurting others or doing it out in the open. Throwing cocaine users into jail doesnt do ANYTYHING to solve the problem and really just creates more problems because now you are spending 50K a year per person just to house them in prison, not to mention all the court and legal fees the government must incur to prosecute them.

 

[Vlade]

The government should not tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. We should have the common sense to know what is sensible to do to our bodies. The effects of an illegal drug on the consumer is part of the issue, but I believe that the real problem is the fact that these effects may affect others directly or indirectly. So like Manhunter said, we are better off decriminalizing them since it is our choice on what you do to your body, but if we're within proximity of other individuals we may not have that choice on whether or not we harm them (depending on the drug intake, effects of drug, etc). Housing in prison just costs too much money.

 

[riboflavinbob]

No, we are better off decriminalizing them. There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. Decriminalizing basically makes it okay to personally use the drug as long as your arent hurting others or doing it out in the open. Throwing cocaine users into jail doesnt do ANYTYHING to solve the problem and really just creates more problems because now you are spending 50K a year per person just to house them in prison, not to mention all the court and legal fees the government must incur to prosecute them.

I guess I sort of agree with you. But if we leave drugs to circulate freely, more and more people will become addicted and trapped in the cycle as their cravings grow stronger and stronger. This would probably cause another problem because as possession and usage laws are no longer preventing them from purchasing pounds of cocaine and shoving it up their nostrils in one sitting. These people will probably be stupid enough to do so, and their actions will probably result in accidental suicide due to overdosage.

 

[RDK]

Then let's say we do legalize drugs. Imagine this scenario:

Drugs traders, under new legality laws, begin to form companies to market these drugs, as they are now as legal as over the counter medicines.

Drug companies begin making unimaginable amounts of money because of their highly addictive (though dangerous) products.

Widespread advertising for drugs begin.

Then what? Drugs fed to infants in order to serve as pacifiers?

Mass genetic malignancies? Due to widespread drug usage?

Extreme hedonism because people have become addicted to legal chemicals?

What can drugs do for us if legalized?

Even if there were laws preventing commercial distribution of drugs, the usage would skyrocket and most likely yield the same results of hedonism and irresponsibility.

If drugs are kept illegal, who are we harming? The idiots who chose to use them and get caught by the police with no sense of responsibility or common sense? Some "innocent" people supposedly caught up in the trade? The black market?

We are better off with drugs like cocaine and w/e being illegal.

Despite these arguments being a prime example of slippery slope, you can say the same exact things about alcohol and tobacco.

If drugs were legalized in America, the FDA would regulate their potency and quality, which means--guess what--no dying from poisoned sources or a "bad batch". If legalized, they would obviously be taxed, which means more money for the government to use towards things that matter and less money wasted on a ridiculous drug war every year.

Not to mention things like marijuana are less detrimental to your body than both alcohol and tobacco.

Edit: also, saying they shouldn't give it to us because we can hurt ourselves with it is like saying pencils should be illegalized because some bozo out there might buy one and stab himself in the eye with it.