CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
"I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal." --Milton Friedman, the Legend
Drug addiction is purely a individual problem because nobody forces anyone to do drugs. Plus, in a free market, when two parties voluntary exchange goods or services, both parties benefit individually because the user gets his fix while the dealer gets his money. That is what a transaction of voluntary exchange entails.
The government feels the need to intervene because they perceive it as a societal problem where the government actually makes it worse.
Government intervention leads to black markets, and the black market becomes more valuable as opposed if it was legal.
You completely ignored the family of the person. They didn't choose to use drugs, and yet they have to deal with the consequences.
When the people drug there bodies so much that they can't work, the society has pick up the tab for food stamps for their children, disability checks, medicaid, etc.
So, let them rot. They choose that path. If anything, only the family should have to pick up the tab. Look at Lindsey Lohan! She is to stupid to realize that the government is trying to protect of HER OWN DECISIONS, so I say, the government should get out of the babysitting business and allow free will.
On a side note, the government let thousands of returning Vietnam vets rot in the streets after the war and they were good people, so the government has no problem with letting their own people rot.
That's odd. In the BP debate, you claim that it's the governments fault because there weren't enough regulations, but now and in many other debates the government is supposed to let people do anything they choose.
How is the family going to pick up the tab if they can barely survive with the extra income. Here is an example. The average family has two kids. Let's say that the person is a man and is married to his wife that is on drugs. She makes half of the household income. After she loses her job how do you expect the husband to take care of his kids and send his wife to a rehab facility on half the income?
The Vietnam war was over 30 years ago. Try to stick with more recent statistics.
In the BP debate, you claim that it's the governments fault because there weren't enough regulations,
That is wrong. I argued that there is no need for regulations, and liability is reserved in claims court for damages.
The BP debate is a economics related debate while many are personal debates.
Thus, less government is better government.
Let's say that the person is a man and is married to his wife that is on drugs.
Seriously, how is that my problem? Are they worried about my or your problems? No.
The Vietnam war was over 30 years ago. Try to stick with more recent statistics.
Ok, if 30 years is not recent, there are Afghan and Iraq vets come home and left to dry by the government. Source: Personal Friend was in the Iraq War, and was injured and witnessed it.
That is wrong. I argued that there is no need for regulations, and liability is reserved in claims court for damages.
No. I'm pretty sure that you said this "Where were the regulations? Liberals are always preaching how effective regulations are. Maybe, then it was the government because they didn't have the proper regulation that imposes those safety standards."
Ok, if 30 years is not recent, there are Afghan and Iraq vets come home and left to dry by the government.
I don't know the complete story of your friend and I'm sorry to hear that, but if a soldier is injured, they are supposed to receive a check from the government.
"Where were the regulations? Liberals are always preaching how effective regulations are. Maybe, then it was the government because they didn't have the proper regulation that imposes those safety standards."
Indeed, I did write that but that was in the context of what liberals would want. Because liberals tout that many regulations are good. Suggesting they want regulations on top of regulations.
If freedom and personal responsibility are valued, then we should consider the consequences of individual choices as individual problems. Trying to keep people away from drugs only makes it easier for those who don't respect the law to profit from the situation. It creates a fertile ground for black markets, forces us to spend taxpayer money to enforce the law, and keeps us from collecting taxes on the sell of drugs.
So, it's an individual problem, and society's attempt to deal with it is foolish.
A major problem with the Socialist, Authoritarian view on society is that individualism is practically dead. The Elitist Liberals think that we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves and that they know what's best for us.
A problem with the Conservative, Theocratic view is that because certain things can lead to immoral behavior they must be stopped. "Think about the children", they say.
Individualism is one of the most important qualities of human beings. Without it, we die with nothing but what the government told us to do. We're supposed to explore the realms of our two worlds (psychological and physical). Really, it's all we have. By living an ordered life where all indecent and "harmful" ways of life are banned, we die miserable and the same.
In today's society, a main problem with legalizing drugs is that socialist government will force the burden of junkies unto the rest of us who are either clean or use substance in moderation. For the individual's sake, socialism must stop progressing.
In most cases, you'd be right. But the socialist mentality of Liberals leads to drug addiction being everyone's problem and not just the individual's. These are the same people who want junk food and tobacco banned. it goes to show that the Liberals of America aren't Liberal where it counts.
I'm not going to bother arguing but I'll repost this because it's just as relevant
Take it as you want. I know because you're a retarded demented fag that you'll argue for individualism and libertarianism NO MATTER WHAT, even if your future self who has managed to survive the conditions of a libertarianised america comes back in time to warn you of the consequences.
Individualism is one of the most important qualities of human beings. Without it, we die with nothing but what the government told us to do.
I also just wanted to highlight this for future references. I can't believe people actually believe in this shit.
If they were legal though, it would be an individual problem.
I believe they should be legal, so I'm on this side.
However, after legalized, centers should be available for those who do want to quit - society should provide this. And this would be infinately less violent, and far far cheaper than all the time and money we put into making them illegal.
... then as long as they are illegal, addiction to it is a social problem, because society says it is a problem.
You cannot say "hey, you're not allowed to do that" than when they do say "hey, that's not my problem"
It's conflicting.
You can only say, "hey, that's not my problem" if you weren't making it your problem to begin with by doing things like not making it illegal, not paying for jails for people who take drugs, not paying cops to arrest people on drugs, etc.
By having a "war on drugs" society is making all things drugs their problem including addiction. That's not an opinion, just the fact of the matter if stated reply is the rule of this debate.
I think that everyone has a right to make their own choices and if that means buying drugs that are going to slowly/instantly kill you, then so be it. Society might be the suppler, but it is the individual who choices take the drug. Everyone knows what the risk are with abusing drugs, but that is clearly not stopping them. If you believe it is the society who is to be blamed, the only thing they should be blamed for is being amazing salesmen. They are doing their job right. And the buyers/addicts are doing their job by keeping them in business.
It's a societal problem because it doesn't only hurt the user. It hurts their families and others
People not only die from O.D.ing, but during the deal.
But most of all it hurts the taxpayer. We pay for our police to get these people. We pay our border patrol to keep these people out and we fund rehab facilities to fix these people. Yes using drugs is their choice, but it affects others.
We can't cut back on those services because they protect us. I assume you mean saving money by not training them how to deal with those situations. We need police and border patrol. There are also people in rehab facilities because of alcohol addiction.
Drug policy is only to protect the ignorance of individuals and not society. All the money used for police and border patrol is wasted on unnecessary means where all cartels would be eliminated if drugs were illegal.
Police could focus on those who actually need help.
How is it a bad thing that the cartels are eliminated? You seem to believe that they are only involved in drugs. They are also involved in prostitution, extortion, human trafficking and other crimes.
The job of police is to protect us. We have rehab facilities and hospitals to focus on those who need help.
Great, legalized prostitution and drugs. Extortion and human trafficking are not separate issues as they are more byproducts of prostitution and drugs.
It's an individual's problem that leads to problems in society. 99% of people on this website would have no idea about the impact of drugs and the problems it causes. Legalising it may rid us of gang bangers and drug cartels but the rest of the problems would be brought home on a national level.
Then these idiot liberatarians will be crying for government intervention when a crackhead takes off with all their possessions or kills them for £20 or when a family member becomes a drug abuser. It was all good moaning about government intervention safely locked away in their basements on the internet, but when the shit gets real... WHERES THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT?? WAHHHHH!!!
A lot better than most here who get all their information from professors sitting in universities.
Because when it is illegal, 10000 people are killed due to drug wars and government killings whereas actual drug use kills many less.
Because it's illegal. Like I said maybe the gangbanging might stop, but the use of drugs will exponentially expand and will exponentially cause deaths.
Wrong, that is why my right to own a gun is vital.
Lol you're only upping the stakes.
If they know you're going to be armed (or that you're more than likely to be armed) they'll come with measures to overcome the situation, in this case arming themselves. Who you think's going to win you or him? Lol the answer is obvious.
I would have no sympathy for drug abusers even if family member.
Did they rape you multiple times when you were young or something?
Plus, why would they be after your possessions if the drugs are easily attained at a retail store at cheaper prices than now.
Lol. You really think the prices won't be jacked up?? Forreal?
If it were legal, I would certainty not use drugs because it is legal due to my job as my friends and family.
I'm pretty sure most drug users thought at one point in their lives they would not use drugs. However seeing as you're for a completely free market - how many people will start changing their minds once these drug companies start advertising their drugs? It'll be on kid's t.v's (something you advocate) telling them that taking drugs is good. Maybe you're stuck to a point where you'll never take drugs, but 10 years down the line millions of people will be using drugs. It will slowly be integrated and accepted into American society where everybody will be some skitzo crazy muthafucka and you'll be sitting their crying while your 12 yr old child is shooting up. You can't tell him to stop ofcourse because that's being an authoritarian.
You do realize that alcohol is a drug and it is highly regulated so prices won't be jacked up.
There is a mountain of regulations on the adult beverage industry.
Am I hearing you right? Government intervention is a good thing?
Legalised drugs would be more far more expensive the current illegal drugs especially since it's bound to be a market dominated by oligarch's.
First, of course, nobody can force someone to stop taking drugs unless the government forces through law; therefore, without laws, life is about incentives, and given the correct ones, nobody would have the desire to take drugs, and millions of people won't be in line for their fix. That is just fear mongering.
Second, I understand completely free market are impossible because even if the government buys guns for its soldiers or simply pays him wages, that is government interference, but not bad interference.
Third, since completely free market is impossible and government intervention in the adult beverage industry due to its drug status, this would be no different than selling narcotics, and since it is regulated, there will be no TV ads advocating drug use. If the government can regulate alcohol, the most potent drug of them all, then they can regulate the same amount in comparison of narcotics to alcohol.
Lastly, seat belt laws, minor drinking age, cell phone laws, illegal drugs and others are laws that protect the ignorance of society. Laws aimed at protecting purely stupidity.
So, why are you so fearful of individual ignorance? These have nothing to do with society. People must live with choices that they make, and the government protects that ignorance by enforcing taxes on intelligent people for such stupidity.
If you don't wear your seat belt, and you die in a accident, do you think other than family will give a damn? No, they will be, " The idiot should have worn his seat belt.
Yes and no. Dying from not wearing a seatbelt is one thing. Abuse of drugs is another. The ripple effect is much larger. That's why its a societal problem. Wearing a seatbelt is an individual problem. The only reason people purposefully don't wear seatbelts is because they think it'll make them look cool. Drugs ranges from peer pressure (which relates to above) to family issues to enhancing your raving capabilities.
Either way it doesn't matter. You have no actual clue on what you're talking about. You want to see a realistic approach to legalising drugs? Watch season 3 of the wire. It shows a scenario of what legalising drugs would lead to. It's your choice whether or not it's a good thing or bad thing - it's not biased in any way.
If the government can regulate alcohol, the most potent drug of them all, then they can regulate the same amount in comparison of narcotics to alcohol.
How many alcoholics are there in USA? Now do you think there'd be more or less if alcohol was prohibited? Hard drugs such as crack and heroine are far worse than alcohol - especially when it comes to addiction.
That is just fear mongering.
Lol foreal? And saying that the government wants to take over every aspect of your lives 24/7 isn't?
So, why are you so fearful of individual ignorance? These have nothing to do with society. People must live with choices that they make, and the government protects that ignorance by enforcing taxes on intelligent people for such stupidity.
WTF is individual ignorance? Intelligent people easily make mistakes. You're telling me there's not 1 intelligent person who's been hooked on drugs? Or has the possibility to be hooked on drugs? Just because your life was fairies and flowers with not many chances of shit and struggle doesn't mean everybody else's is.
Lack of wearing seat belt and drug abuse are both individual problems due to irresponsible behavior. Who must condone the use of drug abuse? "Ohh, it is not the users fault, it is the dealers, so for their irresponsibility, we will treat them to free drug rehab paid in full of the taxpayers."
What is the Wire? There are drug addictions shows in America, which I have seen such as Intervention and Addicted.
If so, it is a scenario of what would or could lead to legalizing drugs. It is not a definitive theory.
There are about 17 million alcoholics in the USA while maybe 2-3 million drug addicts. During prohibition in the USA, there was no change in the consumption of alcohol. Prohibition does nothing to increase or decrease usage.
Individual ignorance are people who made irresponsible life choices and are unwilling to accept their choices in life, thus it bleeds into society, which is the perceived problem. [1] Short video
Sure, intelligence people make mistakes, and should be at their own expense. No, never suggested that not one smart person's hooked on drugs nor the possibility.
I never said my life was peachy, and it shouldn't be presumed. I grew up in family that heavily favors making the right choice.
I agree with Friedman where do you draw the line between societal and individual responsibility?
Instead of watching a TV show to determine what's realistic, how about we look at somewhere that actually decriminalized drug use. Here are two two articles that talk about portugal's experimentation with legalization. As you can see: it worked out pretty well.
Prohibition of alcohol was tried in the U.S. and do you know what the result was? An increase in organized crime to meet the demand for alcohol. People don't stop wanting something just because it's illegal. All that happens is the distributers become criminals instead of honest people trying to make a living. Do you know how many people die in the U.S. and Mexico because of the drug trade? Thousands every year. What do you think would happen if these drug organizations couldn't make a profit anymore because people went to legal stores to buy drugs instead of criminals? I'll tell you: they would become a lot less of a problem because they wouldn't be able to fund themselves.
Portugal legalized all narcotics. Actual usage has gone down... while correlation does not prove causation, there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that legalizing drugs may cause usage to go up. Even so, it's the individual's choice, not ours. For more on what happens when you legalize drugs, watch this:
A) Portugal has only legalised narcotics for personal use, not the whole drug industry itself (which is what you're ACTUALLY SUGGESTING)
B) The video also shows that in Britain 90% of narcotic offenses lead to warnings or cautions, with only 1% leading to prison. So legalising drugs wouldn't really change much.
C) You're still missing the bigger picture. Completely legalising the drug industry, having pharmaceutical companies sell drugs with no government inteference (I cannot put more emphasis on the following sentence) WOULD ONLY LEAD TO MORE PROBLEMS.
Take it as you want. I know because you're a retarded demented fag that you'll argue for individualism and libertarianism NO MATTER WHAT, even if your future self who has managed to survive the conditions of a libertarianised america comes back in time to warn you of the consequences.
How stupid are you? Portugal has COMPLETELY legalized drugs. It's legal to sell, use, and hold.
In Britain, drug use isn't as much a problem as it is here in America. seems to be a pattern there.
and your big picture is retarded. You seem to know nothing about drugs and it's annoying to watch you act like you think you know something. face it, you're a moron. Probably 15 years old.
fine, you have me there. but my point still stands. use of drugs did not go up from legalizing it. crime and usage has gone down. trafficking is still illegal, but use is not.
All this comes down to is the more we make it legal, the less harm it does. In Europe, it's more legal than it is in America. In America, it is a far bigger problem than it is in Europe.
Once again, your 15 year old mind does not understand drugs at all, either that, or you're retarded.
Once again, your 15 year old mind does not understand drugs at all, either that, or you're retarded.
Obviously seeing as your ass is so experienced with drugs. It's not like you've had to walk past unconcious crackheads with broken needles and pipes smelling of shit just to get out of your building on your way to school. Or see one standing on a tree stump for a whole night. Not like you've had anyone from your area get pulled into the drug cycle and see what happened to them. Or see a family disown a son they can't help get out of it. Not like you've sat in a room full of heroine with a bunch of dealers ready to do their deeds. Or had them sent to you from abroad. No. You've just been at home reading up about it. Watching youtube links on the internet. Some psychology books aswell maybe. If I have a 15year old mind... where does that put you son?
I've actually seen most of that. and guess what, that's when it's all illegal. now, legalizing it will only make people less scared to get help for it.
plus, do you think these people should be sent to prison, where they can be raped and murdered, just because they CHOSE to do drugs? I've also been around people smoking pot and taking acid. guess what, they're very productive. your idea of keeping it illegal only adds to the problem. my idea of legalizing narcotics helps the situation. more people can get help without fear of legal consequences. violent drug dealers will lose business. drugs will be better regulated, and at the hope of making a profit, distributors will find ways to manufacture safer drugs.
once again, your 15 year old mind does not understand drugs or the drug situation. you're trapped in an ideology.
sent to prison, where they can be raped and murdered, just because they CHOSE to do drugs?
Lol how many people actually get sent to prison? And for what reasons? First time offenders? or multiple offenders with several other charges under their names? Think about it.
smoking pot
Smoking pot doesn't count and that's one area which I don't really mind legalisation. I'm talking about the real drugs. Keep up.
drugs will be better regulated, and at the hope of making a profit, distributors will find ways to manufacture safer drugs.
So you definately know government intervention is a good thing. I'm glad you admit it for once. Distributors will find ways to minimise costs and maximise profit (by charging customers extra). I really don't want to go into detail to explain to you what would most likely happen once drugs are legalised and depending on the amount of intervention the government has what the most likely outcomes are but I can definately tell you that more people will be hooked on it, meaning more Americans on crack meaning more crack related problems meaning more problems meaning more money and in the end what? A worse society. Yes a 'FREEER' society, but a WORSE society. Sometimes the two do not go together.
No, from hands on experience. I even have drug addict friends (people I consider real friends, not just acquaintances). For a while, some of them were afraid to receive help because of fear of punishment for their "crimes".
Having a certain amount of drugs can get you arrested, for sure. be it a month in prison or 30 years (depends on the drug and the quantity).
real drugs? like Zoloft or alcohol? it's all drugs, sir. if you mean HARD drugs, than be more specific you dumbass.
As for government intervention, there's a difference between keeping it out of the hands of minors and banning it all together. Alcohol and tobacco are legalized, yet, they are out of the hands of minors because of certain laws restricting that. as usual, those laws don't work, but illegal narcotics are actually easier to get than legal substance because legal substance is easier to keep track of. Once business gets their hands on it, drugs can finally be distributed safely but not at the expense of the American's civil liberties. as adults, we have the right to choose what is and isn't good for us, not the government.
And if you really want to get on banning shit that's dangerous and gets you high, why not ban paint, glue, toads, anti-depressants, cats, belts, gasoline, and certain leaves? hell, a lot of poison out there can get people high, but they're not banned. If someone wants to get high, they will get high. There is no law that can stop that.
Lol a couple of white boys getting high before a party? GREAT EXPERIENCE. FUCKING ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. Anybody with vast amount of experience of the drug world or growing up in shitty areas ripe with drugs will all tell you that legalising them is bad (unless they profit from it somehow) - so I know you haven't experienced shit.
if you mean HARD drugs, than be more specific
Ofcourse I mean hard drugs. lol. You want me to spell it out for you?
illegal narcotics are actually easier to get than legal substance because legal substance is easier to keep track of.
Are you forreal? I mean seriously? I can get alcohol or tobacco from any part of the country with no trouble. Even when I was underrage you only had to persuade the shopkeeper, steal it, use fake id or get somebody else to buy it for you. With illegal drugs there's a lot more movement going on... especially when you're buying it off somebody serious - it takes forever. You think that these companies won't find backdoors and loopholes in the system or break the law altogether to sell drugs to whoever they can? Are you forreal?
but not at the expense of the American's civil liberties. as adults, we have the right to choose what is and isn't good for us, not the government.
See there you go again with that retarded brain dead gay fuckface bullshit. Tbh when you think about it the majority of people in America are against legalising drugs... so they're the ones telling the government to keep it illegal, the government is just enforcing the law (which is obviously right).
why not ban paint, glue, toads, anti-depressants, cats, belts, gasoline, and certain leaves?
Because they've all got common uses that probably can't be easily replaced. A very very very small minority of people will be using paint to actually get high. 99.99999% use it to paint.
you seem to just make random assumptions about these people I know. Once again, how I know that you're 15 years old. Hell, you probably make all this shit up and base it on the movie Requiem for a Dream. sure, that shit is serious, but in a world where heroin is illegal? that's pretty bad.
and yes, spell it out. marijuana is considered a drug, whether you like to admit it or not.
and good for you that you have easier ways of getting alcohol than everyone else. but that doesn't change that drugs are easier to get than alcohol. if i wanted cocaine right now, this second, i can get it with a phone call. you know how almost impossible it is to get alcohol right now? well, almost impossible.
and really? the tyranny of the masses somehow justify tyranny? I guess it was alright for the governments to sentence Socrates to death since that's what most of the people wanted. No point in thinking about civil rights or freedom. nope, the people have spoken so a man, who was one of the greatest thinkers of that time, was sentenced to death merely for speaking his mind. He didn't even create revolution or speak of any violence. he was a pacifist. The man merely had people think that there is more to what we see than now, and how do the voters repay him? the death sentence. If I wish to take drugs, that is my choice. If you wish to listen to music that others might find detrimental for some reason, that is your choice. If you wish to read comic books or watch cartoons that many would argue are destroying the minds of the youth, that is your and their choice. It is not the choice of the tyrannical masses who think nothing of civil liberties.
cats are useful? anti-depressants? Ecstasy is a better version of an anti-depressant. Toads are useful? certain leaves? c'mon, dude. too many useless things out there that people get high off of. why? because people like to get high and always find a way. You've been around heroin addicts, so I guess you would know more than all other people (you and your 15 year old understanding) how people just want to get high. maybe if we legalized the substance they were taking, it would be much easier to address their issues than to just consider them or their suppliers criminals.
No I know because I know. Unless you come from a completely different background where up is down then anybody from my scheme knows and agrees with me. Maybe slight differences. But you're a pretty little white boy from the suburbs... the hardnesses you faced grew you to the man you are today. LOL!.
and yes, spell it out. marijuana is considered a drug, whether you like to admit it or not.
Ok let's make this clear and simple, nice and easy to explain. I'm not against the soft drugs. Especially marijuana something that definately should be legalised especially if alcohol and tobacco is. Now we could go through each and every drug and each and every form of it and categorise them and see which one's I think should be decriminalised, legalised or remain illegal. That's not going to happen. We'll keep our focus on the hard drugs heroine, crack, crystal meth, morphine, ice etc. all the ones that cause heavy damage on society - not drugs used by hippies. Listening to music has no detrimental effect on society - unless you can provide me with some solid proof. Taking drugs does.
you know how almost impossible it is to get alcohol right now? well, almost impossible.
In America? You're either really really fucking stupid or a really really bad liar.
nd really? the tyranny of the masses somehow justify tyranny?
So parents telling their kids to not go out is tyranny huh? You're misusing the definition of tyranny. Painfully. If somebody out there was shouting God hates Fags and soldiers deserved to die and were hung to death, then maybe your Socrates comparison could make sense. However when the masses are rightfully minimising the damage caused by drugs then your civil liberties bullshit takes a side step. The health of the nation (I'm not talking just physically) is more important than civil liberties.
cats are useful?
I didn't say cats are useful. I said they have uses other than getting high off. Legalising it especially in America would make things worse. You libertarians have already helped make it shitter... for the sake of any good that's left in America don't make it worse.
Okay, so you have no proof that I'm w/e you think I am, but in order for you to feel right, you're just gonna say that I am a white kid from the suburbs and that makes you right on this issue. Alright, I'll do the same. you're just a white kid from the suburbs who has never met a junkie.
There is no solid proof to that legalizing drugs is detrimental to society. So what are you basing this on?
Tyranny is when there is an authoritarian control over another. If the government has banned an individual from taking a certain substance for personal use, that is tyranny.
And us Libertarians haven't had power since the Declaration of Independence was signed. Also, I'm not a Libertarian... man you're stupid. And uses for other than getting high? Heroin helps take away pain, ecstasy cures depression, acid helps you use different parts of your brain at once, cocaine helps you get through an endurance requiring situation. More than JUST getting high. So really, what is your point?
You call yourself a libertarian and now apparently you're not? Unless I've got the wrong word
Only spoilt posh rich white kids are libertarians. From no other sector or part of the world does anybody (sane) argue for libertarianism.
legalizing drugs is detrimental to society
So why were they criminalised then? They weren't always illegal were they? There must've been a reason they were made illegal.
If the government has banned an individual from taking a certain substance for personal use, that is tyranny.
No it's tyranny if they're doing it for selfish reasons or so they can abuse their powers. It't not selfish if the majority of the world agrees and it's done for reasons deemed harmful to society.
And uses for other than getting high?
LOL That's MEDICAL uses. I'm talking about having it in the hands of everyday people..not TRAINED PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS. Having heroin in the hands of a normal geezer for medical reasons is quite fucking dangerous my friend. You probably don't know this but getting the right amount of a substance is extremely important and can be harmful if taken at the wrong quantities. But apparently according to you preventing people from harming themselves is tyrannical. LOL.
A) You're still young... you'll be more certain about your decisions in a few years.
B) Rich people tend not to see the positives the government has upon them. They seem to think they'd work better independently without the government. Let's just call it what it is - self-important.
C) Keep an open mind. I'm pretty sure you'll have a few changes to your ideals. Especially if you experience life outside of your bubble.
D) I'm pretty sure you're middle class at the least. Maybe not a millionaire but far from mingling with the dirty working class...
I've never called myself Libertarian. I've said that I lean Libertarian (if I had to choose a Party), but I've always claimed myself an independent. If I had to put myself in an ideology, it would be a Constitutionalist.
They were criminalized for the obvious reasons; a substance that could make someone harm themselves (be it unhealthy or crazy). The problem, though, is that once they were made illegal the underground market took control of it. People still wanted to get high, despite the law. This gave power to criminals. They tried the same thing with alcohol, but alcohol was such a popular substance that not even the cops would enforce the law. The Mafia became bootleggers, but once alcohol was made legal again the Mafia lost control of alcohol.
And just to get a feel for your perspective on tyranny vs. personal freedoms; how do you think a situation should be handled if someone grew heroin on their land and smoked or shooted it?
As for medical use in general, all those substances are banned not just for medical use, but even for scientific research. Even if we were to currently abandon the argument on personal freedoms, banning substance from scientific and medicinal research is part of the ignorance of tyranny. Tyrants believe that drugs are bad, therefore they should be banned even in the use of trying to help society.
Illegal, people use it anyway and avoid hospitals if someone is ODing in fear of criminalization, thus resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of teens. Improper education on drugs is also another problem with ODing. Instead of teaching kids how not to OD, they feed them with lies about drugs ALWAYS being bad even if you take them once. When teens find out these are lies, instead of trying to figure out the actual dangers they just take a dangerous amount thinking "if they lied about the dangers of drugs, drugs must not be dangerous at all". Same thing goes with sex education. Abstinence only is just teaching teens to do it wrong which leads to more problems.
As a society, we have to learn to end this stigma on drug use as if it's the worse thing you can do to yourself. There are plenty of legal things that people do every day that are ten times more dangerous.
